Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Heavenly Pilgrim, Nov 25, 2007.
HP: What do you see as the meaning of this passage? From whence do those ‘other sheep’ hail?
They are Gentiles.
Tom is right. And don't let the LDS folks tell you otherwise.
I'm in complete agreement with Tom.
Gentiles for sure , dont listen to the LDS ,if they ever try to tell you anything different.:jesus:
I don't know about you, but I thank God that there are other sheep, being a Gentile.
I'm in agreement.
Maybe some will react with a DUH ! to the following remark . Not all Gentiles , but FROM AMONG the Gentiles would be a better way of expressing it .
HP: What prompted this thread was a thought that has been going over in my mind concerning the Jews and the Gentiles of the OT and the conditions of salvation they encountered. First, I believe we could say with confidence that few Gentiles were saved in the OT. Certainly there were some before Abraham, but after Abraham it would appear to me to be a scarcity. God seemed to focus His efforts upon the children of Israel, almost to the exclusion of, for all practical purposes, the Gentiles would you not agree? Once God gave the law and established the ceremonial law, was it incumbent upon one desiring a right relationship with God to follow the prescribed sacrifices God had ordained and placed into practice was it not? Was there any assurance of forgiveness of sin apart from being in agreement to the laws of the covenant?
Yep, that was my reaction. The "other sheep" were Gentile sheep.
HP: What is your take on the following questions? Subsequent to the giving of the law and before the advent of Christ, was there forgiveness of sins outside of the sacrificial system? If so, do you have an example? What were the conditions for forgiveness?
I'm going to give you a tentative yes, mainly because I need to do more study in this area.
I'm going to appeal to Hebrews 10 as the basis for my answer.
v.4 "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin."
v. 11 "And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifice which can never take away sins..."
On the other hand, the same writer of Hebrews wrote (9:23) "without the shedding of blood there is no remission."
Then the same writer (10:1) said "For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of these things can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year make the comers thereunto perfect."
The basis for forgiveness appears to be one's faith. Paul and the prophet Habakkuk both said "the just (or righteous) shall live by faith."
It seems to me that the sacrificial system served to remind the Israelites of their sin and pointed to the ultimate Sacrifice to come. And in the mind of God, that ultimate sacrifice by Jesus was already accomplished from the foundation of the world. So the basis for God's forgiveness was Jesus death on the cross--still to come, but in the mind of God, already a done deal.
I'm open to more light on this subject, and welcome correction.
Their salvation came because God was merciful and provided an atonement for their sins. Their assurance came from believing it. Sound familiar?
Some merely went through the motions and deceived themselves into thinking they were safe. Sound familiar?
Others became zealots not according knowledge and came up with all kinds of things to add to God's plan. Sound familiar?
Those considered weak by the "spiritual" ones merely believed what God said without making a big show out of it. Sound familiar?
Daniel - Dan 9 prayer for forgiveness for himself and his nation without priest or sacrifice -- no not even in Jerusalem at that time.
Jonah - Ninevah get's forgiveness - without priest or sacrifice.
David -- "Sacrifice and offering - not desired but a broken spirit and a contrite heart".
Jacob at Bethel - no priest no sacrifice.
Heb 10:1-3 "the blood of bulls and goats could NEVER take away sins" -- it NEVER had any power over sins, power to forgive BECAUSE the Law of God does not demand blood from animals as the penalty owed -- it demands YOUR blood, your life - your suffering (and by this I mean OUR). The person sins - the PERSON suffers the second death "destruction of BOTH body AND soul in hell fire" Matt 10:28.
ONE sin problem.
Only ONE sin solution! The Gospel.
Did God really "so love the World" prior to Christ's death on the cross -- or did He just "so love the Jews" for 4000 years and THEN later "start so loving the Gentiles"??
Some have gotten the impression of two
Gospels, two God's, Two Worlds. One before the cross and one after.
Others see it as "God who DOES NOT CHANGE" Malachi 4 and who is "the SAME yesterday today and forever" Heb 13 that "So LOVED the World" from the foundation of the World - having predetermined to give his Son for "our sins and not for OUR sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" 1John 2:2.
In the OT the Hebrew NATION the "NATION CHURCH" was supposed to be the form God used for WORLD WIDE evangelism. It is only because that evangelistic organization failed that God went to the 2nd-best option "PERSECUTED CHURCH".
Proof? OT Salvation thread
The Hebrew nation was intended (as we see in Exodus 19) to be a "Kingdom of PRIESTS" a "Holy Nation" from which the light of the Gospel was to spread on a massive "nation level" to ALL the nations of the World.
Instead Israel rebelled against God and then eventually turned in on itself refusing the Gospel to gentiles ... How odd then is it that today Gentile Christians attribute that final rebellious act of Israel against God - TO GOD - as if that was God's Plan for Israel "Cause in all His so-loving the World He just did not happen to care about Gentiles for 4000 years". Makes for good Calvinism -- stinks as an Arminian POV.
Well said, Bob.
Some think that Jesus was speaking of the ten northern tribes of Israel, who were beyond Euphrates. The Apostle James began his letter, "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad: Greetings" - James 1:1.
What is your take on some of the foreign Kings that seemingly had a relationship with God? What about the Kings of Syria or the King of Babylon Nebuchadnezzar? Am I remembering correctly? Could have these been some of those sheep of another fold? Is it interesting to ponder just what they knew and what might have been their actual standing before God, and to what kind of a standard God held them to? Did they honestly have a relationship with God or did they just enter into a head knowledge concerning Him?
With some exceptions, there is general agreement among the posters that the "other sheep" are Gentiles.
Yet, when Jesus called them sheep, they were not yet believers. And Jesus indicated that there was no possibility that those future believers would not hear his call to them. To me, it seems that in Jesus' mind, their salvation was already accomplished, even though they had not even yet heard the gospel.
Could this be related to his comments in John 6:37: " All that the Father giveth me will come to me..."
No question that God knows the future and knows who will accept the Gospel and who will reject.
But God still "convicts the World" of sin righteousness and judgment and as John 12:32 says He "DRAWS ALL mankind unto Him".
2Cor 5 "in Christ reconciling the WORLD to Himsef".
1John 4:14 "Sent His Son to be the Savior of the WORLD".
2Peter 3 "God is not willing that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance".
This is not describing a God who "merely so-loved just the Jews for 4000 years and then later decided to start so-loving the World" as some might be thinking.