The end times discussion has gotten a little long and maybe too skinny. So, I thought I'd take the discussion going on about who Israel is and move it to a new thread.
So, here is the gist (for me) of where we are at:
Pastor Joe said,
The greatest error that the people made in the OT was to think it was about the blood. If it had ever been about the blood there would never have been a Babylonian Exile. God declared the people to be "not my people" because they rejected the promises.
And, fracturedInfinity responded:
I don't recall hearing of anywhere in the Bible where God specifically states that the Israelites are no longer His people. Would you mind pointing me to that?
Now, this end times discussion seems to be getting a little heated. I'm heated because the thread was too long. Anyone interested in this might want to read the previous parts of the discussion so they know where we are at.
I'm left with a big question here as we talk about who the people of Israel are. Where in the bible does it define who the people of Israel are? And, how does that verse say what it says in the context of the day?
This is very much at the center of the discussion and it's something worth stepping back and looking at in the larger end times picture.
The Children Of The Promise
I find a few things to really strike me here. The first is Romans 9:6-8 which says,
This really strikes me because it's saying that the people of Israel are not necessarily tied into some form of blood and genetic descent. That the genetic descendants of the ancient Jews are not the people of Israel because of any genetic marker or parental lineage.
In some ways I think this is our self centered view in that some people want it to just be part of their makeup that makes them one of Gods children. Wouldn't this be so easy?
I'm reminded of Hebrews 11 (and places in the OT) where it talks about it being about faith. That's how it was for Abraham. That's how it's described everywhere.
I'm curious if there is a verse to bring a different perspective to the question of who the people of Israel are than what Romans 9:6-8 says.
start at the beginning
It seems to me that, since on the other thread we started where we are now and, as a result of us operating with different back stories, we should jump back to the beginning of Israel and walk through Scripture until we get to today. Sound like a plan we can all agree on?
Assuming the answer is yet, I'll start with Abram / Abraham in Genesis 12 and we'll see where this goes.
So, it begins with God calling this random guy Abram from the land of Ur (most likely modern day Iraq or Kuwait, although I've heard some arguments for Turkey) and telling him to go to a place that God would show him. Along with this, God tells Abram that he's going to become the father of a great nation and that he's going to make it so Abram is a blessing to the nations.
In chapter 15, this promise from God given with a different angle on it. This time it focuses on God's promise to give Abram the land that he had gone to. God tells Abraham that his offspring will spend 400 years in another land as slaves and then be brought out with great possessions.
To confirm this, God goes through a ritual that establishes the terms of the treaty. In most cases, the treaty involved the terms being established and both parties walking through a stream of blood that came from sacrificed animals. The general idea was, "If I don't keep my end of the treaty, I'll be like these animals." However, in this case, only the fire pot and torch (symbols of God) go through. Basically, this means God is going to fulfill this promise no matter what Israel does.
However, still at this point in time, Abram doesn't have any children so, there's no lineage for God to fulfill this promise to. But in chapter 16 Ishmael comes along and then in 21 we get Isaac. So, there you have two lines that are the blood, but only one, Isaac, who will get the promise, thus establishing a motif of promise over blood that will continue with Esau and Jacob.
Thoughts? Anything more on Abraham? Or are we good at this point?
Blood Lines
I think this is really interesting because only part of the bloodline is the promised people. If we hold that it's the genetic offspring of Abraham doesn't that mean that all of Ishmael's descendants would be included in the bloodline?
Genesis 12:1-3 I find very interesting. It says,
In here it talks about a great nation but doesn't say who the people of that nation would be. Unless there is something in this text I'm missing. The word used for offspring is one that strikes me here. While it is sometimes used to mean children another meaning seed. In a way, I wonder if this can be looked at as the offspring being the seed (or maybe the fruit) of what is planted there in that covenant. Am I over reading?
Genesis 15 gets more interesting. It doesn't just talk about a promise. Genesis 15:5-6 says,
First, I love that there is this line about faith and it being credited as righteousness. In the midst of a covenant we see faith being a central player.
I, also, wonder (and I may be reading too much into this) if the offspring is the fruit that comes from the seed planted in the covenant.
My mind is, also, bubbling over with the thought of what a descendant was to Abraham and people in his time. We often jump to genetic parent/child relationships in our day and age. But, was that what descendants/offspring were to Abraham. He was an old man with no genetic children. But, he had an heir to his line in Eliezer of Damascus. This idea is something I'd love to explore. Is there anything to help provide context or dig deeper on with regard to this tangent?
genes
I think there's plenty of evidence that Abraham was expecting genetic offspring, after all, he brought Hagar into the mix because he didn't have the heir he wanted and then, in God's timing, he was blessed with Issac. Moreover, as we trail on down through the OT, we'll discover that the blessing to the nations is in fact Christ, a blood relative of Abraham.
Blessings in disguise of cluster bombs
There was also David and Solomon. That prophecy was fulfilled. Israel was a great nation, and was eventually destroyed for good by the Romans. I'm not sure why Evangelicals think it's all referring to the current nation of Israel. And how they're a blessing to all the nations exactly, can someone please let me in on that secret?
And for your original post Joe, didn't you just tell the guy to check out Lamentations?
tact
Ah Saint, give conversations you've had with your brother, you of all people should know that it's not as simple as, "Read this." Sure I read it that way and get it, but someone looking from a different angle doesn't ... thus the attempt to explore things with a bit of tact.
beat to the punch
I think you might have been overreading just a tad. My answer was going to be along the same lines as pastor joe. He beat me to it. ;)
That part there about faith is VERY important. It's pretty much how the God's entire plan for salvation works, as I'm sure you know. If you notice earlier in chapter 12, Abram obeyed God by going when he said to go, and even made altars along the way, but it wasn't until chapter 15 when Abram believed the words of God in his heart was it counted unto him as righteousness. In the same way for us, we can work and work obeying God and doing everything he says to a T, but if we don't believe in our hearts the what the Bible says about Jesus and repent, then we're wasting our time and effort.
About the whole Eliezer thing, a quick search shows that he was Abram's chief servant. He was the one in charge of all of Abram's stuff. I guess we can infer from that that if a person were to die without a male child as an heir, everything they owned was passed on to the head servant.
glad to see
I'm glad to see that very important comment (and others you've made on the whole "by faith, through grace" thing).
My previous comments though are based on stuff I've read from folks on the dispensational pre-trib folks. I remember seeing it in a Youth Specialties book by Marco, and the point blank statement that folks in to OT were saved by obeying the 10 Commandments. The other thing was on a pamphlet left on people's cars in case of the rapture that said, "You missed out on grace so start working."
Good to see that's a limited view.
Always been a grace/faith thing
These passages about Abraham (in Genesis and Hebrews) remind me that it's always been a grace/faith thing. Even before Jesus came and did what he did.
Good
I think we're good so far.
I'm sorry if I sounded
I'm sorry if I sounded heated. I'm not and didn't mean to sound that way either. It seemed like a logical question to me, perhaps I worded it bad (just like this sentence *sheepish grin*).
But anyway, I would rather drop a heated discussion if it's going to cause a separation between us. If we really are getting close to the end, we don't have time for non-productive debates. :) That is, unless the debate is on a critical issue, like what you really need to do to be saved, or who Jesus really is. Both of those thing I think we agree on, and should probably start their own threads for one of these days. :)
Not That Heated
It didn't seem heated enough to me to stop having :). I say keep going. I'm learning a bit and liking it.
heat?
I don't think it was all that heated either. Just interesting conversation, discovering where people are coming from, and debating how God's big picture plan all comes together.
Israel Stage Two
So, following the Abraham to Jacob/Israel setup (which brings us to the end of Genesis), what comes next?
Exodus begins with the rise of a new Pharaoh, most likely a new dynasty, perhaps the one that conquered the Hyksos, and the enslavement of those who descended from the sons of Jacob (whose name had been changed to Israel). As God promised to Abraham in Genesis 15, he sends Moses to deliver the people out of the land of Egypt so he can bring them back to the land promised to Abraham (Exodus 3:7-10).
I think there are a few interesting things to note in both the Exodus event and a few things that follow heading up to the giving of the 10 Commandments.
First, even before the Exodus event, provisions were already being made for those who weren't descendants of Israel, but where going to be a part of the Yahweh worshiping community (see Exodus 12:43-51).
Second, in Exodus 19, right before the giving of the 10 Commandments, the people are introduced to a covenant that, unlike God's promise to Abraham in Genesis 15, is conditional:
The thing that really stands out here to me is that the purpose of Israel is to be mediators (aka priests) between the nations and Yahweh. Their purpose wasn't to be their own set apart kingdom, rather, by their lives, they were to draw other nations to the true God (Peter grabs onto this language in 1 Peter 2:9-10).
However, Israel's role of being the priestly body is also contingent upon their obedience. To not obey means to lose their place.
Thoughts?
Same page
Yup, looks like we're still on the same page.
I just want to clarify one thing to make sure though.
pastor joe said:
I believe this to be true, but when you say they lose their place, you're only talking temporarily, right? The Israelites of the Old Testament aren't being replaced by the church, but rather, they're being set aside until God sees fit to reinstate them. That leaves the church currently filling their position as the ones who are to set the example for unbelievers. From the time the church age started, Jesus is the only true priest and mediator between God and man because of what he did on the cross. It's why we pray "in Jesus name" and also why the Bible tells of the curtain in the temple being ripped in two the moment Jesus died; becuase through him we can now approach God directly.
Predicting The Future?
Israel (as in the Jewish descendants of Abraham) are constantly falling away. I think books like Judges speaks volumes about that. I'd argue that they are fallen away right now.
As for their future, let's continue walking through the material before we speculate on that. I don't see these passages saying enough for us to draw a conclusion on the future. Or, am I missing something in these verses?
What's next.
Maybe, maybe not
I may be jumping ahead here.
Or maybe not (please, correct me if I'm wrong). A question that arises for me here is, has God's promise to Abram been fulfilled yet? Has the nation of Israel ever owned all of the land between the Nile and the Euphrates rivers, all during the same time period? God said to him in Genesis 15:
Wikipedia has an interesting article on the land of Israel. It states that the river of Egypt is debated, but I've always took that to mean the Nile. Also, we don't really know the northern and southern borders for sure. I guess we'd have to ask an expert on the history of that geographical area.
I guess my point is, if they haven't occupied all of the land that God promised to Abram, then God is clearly not finished with the Israelites yet. That promise is a completely separate and stand alone covenant from the one we're talking about in Exodus 19.
It's these unfulfilled promises that God made in other places in the Bible that I see as proof of Israel just being "set aside" for the time being. But THAT, is jumping ahead; so let's continue. Unless we get an expert on the geographical history of that region, or someone knows of a passages that shows this has been fulfilled (which is entirely possible given my limited knowledge of the Old Testament, and the New, for that matter), we can't know for sure.
language nuance
Here's another question on this, "God says that He's giving them something, but does that have to mean that they take it?"
My point is that the first generation was given the land but they freaked out, rejected what God gave them, and spent 40 years wandering because of it. Then, when they did start moving into the land, they again repeatedly failed to do what God instructed them to do. In other words, the land was given, it was just never received.
It seems to me that God repeatedly did his part, the people just didn't take it when offered.
Beyond that, when I pull up the map in the back of my Zondervan Study Bible, the map of Israel under the rule of David and Solomon, if you include territory that Solomon controlled, does have the nation running from the Euphrates to the Wadi of Egypt (certainly not the Nile, but it's as far as the land goes in what's divided up to the 12 Tribes).
maps
Hmm, good call. I searched, but couldn't really find anything that said they had all the way to the Nile. I guess the results are inconclusive. I'm ready for Who is Israel Part3 if you are. :)
Assumption
I think this is a neat check of assumptions. I had thought of it being the Nile river, too. But, there is nothing in the text saying that.
I wonder what the Wadi river was like all those thousands of years ago.
foreshadowing
I don't think there's enough here to make that call, however, to put my cards on the table, my belief is that with Christ, all of God's promises to OT Israel were fulfilled and that God no longer functions based on ethnicity in any way, rather, it's entirely about faith.
disagree
I can agree that there's not enough evidence to make the call I was suggesting, but I'm sure you can tell that I don't agree with you on the rest. Which brings up another question. How far can we go in agreeing to disagree before we're treading on heretical grounds?
Some things are ok to wait and see how they pan out in the end, but some have to be set in stone or people will start going to hell because of it. This is why unity in the church is such a big issue. But I'm getting off topic again. I tend to do that a lot. One of the elders in my church likes to call gonig off topic "rabbit trails". :)
how far can we go?
I think that's an interesting question on how far we can go, because, obviously, at some point, you've gone too far. For me I'd say the key question always comes down to the Gospel, but that's because I believe that Jesus is the point of all of Scripture.
From my perspective, to make a big deal about Israel apart from Jesus, diminishes Christ. At the same time, would I say you've ventured into heresy, no, because you have that Gospel confession.
The Line
I'd argue there is a line we dare not cross. That line is really a double line. The first line is salvation by grace through faith. The second is the mission of the church to go and make disciples.
Personally, I don't want to go near that double line. If conversations about this end times stuff interferes with salvation or the mission of the church we have a problem.
List of Promises
Do you know a list of promises that have not been fulfilled? I'd be curious to read through that and analyze each one.
List
I haven't had a chance to seriously delve into what has and hasn't been fulfilled.
This kinda seems like it could merit it's own thread, so I started one. Have a look.
A Tangent
What about other priests like Melkizadek? There were other God fearing priests in the world like him who were not part of the line of Israel.
other lines
This is one of those things that I've always found fascinating! I mean, you have Melkizadek who's a high priest and apparently worships Yahweh. Then you have Moses' father-in-law Jethro who is the high priest of Midian and apparently a Yahweh worshiper. Then you also get guys like Job who, as far as we can tell, have no connection the mainline story that runs beginning with Abraham.
I've always taken this to mean that, as the story of the Fall and promised redemption was shared from Adam on down to Noah, and then through Noah's family to all the world, that people in other places outside of the main biblical storyline were good to go with God. When there are encounters with Melkizadek and missionaries finding unreached people groups who are just waiting for someone to connect "the Jesus dots", these lines weave back into the main story.
Outside The Bible
I've been fascinated by stories in extra-biblical literature of God followers in other places, like ancient China.
While the bible focuses on Gods chosen people to bring about the promise I think the context that we have of other people in the world before and during the time of Israel what worshiped God and had priests to him is important to acknowledge.
tying together
I think the key is to remember that the threads have a common beginning, and while they might spread out at points, in the end, they will all tie back together.
Israel Stage 3
So far we covered Genesis and the first 19 chapters of Exodus, so I guess that leaves us chilling at Sinai and listening to the Law (Exodus 20-Numbers 10:10).
Exodus 20:1-2 sets some context for us: "And God spoke all these words, saying, 'I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.'" Basically, we get the idea that what is to come is for the nation that was delivered from Egypt and is an outline of how they are to live with Yahweh as their God. Again, it's important to note that they're God's people because of his gracious action, but the law to come identifies what that saved life looks like and how to heal the relationship when the people sin against God.
Some of the more interesting stuff in here is Exodus 23:20-33 where God promises, over time, to deliver the land to the people from the Red Sea to the Euphrates. However, once again, reception of this promise is contingent to their obedience. At this level, I'd say that today, God has done his part, and we see glimpses of that promise being fulfilled when Israel does what they're called to do (Jericho, etc), but, for the most part, Israel was stiff-necked and stubborn so they didn't receive what God was giving them.
Of course, God wasn't lacking in patience or grace with the people, rather, he was incredibly loving. For example, in Exodus 32 we have the Golden Calf incident which prompts God to tell Moses to take the people to the Promised Land (again with the angel's protection), but God won't go with them (God even goes as far as telling Moses that they are his people, not God's people). Not only was sending the angel gracious and, I'm guessing, driven by God's promise to Abraham, but we also know that after Moses intercession, God decided to stick with the people.
We good to move on?
Interesting Concept
This whole idea is an interesting concept. God said he would give them the land. He game them the land size he said (under Solomon) but they have lost the land. Not because God isn't giving it to them. But, they aren't being faithful and taking it.
If this is the case than them retaking the promised physical land is dependent on their faithful acceptance of it rather than trying to take it their own way. hrm...
hum
I wouldn't quite go there yet. I was given, but is it still being given? I'm thinking the prophets have something to say about that.
Israel Stage 4
After the time at Sinai we begin a pattern with Israel where God makes a promise, they go their own way, God punishes them, they repent, and God restores the promise.
We see this in Numbers 13 and following with the spies report on Canaan, the people deciding to not go in, and having to spend 40 years in the wilderness. Then, in Deuteronomy where God has Moses recount the history of Israel and gives this new generation the Law as if it were being given for the first time.
As an interesting bit in there you have Deuteronomy 4:1-8. Here, not only do you have the demand for obedience, but it's obedience for the purpose of mission.
The first example of obedience working for mission is then in Joshua 2 where Rehab, a prostitute in Jericho, protects the spies because she's seen how closely God worked among the people and wants that God to be her God. Rahab then also appears in Matthew 1:5 as part of the lineage of Jesus.
So again, what I see going on, is the call of Israel is for the purpose of making God known to the nations, and to do this, they are called to live as a chosen and set apart people.
I see this pattern basically running through all of the history so, I figured, next we'd take a look at the prophets.
Thoughts?
the pattern
I think the pattern is important too. The way I see it is that it proves that God isn't quite done with Israel as a nation yet. He's given them all these chances, and even if there's the minisculest bit of evidence in the Bible that he might restore them, I don't see any reason they might not get 1 more chance to fulfill their God given purpose. God is long-suffering after all. We'd do well to follow his example (if it were only that easy).
agree
Up to the point we are in history (in the story of Israel that is), I completely agree ... but I think the prophets have something to say that's of utmost importance in all of this.
I take it you're game to move forward?
Indeed
Most definately! :)
Israel and the Remnant
Throughout the Old Testament, and especially in the prophets, there's this theme of the remnant of Israel. The basic gist is that, no matter what happens, God is going to preserve part of the nation and fulfill his promises to Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. In addition, we also get promises like the one made to David that one of his descendants would sit on the throne and rule over God's people forever. So, the big question is, how are we to understand the issue of the remnant?
I find my answer in places like Isaiah 6 and God's commission to Isaiah. Here, after the whole, "Here am I, send me, send me!" thing, we get what Isaiah is sent to do, namely, preach without anybody listening until God has completely crushed Israel for her disobedience, till she's taken off into exile, and until all that's left of the nation is the stump of a tree. Then, Isaiah closes with the line, "The holy seed is its stump."
Another place in Isaiah where we get the image of Israel being hacked down to almost nothing is chapter 11 where it talks about a shoot coming forth from the stump of Jesse. However, we get a bit more description about the shoot here, namely, that this shoot will be a faithful king and judge who will bring about an age of perfection. In addition, it's through this shoot that God's people from all nations will be drawn under his rule.
I know these are only two examples and their from only one book, but I think the model fits with any example we can find. The basic gist of what I read is that God took unfaithful Israel ("not my people" in Hosea 1:9), and cast them off till there was only a single faithful remnant left, Jesus Christ, Israel boiled down to one, who actually did what the nation had been brought out of Egypt to do, and through him, all nations are now blessed.
Thoughts? Other passages to explore?
kingdoms and restoration
One thing to remember when going through the books of the prophets is that in their time when they referred to Israel, they were typically referring to the northern kingdom. So when God says that Israel is cut off, that still leaves the southern kingdom, Judah. Verse 7 of Hosea 1 says that God will save Judah.
Also, going down to verses 10-11, God promises that in the same place that he told them "not my people" he will bring them back together to once again be his people. I think this is shown again in Zecharaiah 9:11-17. Especially in verse 13 where God describes Judah as his bow. It seems like God is talking about using Israel (the decendents of Jacob) to defeat his enemies. It's also handy to keep in mind the timeframe of when each prophet served. Hosea being around 782BC and Zechariah about 520BC.
Isaiah and Judah
Actually, Isaiah, where I pulled my examples, was a prophet to the Southern Kingdom. As for the other prophets, it's a mixed bag of northern and southern.
As for your point on Judah, it's good to note that Christ comes from the line of Judah, thus my argument that he is Israel boiled down into one, the one who is faithful and therefore the one who receives the inheritance and then graciously gives to all who believe, still works.
Romans and Grafting
I plead no contest. :)
There are numerous places where we can find Jesus symbolically. That's as it was meant to be since ultimately everything is about him.
Going back to the tree analogy that was used in Isaiah, Romans 11 is interesting in that it shows that the church is merely "grafted" in to the tree that is Israel. That would imply that Israel is still alive and growing. It's also interesting in verse 25 where Paul speaks of a "...blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in." KJV Even in the beginning of that chapter, v5 (1-6 in whole) "Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace." My Bible says this was written about 60AD or so, so even after the resurrection of Christ, there is a remnant of the blood decendents of Israel that God is keeping for his purposes.
------------
"I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe that I may understand: for this I also believe, that unless I believe I will not understand." --Anselm of Canterbury
my last thoughts
I think your comment on the symbolism is key. What did God mean when he gave the promises? The Jews in Jesus day were convinced that all of it pointed to a king on the throne in Jerusalem ... obviously Jesus thought there was something more to it than what they were expecting.
In the end, I'm not denying that we've been grafted into Israel, the question for me is, "What of Israel are we grafted into?" Given the imagery from Isaiah, I'd say all that was left to be grafted into is Christ (although, this doesn't mean that those who were cut off can't be grafted back in as well, and thus have their hardened hearts softened).
As for the remnant in Romans 11, it seems to me that in verse 1, Paul identifies himself as being part of that, but it has nothing to do with his blood (after all, in other places he declares that his most zealous time as a pharisee was worthless), but once again, it's because he's received grace through Christ (the same goes for the other disciples as well as most of the church in Jerusalem). I've never intended to say that Israel is all damned, I'm just saying that for them, like the rest of us, it's about holding onto the promise over the blood.
Anyway, for the discussion on the whole, thanks. I know I've enjoyed it.