Everything in Ephesians is for the churches usage right then. In Ch 3, it is continuing the end of ch 2 about what unifies Jew and Gentile believers. Nothing about some future time.
Hidden On High (Col 3:3)
- Thread starter netchaplain
- Start date
Everything in Ephesians is for the churches usage right then. In Ch 3, it is continuing the end of ch 2 about what unifies Jew and Gentile believers. Nothing about some future time.
9:6. "Not all Israel are Israel." So one of those must be the race-nation. The other must be faith-based. There can be fewer believing Jews than there are in the race, but there can be more believers worldwide than there are the race.
Granted, it is not the easiest material to read.
It's okay of course, but looks like our impasse will be our difference of understanding concerning Jer 31:31-34 and Eze 36:24-31, which have yet to occur. Some claim that the Gospel of Christ is the fulfillment of these prophecies, but the two primary difficulties with me here are that the "new covenant" in this issue is like the OT covenant of Moses which has been "taken away" (Heb 10:9). It will again be law based (Jer 31:33) with "statutes" and "judgments." But this one will be eternal, unlike "the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which My covenant they brake" (Jer 31:32).
The Christian's covenant does not involve agreement between God and man like the Law covenants with Israel. Believers in Christ are not in nor under His Blood covenant with the Father (the only Two Covenantors) but are only recipients of its work (Covenant of Redemption - Jews first then the Gentiles ). The eternal covenant (Heb 13:20) between the Father and the Son isn't a law covenant.
I do not think there is enough general understanding among Christian's presently, nor enough clear and direct Scripture on this issue to properly debate Israel's eschatology which God has planned for them; and I'm thinking it will remain so even until the Lord Jesus returns.
Chat ya latter!
Ro 9:6, 7 are in reference to unbelieving Jews, who thought they had the promise just being Abraham's progeny.
After all the extensive dismissal of the old covenant, and the NT saying 3x that we are in it (the last supper, 2 Cor 3-5, Hebrews 8-10), I don't know how a person goes back to it, or its equipment.
Let me know what you think of Acts 26. The temple staff are trying day and night to see something take place that Paul says has come already...
In Acts 1, when the apostles are told that they will be 'clothed' with power from on high, it is the king-priest clothing verb that is used. But of course we know it was simply the power of the Spirit to spread the Gospel. That is the new Israel, called the kingdom of priests (I Pet 2). That's how "Israel" things are to be read in the present age of the Gospel. (I have a study going next door on Acts 1--4)
Continue on. It is clear that "us" (Paul had included himself in the faith-based Israel) has Gentile believers in it.
This is important because the expression 'all Israel' is qualified in 11:26 as 'the Israel of this kind or manner' (kai houtos). And the quote from Isaiah qualifies it as fulfilled.
So the upshot is this: I know what the NT says about the New Covenant and Jer 23--33, and there is no NT quote of the Ezekiel passage, so I can't go out on a limb here. There are 2500 uses of the OT by the NT; how did it manage to miss something that important about Ezekiel?
Don't forget about Jeremiah's reiteration (Heb 10:16). We will have to discontinue debate on this issue because of it lacking clear enough Scripture concerning it. God bless!
Isn't the overarching meaning of Hebrews that there is something new already going on?
You have swerved into something that I have always found true: that when you try to retain 2 separate programs in the Bible, you lack clear enough Scripture to do so. Yet people are quite energized to keep it going.
Enjoy my Bible study next door, Acts 1--4.
Not sure what you mean by "something new already going on" unless you're referring to the present and eternal new covenant between the Father and His Son. The final and eternal "new covenant" between the "house of Israel" and "Judah" (Jer 31:31) will begin at the "first resurrection" (which involves only the saved - Rev 20:5-6).
the new covenant is definitely in effect, and was soon as the Lamb was ceremonially "cut". I think you make distinctions where there are none--your names of covenants. Most of the time I find this because of people's concern about the Abrahamic promises; they are afraid God will be called a liar if there is not an ongoing or 'eternal' people of Israel in its land.
On the other hand, Acts 3 has a declaration that anyone who did not hear and obey the new Moses (Christ) would be 'utterly disinherited' from the people, quoting Dt 18 and Lev 23. Yet that quote and those passages never come to mind about those accusing God of lying. In the case of Acts 3, if unbelieving Jews are not excluded from the fellowship, God is a liar.
We cannot say the warning was just cerebral, because Luke is full of warnings to Israel that it is going to be decimated for failing to obey Messiah (in the long run, the mission; obviously the death of Christ was going to happen at their hands).
When I say 'something is already going on' I mean there is sufficient present tense in Hebrews to say that the covenant has come, and has nothing to do with the land. In fact, the land is in danger of being scorched, ch 6.
I do not find a NT quote of Jer 31 that futurizes it (makes its vital meaning a thing of detached future concern) so I have to go with how the apostles read things, not theologians from the 19th century etc.
On the other hand, Acts 3 has a declaration that anyone who did not hear and obey the new Moses (Christ) would be 'utterly disinherited' from the people, quoting Dt 18 and Lev 23. Yet that quote and those passages never come to mind about those accusing God of lying. In the case of Acts 3, if unbelieving Jews are not excluded from the fellowship, God is a liar.
We cannot say the warning was just cerebral, because Luke is full of warnings to Israel that it is going to be decimated for failing to obey Messiah (in the long run, the mission; obviously the death of Christ was going to happen at their hands).
When I say 'something is already going on' I mean there is sufficient present tense in Hebrews to say that the covenant has come, and has nothing to do with the land. In fact, the land is in danger of being scorched, ch 6.
I do not find a NT quote of Jer 31 that futurizes it (makes its vital meaning a thing of detached future concern) so I have to go with how the apostles read things, not theologians from the 19th century etc.
True, since Christ's resurrection the Christian is recipient of the covenant in His Blood with the Father.
Not certain where you are in your theological applications concerning differentiating between Israel--God's people, and the Church--God's children in Christ, as many for the last century have mistakenly spiritualized the Body of Christ as pertaining to Israel (a very common error due to misunderstanding Gal 6:16). God has always had a people (believers in Him) and will always keep them, just not in the same "blessing" as the Christian (Jn 20:29). The term Israel has always been used to relate to God's own, thus the term "the Israel of God" defines those in Christ (Eph 2:15, 16), and is the only passage where the term Israel is not applied solely to Abraham's progeny. This phrase is often misunderstood to mean that there is no longer a people of God in the national sense but only spiritual sense (never have accepted this concept myself).
The people in the Jeramiah and Ezekiel and all other related prophecies concerning the people of God are literal progenies of Jacob (Israel). I doubt much that God would allow His work with His people past all these millenniums to come to nothing. He's always had a plan for them on the "new earth."
The founders of Dispensationalism in the 19th century said the two were 'ever twain.' The race-nation of Israel and the new Israel that was faith-based, or the church. They believed they were clarifying the Bible. I believe they made muck out of it.
If you have followed the study on Acts 1--4, you will find the most damaged handling of the Bible is by Dispensationalists about Lk 24--Acts 4. It is egregious. There is simply nothing that explains the bizarre translation of 'must remain' in 3:21 in any research I have found, yet almost half the word-for-word translations go that direction.
There is an extraordinary term in Acts 3 when the New Moses is declared: if a person does not listen to him, he will be 'devastatingly disinherited.' Likewise, 1 Thess 2 says 'all the wrath of God has come upon Israel (the race-nation)' by the time of its writing; Lk 21 says 'all that is written of the wrath of God is coming on that generation.' This is not 'theology,' it is the outcome of that generation; their land and temple would be fried and scraped. It is sometimes difficult to realize that this is the pinch of all that the apostles are trying to do about Israel: it either joins the beautiful mission of the Gospel or it 'destroys itself' in a horrid manner that is one of the ugliest events of antiquity--Rabbi Prager.
Those believers who say, but God cannot lie, and must give Israel its land forever (they actually believe it is decay proof) have apparently not realized what happens if God does not devastatingly disinherit those who do not obey the New Moses. It would be a lie.
Our differences of understanding on this issue is becoming more obvious and is where our impasse lies. I do not think our discussion on these issues can continue as we are taking different concepts on it. Thanks though for your input, and God bless!
Of course, the Apostles are the closest to the Lord's mind concerning redemption; esp. the Apostle Paul being used to reveal the majority of God's mind concerning His heavenly plans for Christians.