Jews vs Christians

To repeat myself, and bring up something that I don't recall you addressing earlier, look at Rev 20:5: "The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed."

Whatever you might think about the 1000 years, the "first resurrection" is after it, and it includes "the rest of the dead" which can hardly be Christ alone. So the first resurrection does include more than Christ.

This is a serious issue I would love to see you give a serious answer to (not that previous answers have not been serious; as I recall there has been no answer given at all, though I may have missed it).

This is correct.

This is incorrect. The church is the body of Christ, which is built by Spirit baptism (1 Cor 12:13) which is future in the gospels (Mark 1:8, Acts 1:5). There can be no 'body of Christ' in the OT.

 

No, some teach that because of the choice of God, not because of their race. When God chose Israel over all other nations and gave them a place of preeminence, he wasn't being racist.

Yes, there are many arguments. I will repeat just a few:

1) The church is the body of Christ. That doesn't exist until Christ comes and leaves.
2) The church is formed by Spirit baptism (1 Cor 12:13). There is no Spirit baptism in the OT. It is still future in the gospels (Mark 1:8; Acts 1:5).
3) The church was previously a mystery according to Paul. Therefore, it can't be in the OT.

Yes, but I don't have those notes handy. Gentiles were forbidden from certain temple rights and privileges, as well some other issues.

 

While I agree that God has a right to do anything He wishes, and I certainly agree He chooses whom He will for what He wills, there is simply no basis in the Bible for this. There is no distinction among believers: all who are saved, are grafted into Israel.
Paul's point in Romans is not that there are "two different" Israels, "ethnic' and "believing', but rather false Israel (those who do not confess Christ) and True Israel (all those who believe in Christ, from all nations).

Again, a person who was Circumcised into Israel in the Old Testament, was a full Jew. As has already pointed out, some of these converts were forefathers of Christ Himself.

Not so. We were "in Christ" before the foundation of the world, according to scripture.

While I agree that the Spirit was given in a special way to the Church after Christ, I would disagree that this necessarily constitutes a new body. In fact, this was a promise made to Israel, so you can hardly use it to try and separate the Church.

Previously a mystery? Or previously non-existent? I do not see Paul stating anywhere that the Church was not in existence until the time of Christ.

You cannot find this. A person who was circumcised, was circumcised INTO Israel, and became a "Native of the land" (a native born Israelite). They are no longer Gentiles.

The God fearers, such as Cornelius, who refused circumcision, were denied certain Temple rights, etc. The scribes and Pharisees had also added some "traditions of men" (which Christ condemned them for); but the Torah expressly states that in all things one who is circumcised into Israel is, and is to be treated as, a native.

 

Dear Havensdad, while it might be said that the Nation of Israel will have a pre-eminent place among the nations of the earth during the millenium while the flesh (sarx-unregenerate mankind) is still among the human race, it will not be so in the eternal state.

This has been dealt with already. It is a matter of history that there have been two distinct manifestations of the Kingdom of God on earth, Israel and the Church both of which earthly manifestations have/had been inter-mingled with the unregenerate who propogate these racist ideas.

I really don't understand how you don't see this that the regenerate heart is or should be incapable of this kind of racism unless deluded by the evil one. We each love everyone of the brethren in the bond of the love of Jesus Christ.

Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight...

It is God Himself who established the boundaries of the Nations.
It was God Himself at the tower of Babel who made the cleavages of language and therefore national and cultural lines.

No doubt we shall all communicate in that heavenly language in eternity.

And yes, the redeemed human race in eternity is one entity as the Bride of Christ, yet even within that oneness are distinctions that are not sinful but scriptural and the lasting result of the will of God.

Revelation 21

22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.
26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.​

In that day Havensdad there will be no racism there because...

Zechariah 14:21b
...in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.​

HankD​

 

Brother, this is not what Classical Dispensationlism teaches. What you are referring to is Progressive Dispensationalism.

I do not see anywhere in scripture where they are distinct. Gentiles in the Old Testament who were circumcised, were referred to as Israelites, with all the same rights and privileges. I see no reason why that right would get stripped away because of Christ. I see the opposite.

But there is still being distinction being made, where the Bible expressly says otherwise. We are all "one" in Christ not "two".

But He also makes it clear that the boundaries of Israel are not set upon racial lines. There are many not born of the "flesh" of Abraham, who are now "Abraham's seed". We are "grafted into" the true Vine, Israel. Israel incorporates all true believers of all time.

I have dispensational friends who believe the original language was Hebrew.

The only distinctions made, are according to our works. Matryrs are given a special place out of "all nations".

I believe this strengthens my case. Division according to race has no place in God's economy. There is "no distinction". All are of the " true vine" grafted into Israel.

 

This is the kind of absolute nonsense I am talking about. At no point have I denied the resurrection of Jesus Christ. At no point have I said anything that could be understood to say that Jesus won't be raised from the dead until after the 1000 years. You are completely out of line to suggest this. You are acting unethically to an extreme degree. You need to apologize.

I have pointed out to you what the Bible calls the "First Resurrection." I would like to see you actually deal with Scripture instead of accusing me of denying the resurrection which I most emphatically do not.

I did. It doesn't help.

I agree. But it must be interpreted in light of all of Scripture.

The grammatical construction in John 5:24 is exactly the same. Do you apply your exegetical method to that? The same grammatical construction is found in John 4:23. Do you insist that the hour in which God is worshipped in only one instance of time?

You have to deal with both of these passages because it is the same author using the exact same construction.

That is false. It is entirely possible that this is describing the same resurrection as Daniel 12:2. Yet there are other resurrections in Scripture, such as in Matthew 27:52-53, 1 Thess 4:13-18, and 1 Cor 15:23.

I don't have a problem saying that the resurrection of John 5:28, 29 happens at one time. I have a problem saying it is the only resurrection because these other passages seem to describe other instances of resurrection.

So now what are you saying? That John 5:28, 29 toook place at the hour that Peter couldn't watch? Or at the hour that there was darkness over the land? You previously said it takes place when Christ returns, which is neither when Peter couldn't stay awake, nor when there was darkness over the land (both of which were not a single instance, but a period of time). So to say that the hour of John 5:28, 29 is a period of time seems very consistent with the verses you are trying to use to say it isn't a period of time.

This is a switch made out of convenience. There is no textual reason to adopt a symbolic understanding of Revelation. You adopt taht understanding only because if you didn't, you would have to change your position. There is no symbolic use of "first" to mean "only" that I am aware of.

But again Rev 20:5 seems to disagree with you. Doesn't that trouble you? Are you saying that Christ isn't raised until after the thousand years? I don't think you are, but how do you get around it apart from simply saying, "The words don't mean what they say."

On what exegetical basis do you asser that this first resurrection is spiritual? Already you seem to be changing the way you use the words. First, you said that the first resurrection was Jesus'. Now you are saying that the first resurrection includes those who are spiritually raised and justified (though I can't recall any place that the Bible uses such language).

So I think we are seeing that you are slippery with words, and use some pretty unconventional means to dodge what appears to be the plain meaning of the text.

 

But there are some very difficult passages for you to explain.

But at no place in Romans does Paul include non Jews in "True Israel." True Israel is a subset of ethnic Israel.

Yes, but they did not have full rights as a Jew in some areas. Deut 23 spells out some instances of this, as do other passages.

Or were we chosen before the foundation of the world? Read that passage carefully and see what "before the foundation" goes with.

But the passages indicate that it does. So how do you disagree?

Please explain.

Not sure what distinction you are making here. How can something that exists be a mystery?

The total weight of the passages indicate this.

So again, I think you have some severe problems.

 

And what is that?

I have been called a lot, but never that to my knowledge. My point here as to been to seek clarity, not obfuscation. I wish you would do the same.

Perhaps being more aware of what dispensationalists believe before you talk about them would help. I don't know of many dispensationalists who call the rapture alone the first resurrection. Perhaps you do. Cite them and I will take a look. I may simply not be aware of it. Or you might not be aware of it. So if you know a dispensationalist who says that the rapture is the "first resurrection," please give us the source so we can check it out.

Please remember that I am not the one who wants to call it the "first resurrection." That's what God called it since he's the one who wrote Revelation.

Furthermore, even if Christ were the first resurrection as you say, there are still resurrections before it, such as Lazarus, the widow at Nain's son, and the Shunnamite woman's son. So how can Christ be the first when he isn't the first?

So are these passages wrong? Only two of them say anything about the first, and I think understanding "first" correctly will help to solve that problem. Again, remember that prior to the resurrection of Jesus there was the resurrection of Lazarus, the widow at Nain's son, the Shunnamite woman, and several others. What shall we say? If Jesus was "the first," were these others not resurrections? Or is it possible that you are confusing terms and theology here? I think the latter is clearly the case.

"First" does not always speak of chronology. It sometimes speaks of importance, such as Isaac being Abraham's firstborn son. So Christ being the "firstfruits" or the "first begotten from the dead" speaks of his importance, not his chronology.

Please also remember that I am not the one calling it the first resurrection. That is what God chose to call it, assuming you believe in inspiration. So accusing me of obfuscation won't hide the fact that your disagreement is with God, not me. If God calls the resurrection after the 1000 years the"first resurrection," who are you or I to disagree?

Then please show how. So far, it seems to me like you are the one not willing to look at what Scripture says. I have plainly pointed out to you that there were resurrections before Christ's, meaning his is not the first. I have pointed out to you that the Scriptures themselves say that the "first resurrection" is after the thousand years and includes more than Christ.

Actually the dispute is with you whether you like it or not. Again, I have simply pointed out that Scripture uses the name "first resurrection" for something other than the resurrection of Christ. Therefore, it seems to me to be incumbent on you to change your view to conform to Scripture.

 

Yes indeed. And it is sad when someone will ignore the indisputable teaching of Scripture to maintain their position. The Bible tells us what the first resurrection is, and you disagree with it.'

There is nothing in the Matt 27 passage that says those people died again. They may well have had resurrection bodies. Ultimately, you can win the argument the way you are arguing. It simply doesn't work because even if "resurrection" only means "never to die again resurrection" (something that is not clear from Scripture), you still have to deal with the fact that Rev 20 calls something other than Christ's resurrection the "first resurrection," and you deny that.

 

To me this debate appears to be something somewhere between a contest of wills and a sort of one-ups-manship of insult and innuendo.

IMO it is a useless exercise even to the extent of brethren sharing different views.

I believe one or more of you owe Pastor Larry an apology.

Pastor Larry and I don't agree on every jot and tittle but we don't make outrageous accusations against each other.

I've said my piece for now. If the ad hominems calm down maybe we can discuss this in a more amicable manner.

God bless you all my brethren, heaven knows we all need His grace to treat each other better than this.

HankD

 

As an interesting post script to the Matthew 27 passage as related to 1 Corinthians 15, some translations such as the NIV separate "first fruits" from Christ"

NIV 1 Corinthians 15:23 But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.​

Looking at the original language it seems unlikely but not out of the question that those who came forth from the grave AFTER His resurrection were the first-fruits brought back to the Father by His Son, the Lord of the Harvest as required by the Law, signifying that the time of harvest is ready and the laborers should be thrust into the fields of harvest...​

Luke 10:2 Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest.​

HankD​

 

I don't think so.

Rom 11:25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

What do the Gentiles "come in" to?
The structure of the sentence, and the lack of a noun for "come in" to reference, leaves no other option but for Gentiles to be "coming into" Israel.

Also, you dismiss this verse too quickly:

Rom 9:8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

A natural born Israelite, would not need to be "imputed" as offspring. Just as here, where the same word is used:

Rom 4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

Does this mean He was already righteous? The fact that He had to be counted as righteous, means that he was NOT already righteous. Likewise, the fact that they are "counted" as offspring, means they were NOT already offspring.

First I would like to note that the word "assembly" here, as translated in the Septuagint, is the same word used for the "Church" in the New Testament.

Secondly, let me say that this is not so. Deuteronomy is not referring to circumcised natives. It is referring to Uncircumcised, Ammonites and Moabites: and even this curse is temporary: ten generations has long since passed.

Again, there is no Bible verse that distinguishes: this would make even Jesus of an impure line, for He had fore bearers who were not born Israelites.

Those who were circumcised were considered native born Israelites: there is no Bible verse that says otherwise. This discrimination was extra-biblical "traditions of men" introduced by the scribes.

I am unaware of any passages that speak of the Church as a completely new entity. Would you mind pointing a couple out?

Eze 36:26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
Eze 36:27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

A mystery is just something that we do not fully understand. Haven't you ever played "Clue"? Just because you don't know if it the candlestick in the little brown envelope, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The total weight of the passages say that we are grafted into the Assembly, a.k.a. Israel.

Perhaps because of my limited understanding I do. But I think yours are much bigger.

 

Into the group that was hardened? I don't think so. This is a passage that I think you have a very hard time with. Israel was partially hardened. If Israel is the church, then you have God hardening his church. This only makes sense if Israel is national Israel.

Not at all. In fact, I lean on this verse very heavily. You are not in Israel when you are a descendant of Abraham. It takes more, not less. That is the point of "not all Israel are Israel." He has already said that he is talking to his "kinsmen according to the flesh."

But there are a great many words that serve multiple purposes, so this proves nothing.

You will notice that this is not what the text says, however. You have to bring this into the text. You didn't get it from the text.

I think the passages I have already given make an airtight case.

But that's not Spirit baptism. That's regeneration.

I don't think we can transfer board games into theology. The whole point of a mystery is that no one knew because it didn't exist. If you read the passage, Gentiles were not considered one with the Jews.

 

Out of everyone on this thread, you are the one who ought to find those most interesting since they cite many passages of Scripture that utterly refute your belief.