Israel of God Doug 04a

My Brothers and Sisters;

Seems that there comes a time that we must rub against one another, as iron sharpening iron. Knowing that this process never just sharpens one, but both. It is my desire to rub outward, to those I love and pray for, some of the teaching that God has had upon me as I have grown and fed upon the very word of God.

Over the last several years there have been a lot of views expressed about some of the theology points that I express as meat. There were times there were sharp words used, although notin sharp manner. So I utilized that catalyst to become sharper and more "ready to reason".

One ideal (of several) that has seen it unfair share of looks and words is my viewpoint of Israel, the Church and the relationship of those two terms in relationship to what does it mean to be part of the Israel of God that Paul spoke of in Gal 6:15-16. This has sometimes been expressed that this viewpoint is heretical. So of course it has brought about a response from me, I re-re-researched and strengthened by theology and I wish topresent why I believe as I do. I am attempting to do so in a manner that does not cause grief or hurt, I desire to express my Biblical position – not set fire to yours. It is very important to not take offense if you think you might have been one of thoseI spoke of or think I am offended by your words to me – even if you were. It is NOT the point or need, I hold no adverse thoughts, as getting to this place has fed me bountiful hearty meat, and I am richer for it. But as you might have noticed the greeting starts with holy thought, and if you looked carefully above I am not just sending to ones who might have said something, or gave me a odd look, but you might be one I am sending to who is one that I love [actually that is everyone who receives this – and many, many others] that I simply share what God has poured in and share things I learn or feel with from timeto time.

Truthfully, there is never an end of Theological issues we have to share with one another, and it is my hope that this will not be the last thing I send out. But know that I love you, and continue to pray for you and your family.

In the closing of this letter I also invite comments, questions, thoughts and of course rebuttal's. Mine is not the final word on the exegetical truth of God's word. So what is thepoint then? I desire you to read through this study, look at my logic, consider the background, and at very least consider that this viewpoint is not an abnormal theology, but one that has historical significance to the Church for a very long time.

Blessings

Doug

Page 2 of 25 11/22/2009 2:21 PM

THE ISRAEL OF GOD

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO US, THEN, NOW, TOMORROW!

INTRODUCTION – OR WHY AM I WRITING THIS

This question has been on the forefront of my learning for the last couple years and was the crux of major changes in my theological life, my understanding of God's revelation of Himselfto us, and answer of how I best serve Him in the days to come. It starts somewhere for each one, this study may not take you down the same the path, and in fact it may be hard to come to grips with, I know it was for me. I share this as it seems that the more I learn about God's desire of us, is we are spurn one another on to good works and sharpen each other it says in Proverbs 27:17 Iron sharpens iron, So one man sharpens another.

The idea that Israel (as a Nation) and her people (the Jews) historically had and still maintains a special place in the heartof God was, was at one time, a clear belief in my mind. It gave me understanding of the end times, I understood that Israel was always Israel and the Church was always the Church, and they wereseparate entities. That this was the Church Age, and the age to come was the return of Israel to her former glory. And I thoughtall was well, that I understood at least partially the plan of God.

Early in my Christian life I started in a group study on Galatians, and I was this fire-breathing new Christian coming to study Galatians with 10 to 12 pages of typewritten notes for 6 or7 questions. Never seeming to have enough input, but quietly concerned over the disparity of responses from the established commentators to which I had access and what was being taught by the people that I was studying with. Men like Mathew Henry, John Gill, Jamieson, Fausset, Brown and Martin Luther's Commentary on Galatians. I could not understand the differences between the other members (especially the leader's) and what I read and thought. Once when I asked for 14th time, I was told that "We are a more mature Church now" and I let it go and accepted those

Page 3 of 25 11/22/2009 2:21 PM

words as an adequate response. As the study continued, I read verse 26 of Chapter 3 which says, "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. (KJV)" and my new bible (at that time) the NASB said, For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. Now I had just read a bit (sort of studied) on adoption into the family of God, and found myself seeing a parallel with OT descriptions of Israelin Ex 4:22 Israel is My son, My firstborn; Dt 14:1 Ye are the children of the LORD your God; Is 1:2-4 Sons I have reared and brought up.... My people do not understand.... Sons who act corruptly, 63:8 Surely they are my people, children that will not lie; and Jer 31:9 For I am a father to Israel, and us now in our current relationship to God. That they then, and us now were part of the "same family"; that we were not different. John recorded for us a scene of Jesus' early ministry, which was to the Jews, when he said, But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become the Children of God, even to them that believe in His name.(John 1:12.) But those words are applied equally to us now, and this isvery clear in everything I have read from any source. As I understood this, they [the Jews] and us [the Church] are in the same family, are one and the same in the eyes of God. I was so excited, I thought I understood, but alas, the real answer was (or so I was told), "They [the Jews, Israel] have a different path and a different time period than us [the Church], that to besaved is the adoption, but the Church and Israel are always separate", never the same, I was not understanding about Israel at all.

As I received that answer I went away ashamed. I thought I had solved a riddle, I thought I had understood. Yet I was still wrong, I did not understand God's word. I was so ashamed of myself, I was not worthy of understanding His truth. I even fell short of asking about and continue in my questions to verse 28 or29. I sort of fell in with the crowd, but still trying to understand. But not getting it, God's word seemed so far from me, no matter how hard I tried.

Then God gave me a group bible study on Romans, and my understanding of the scriptures still did not conform to the group, those around me listened to my questions, and the answers were consistent and gentle, yet short and "rehearsed". But I did

Page 4 of 25 11/22/2009 2:21 PM

not find better sources (better that is if you want to be like the group), I found a web site with John Calvin's commentaries; Iwas pretty happy, I still maintained that the above list was pretty good, and yet.... the separation of "them" and "me" remained. There was sharp disagreement with Chapter 2, and I was the lone dog (my wife, bless her so much, she tried to understand, but I didn't understand, so how could I help her – but unwavering support came, she just did it for the sole reason of agape love – now today we are on same page due to joint understanding and teaching), yet they loved me.

They were not mean, nor did they know how hard it was on me during those days. I am a long time 'Strong Man' and well able to hide within my own walls, no one knew, just my Lord. But I want to say, that this group of people loved God and loved me with all their heart, mind and soul. This is not about pain feltfrom other's "hurting me", as none did so purposefully, and in fact I know that if they knew, they would be horrified to look back and realize they had not seen it. And, in case this finds its way to any of those loving people, do not fear, God knew whatHe was doing all along, and that is what it is all about. God was doing what He knows is best, that He is Sovereign, not only in salvation and rule, but in growth, growth must come from God (1 Cor 3:6) but the feeding and watering come from man (1 Cor 3:6-7). They were feeding and watering, but we saw something different, I did not know what or why, but God's plan is higher than ours. No this is about being real, about being authentic. And they were authentic, loving Christian's.

Going off track now, but I think that how one believed and grew into a more mature thought process is important. I have read a ton of people who said I used to believe...... But now I believe....... but I know of nothing else of that process. Mostly whenwe write about opposite viewpoints that have sharp divisions, we are sharp and critical about that view, and yet we say "We have an open loving heart to those who believe differently than us". But I do not get that understanding as I read those crucifixions,because I do not believe that we clearly see, nor we think about the gaggle of arrows we just sent their way that invariably rile

Page 5 of 25 11/22/2009 2:21 PM

up their defenses and prevent penetration. And I happen to believe that how God changes people is important, very important.So, this is partially my testimony of growth, and partially a pouring out of what He has put in. And like I said before being real and authentic is important to me.

OK, returning to the plot line, next came a Study on Revelation and the answers became even more "rehearsed" and less an exegetical response to the Words before us. The most emphasized response was "You just have remember that Israel and the Church are separate, they never occupy the 'spotlight of God' at the same time". Issues about The Church and Israel flooded the conversations and the studies, how God raptures "The Church", so Israel can regain her former glory. It was repeated, for my sake, that "The Church is not seen after Chapter 3, so the remainder of the Revelation is about Israel until the New Heaven's and New Earth". Or in other words, "Promises and prophecies for Israel will be fulfilled on earth during the Millennium and the eternal state, but the church will not participate in their fulfillment, nor will Israel share the church’s future blessings in heaven.1" And I was told, "Israel always denotes the physical posterity of Jacob and is never to beconfused with the church. ... the term Israel indicates it is always used to denote Jacob’s physical descendants... and that.... God has a distinct program for Israel and a distinct program for the church. The commands given to one are not the commands to the other; the promises to the one are not the promises to the other.2" And still I could not conform, it becamehard for everyone else, I was a "thorn in their side" yet they loved me; it was not fruitful as a study, so I stepped out, and for other reasons the group somewhat fell apart. To this day, I still feel that I should have stepped out sooner; I was more of aproblem than solution. It is noted in my life notes that this Revelations study and my first days with my new mentor were closely situated in time, a sort of overlap. This was part of my1 Fahlbusch, E., & Bromiley, G. W. (1999-2003). Vol. 1: The encyclopedia of

Christianity (854). Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill.

2 Enns, P. P. (1997). The Moody handbook of theology (521). Chicago, Ill.: MoodyPr

Page 6 of 25 11/22/2009 2:21 PM

new re-beginning, from him I learned how to read Scripture, what to look for, what it means to understand whom you are reading, what “orthodoxy” means, and discernment for false doctrine.

I was hungry during these days of confusion, I was trying to do in-depth word studies from Greek sources, and could not read it. It was painstaking work, I did studies on repentance, and the Father did so much in me with that. But it was not enough, so I emailed a man I had met some time earlier [and who would be my long term mentor], and he once told me that I could ask of him inthe future, as we all do everyone, but I bet he was surprised to see my email. I asked him for a “good set or list” of commentaries to study God’s word from He was a teacher, and exegete [a student and interpreter of texts, especially religiouswritings], and I wanted answers. The answer was astounding to me, “Giving people Bible study sources is rather like giving a kid a loaded gun! Of a medicine cabinet filled with prescription drugs! There’s as much danger as potential benefit.” That soundsquite odd - but I know now just how true it could be. I have learned so much about the presuppositions that are brought into aperson’s writings, as well as their speech, that I now understandjust what he meant. From that email we have gone to a long-term mentor relationship, and God has blessed me significantly. It ishow I learned how to do such things as write this, or even reallyunderstand what Scripture means, how to read the “context” and the detailed structure of it to exegete what it really says, verses what I desire it says.

Peace came upon my life, and yet here I am writing a long dissertation concerning a subject which is probably not on your heart. Yet, I do request that you read through it, and if you desire - to share it with others, reply, or even tell me you wishno more of this material be provided you. I do not take offense easily anymore, I am not the same young immature Christian looking for someone to agree with me that I just wrote of. I do not desire that, in fact if I can't explain this issue utilizing good common understanding of the bible, then tell me so and disregard this. The understanding must come from looking at God's words not mine. My story may help personalize my change

Page 7 of 25 11/22/2009 2:21 PM

and explain a particular doctrine (possibly), but "my story" has nothing to do HisStory, for that stands alone.

Early in our training, I was given a short listing of books to read, one was Christ in the Covenants by O Palmer Robertson, I read that book 4 times in a week, I still re-read it. I ordered his other book, the Israel of God; I have read that book more than once also. It is part of plan God set before me, to provideand understanding that His covenant is the center peace of His involvement with us. But this writing is more about the relational aspects of answering the questions like, who is a trueJew? Who is the Israel of God? How are you and I related to Abraham, and with that relationship, how are we related to Daniel, or Sampson? And at least inform that there is something Biblically real when I express that we are the Israel of God.

INTERPRETIVE DIFFERENCES, AND WHAT THAT MEANS

How we read the bible is important. How we understand the Whole counsel of God is all based upon how we read and interpret the wordsbefore us. I try to consider Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction as I ponder God's word placing His sovereignty above all else.

In that manner I found that my first learned interpretation methodology, which is called "First Mention Principle", did not seem to maintain His Sovereignty in focus. Although it was not directly taught as a method, it was the method utilized, and taught by example within my first Church. Now there maybe other names for it, but no matter what it is called, what it means is "That principle by which God indicates in the first mention of a subject, the truth which that subject stands connected in the mind of God. The first time a thing is mentioned in Scripture it carries with it a meaning that will be carried all through the Word of God3" With that in mind, the way it is seen is that throughout the Bible we have the history of Israel written. We see mention of other nations only as they came in touch with the “Chosen People”. Thus Israel is rightly called the "hub" of the

3 J Edwin Hartell, Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics, pg 70

Page 8 of 25 11/22/2009 2:21 PM

nations. Thus the fundamental principles of God's dealing with Israel are set forth in the first passage dealing with that people as a whole. Everything subsequent to that passage is givenwith reference to the original one. So with definition comes a understanding that "Israel" is always the people who are from thelineage of Abraham, mostly living in or having direct relatives in a country in the Middle East currently called Israel (imagine that), and those who join or are proselytes [converts] of Judaism. These people are also commonly called "Jews".

Now, to be clear, I am no longer in the group of people that believe in that methodology of interpretation. Although I do seesome of the ideals or doctrines that are developed that way, sortof a progressive revelation of the Bible sort of thinking. And although I do believe in progressive revelation, I do not believein the "First Mention Principle" as a God inspired interpretive method of understanding His progressive revelation. Here is why.Consider Malachi 4:5-6 “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes. And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction.” If you believe in the above method anda literal reading of the word, then Elijah himself has return before the great and awesome day of the Lord came. This is the mistakethat the Pharisees made, for they basically utilized this methodology for their interpretation. And I think that we all donot want to be like the Pharisees, we do not want to repeat theirmistakes. See we find that Jesus interpreted Malachi 4 as being fulfilled in John the Baptist. (Matt 11:14; 16:14; Lu 1:17; 9:8, 19; John 1:8, 23)

To further clarify, although the Pharisees and most of the peopleof Israel were so literal that that could not and would not see Jesus as the Messiah, because of his rejection of 'their idea' that He would be a physical King of Israel (like David), verses aKing over all things in Heaven and Earth, Lordship over the spiritual aspects of men, thus guiding them in all the remaining aspects. The Pharisee allusion was only provided for understanding of how far off the correct path, this type of understanding can have.

Page 9 of 25 11/22/2009 2:21 PM

Another ironic issue to visualize the absurdity that can become of this principle, especially if it becomes the “Law of Interpretation” is with this view and a reasonable reading of Genesis 4:17–24, which is the first mention of polygyny recorded within the pages of Scripture we would think that polygyny is a good thing. The story occurs fairly early on in scripture with aman named Lamech and his two wives, Adah and Zillah and it speaksgood of this relationship, but the question is, Does the Bible speak good of such a relationship in the rest of Scripture including the New Testament? Just ponder... So it is my opinionthat the idea is that God deliberately arranged Scripture so thatthe first mention of any concept or word reveals its most fundamental and overarching character is incorrect and most oftenit is used in proposing something to attain a previously determined humanistic viewpoint. Now even I admit that first mention can be useful, to a certain point, but very quickly becomes absurd when treated as a "Law" of interpretation. Either one's conclusions become nonsense, or they become justification for theological preconceptions that do not seem to fit the Sovereignty of God.

As I have said, I believe that this method is used mostly to provide a answer that fits the desire of an ideal, verses and answer that fits the whole Counsel of God (Acts 20:27). And finally it is important to note that it appears that the systematic methodology or real use of "first mention principle" as really applied to the "New Testament - Old Testament understanding” did not develop until about the early 20th Century.

In contrast to that methodology, is one called Apostolic Hermeneutics, which basically stated is that the Old Testament isbest interpreted by the New Testament authors as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (1 Pet 1:21), verses those who twist to their own destruction, as they do other Scriptures (2 Pet 3:16). There is an adage that explains this principle, it states, "The New Testament is inthe Old Testament contained, and the Old Testament is in the New Testament explained". Now this methodology has a history significantly longer than the previous one, and it also holds a better record of being sensible, and does not lead men astray.

Page 10 of 25 11/22/2009 2:21 PM

This method is plainly seen in Chapter 1, Item IX of the Westminster Confession of Faith which states: The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. (Mt 22:29,31 Eph 2:20 Ac 28:25) This was also seen in the early Church Patristic Fathers interpretations of God's Holy Word, so it has a long history of functional usage and time-tested performance.

WHO WAS ISRAEL? WHO IS ISRAEL? WHO WAS NOT THE "ISRAEL OF GOD"?

Our cursory reading of the OT tells us that anyone who was the offspring of Abraham (John 8:33) is a Jew or Israelite. But there areseveral places in the Bible that denies that to be true. In Romans 2:28-29 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. Paul tells us that a "True Jew" has no tie to the outward issues. The verses are clearly the climax and conclusion of Paul’s argument against the typical Jew characterized in the preceding verses. The description of circumcision as “in the flesh,” catches the breadth and ambivalence of the word as characteristically used by Paul. On the one hand it describes circumcision in a purely factual way—a physical rite, a cutting of the flesh. But in context it carries the sense also of racial kinship and national identity (as in 4:1; 9:3, 5; 11:14). And in conjunction with "merely one outwardly" and in contrast to “of the heart,” it has a clearly derogatory overtone, as so often elsewhere in Paul—an overtone completely lacking, of course, in rabbinic talk of circumcision “in the flesh”4. A person was a Jew only if he or she was one inwardly. The circumcision that counted was a circumcision of the heart (cf. Deut 30:6; Lev 26:41; Deut 10:16; Jer 4:4; Ezek 44:9). Real circumcision was the work of the Spirit, which is understood as areference to the Holy Spirit (cf. 2 Cor 3:6), rather than one part of a contrast between the spiritual and the literal. In Col 4 Excerpts / Concepts from Dunn, J. D. G. (2002). Vol. 38A: Word Biblical

Commentary : Romans 1-8. Word Biblical Commentary (123). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Page 11 of 25 11/22/2009 2:21 PM

2:11 Paul compared circumcision by the hands of men and circumcision by Christ. It did not come through the mechanical observance of the written code. Authentic Jewishness was inward and spiritual. Authentic circumcision was the cutting away of theold sinful nature. It could be accomplished only by the sanctifying Spirit of God.5 Those who had experienced it receivedtheir praise from God, not from others.6

It is clear that in these verses Paul is in some sense denying the name of Jew to those who are only outwardly Jews and not alsosecretly and inwardly, and at the same time according it to thosewho are secret, inward Jews but not outward Jews at all. Is he then denying that those Jews who in some sense are not Jews have any part in the promises made to Israel? Is he implying that fromnow on the elect people of God consists only of those whom he describes as inward Jews, i.e., of Jewish Christians together with Gentile Christians, or, in other words, that the Christian Church alone is the heir to all the promises?

Taken by themselves, Romans 2:28 & 29 would seem to be a cornerstone of such a construction. They have certainly often been understood in this sense, and Paul has appeared as the father of those 'who have denied to the Jewish people their election privileges and promises', simply 'transferring them to Christianity as the new Israel of God'. But these verses do not stand by themselves, and, if they are to be interpreted in the light of 3:1-4 and also of 9:1-11:36, they can hardly bear this meaning. The true explanation of them is rather that in them Paul is using 'Jew' in a special limited sense to denote the man who in his concrete human existence stands by virtue of his faith in a positive relation to the on-going purpose of God in history, and that, while they certainly do imply that many who are outwardly Jews are outside what may be called 'the Israel

5 Mounce, R. H. (2001). Vol. 27: Romans (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (102–103). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers

6 Calvin comments that since the eyes of humans are fixed on mere appearance,we ought not to be satisfied with what is commended by human opinions but “should, rather, be satisfied with the eyes of God, from which the deepest secrets of the heart are not hidden” (Romans, 57)

Page 12 of 25 11/22/2009 2:21 PM

within Israel', they should not be taken as implying that those who are Jews only outwardly are excluded from the promises.7

Paul’s object lesson in pressing for such agreement is precisely to undermine the assumption that distinction, between those chosen and redeemed thereby acceptable to God to those unacceptable to God, which cannot be determined by reference to the rite of circumcision, baptism to any other legalist outward actions.

Case in point consider, And this woman, a daughter of Abraham as she is, whom Satan has bound for eighteen long years, should she not have been released from this bond on the Sabbath day? (Luke 13:16), in v 13 we find her true stature in the eyes of God when the Bible says, she was made erect again and began glorifying God. Her response was proper after experiencing or seeing God’s grace, which shows her "true nature", her true birthright, she had blood of Abraham, and as Abraham's children, [are to] do the deeds of Abraham (John 8:39) [addition mine] and her belief by faith shows her to be of Spiritual familyof God through Christ. Many were healed but search the scriptures to see if they responded the same8, but she glorified God, the response of one brought near which is the expected response of one of the "Children of Abraham".

The “in the open/in secret,” contrast, plays upon the importanceof God’s knowing the hidden truth of a person9 (cf. Matt 6:4, 6; 1 Pet 3:4); the visible/secret distinction is familiar elsewhere in earliest Christian tradition in other forms (Mark 4:22; Luke 8:17; John 7:4; 1 Cor 14:25)10

7 C.E.B Cranfield, International Critical Commentary on Romans (Chapter 3:28-29)

8 Marshall, I. H. (1978). The Gospel of Luke : A commentary on the Greek text. The New international Greek testament commentary (558). Exeter [Eng.: Paternoster Press. The praising of God by the healed person is a motif not found in thesimilar stories in 6:10; 14:4, but is found in Acts 3:8f.

9 Consider Rom 2:16 where eschatological judgment as the completed outworking of and final verdict on already evident traits

10 Excerpts / Concepts from Dunn, J. D. G. (2002). Vol. 38A: Word Biblical Commentary : Romans 1-8. Word Biblical Commentary (123). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Page 13 of 25 11/22/2009 2:21 PM

Now there is much said in those few verses, but of course - I am not complete. For I spoke earlier of learning about being a Child of God, Son of God and how I saw that as important. In fact, Rom 2:28 shows light upon John 1:12-13, where one gets a sense of understanding that the term children of God has throughout the OT been given to those saints of old (Ex 4:22, Dt 14:1, Isa 1:2-4, 63:8; Jer 31:9[ref p. 4] ). Consider that as you read John 1:12-13 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. Consider what these have in common here where the positive aspect of the ministry of the Logos is described: there were those who “received” the Logos, that is they welcomed the Word in faith. To those he gave authority to become God’s children; they were not so by nature, but became so by divine grace via the authorization of the Logos. Then considerthat believers are called, children of God; and to be abundantly clear, to “become children of God” is a work wholly of God’s operation. You must consider that vv 10-11 indicate grim circumstances, the world did not know him and his own people did not receive him. Yet vv 12-13 indicate the believing remnant as promised by God. To these people, who received by faith, enjoy the privilege of becoming the covenant people of God, a privilege lost by the the Messiah's own people (1:11); to those who are related to Him by nature and by the Grace that existed throughout the Old Covenant and into the New Covenant. 11 John never refers to themas, sons of God, as Paul does, as he reserves the expression Son (of God) for Jesus; Yet both consider believers children by adoption. Then consider the successive phrases which contrast birth from God with human begetting, and emphasize the inability of men and women to reproduce it.12 And from Deut 14:1 we get a sense of the significance of the statement “You are children of YHWH your God” which points to the parental relationship between God and his chosen people Israel.13 The meaning is clear from the 11 Excerpts/Concepts from D. A. Carson.1991, The Pillar New Testament Commentary, The Gospel According to John.

12 Excerpts / Concepts from Beasley-Murray, G. R. (2002). Vol. 36: Word Biblical Commentary : John. Word Biblical Commentary (13). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

13 Excerpts / Concepts from Christensen, D. L. (2002). Vol. 6A: Word Biblical Commentary : Deuteronomy 1-21:9. Word Biblical Commentary (290). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Page 14 of 25 11/22/2009 2:21 PM

beginning of time to present day life now, were we are children of YHWH our God, by adoption.

This is significant, his chosen people Israel denotes that group of "elect" persons, not a entire people group based upon a blood heritage. I do not lower the people group that God has chosen, but I also do not define based upon some blood line that refuses to accept the atoning blood of the Messiah, our Lord Jesus Christ. No, I widen it, I include all those, from the bloodline,and those outside that bloodline, who are "His elect", "His choice", "His people", a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who calledyou out of darkness into his marvelous light. (1 Peter 2:9) These words are important, look in the OT, how God called His children these names, and now that drawing pool has widened to include all of humanity, God now chooses from ALL nations, verses a small central race or nation. [more later on this verse]

Consider the oath that he swore to your fathers, the promise to Abraham that the Jew's held onto; so closely that they rejected the Messiah. The Jamieson, Faucet, & Brown comment on John 1:12-13 saying that “this statement does away with the arrogance of the Jew’s of Christ’s day by informing them that to a child of God had nothing to do the natural decent, nor supposed superior human decent, not of man in any way. To be a ‘Jew’ or ‘Israelite’never meant that you were such because of where you were born or whom you were born, save God Himself”14 .

WHO IS NATURAL ISRAEL

Consider the dialogue that Jesus has with the Jews in John

chapter 8 starting at verse 33 when the Jews declare “We are offspring of Abraham…” to which Jesus replies, “I know that you are

offspring of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me because my word finds no place in you.” Then He speaks to them in a manner similar to Paul’s in Gal 1:6–9 when Paul states in his highest 14 Excerpts / Concepts from Jamieson, Faucet and Brown; A Commentary Criticaland Explanatory on the Old and New Testaments.

Page 15 of 25 11/22/2009 2:21 PM

authoritative inspired language, “Let them be anathema—accursed!”,

when Christ says, “I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what

you have heard from your father.” Now there are lines being drawn, whosefamily are they, and is spermicidal lineage important! Or are we known by our “spiritual lineage”? ---- So continuing on, they respond to Christ by saying, “Abraham is our father(v39).” By emphasizing this it is clear they are boasting the boast of rabbis, “All Israelites are sons of kings” (i.e., of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), and in their view the merits of Abraham covered all their demerits, hence the dictum, “The circumcised donot go down to Gehenna” Israelites are “sons of the kingdom” (cf. Matt 8:12). Also I found it curious to note that just a few wordsearlier they said, “We have never been slaves to anybody” which is an odd statement in view of Israel’s experience in Egypt, their deportation to Babylon, and their present subjection to Rome,15 but that is a conversation for a different day.

--- Returning back to the plot line, in verses 39b - 47 Jesus clarifies that the real heirs of Abraham (Gen 21:9-10) is an inward definition of circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit. This is repeated by Paul in Romans 9:7 …. but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” And Galatians 4:21-31 where he says, in part, Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise and So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman. (cf. vv 31-36) Brothers and sisters, this is an important point in the determination of the family of God, the true nature of “family” in a Biblical sense. That God in all His glory has had only one family from the beginning of time, that family started in Genesis and ends in Revelation with the New Heavens and New Earth consummated forever. That you and I are part of that covenantal family beingpart of the “Children of Promise” just as Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham,Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Joseph, the sons of Joseph, Moses, Rahab, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets, are our brothers and sisters as sons and daughters of Promise.

15 Excerpts / Concepts from Beasley-Murray, G. R. (2002). Vol. 36: Word Biblical Commentary : John. Word Biblical Commentary (134). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Page 16 of 25 11/22/2009 2:21 PM

But most strikingly He provides a sharp and biting contrast to the family lines, He makes the division more than the Hatfield’s and McCoy’s, there is only two real families; either the family of God or the family of Satan. This ideology is stated many times, but here in describing the Jews as of your father the devil(v44), then bringing out a harsh reality when he pronounces in verse 47, Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do nothear them is that you are not of God. That it is not just the Jews, but whoever cannot hear the words of God is NOT of God, therefore therest are God’s. So having a spiritual father of God, or spiritualfather of Satan. Consider the words the Spirit spoke through

James, You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is

enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. (James 4:4) Here the “worldly” attributes are again likened to Satan’s worldly family. He is suggesting that some of the readers do not appreciate that their deliberate choice to befriend the world is actually an action that sets themagainst God. So he has to summon them to repentance. Indirectly, then, and by contrast they are compared to Abraham, the friend ofGod (James 2:23). 16

So where does this go, consider Rev 3:9 Behold, I will make those of the

synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie—behold, I will make

them come and bow down before your feet and they will learn that I have loved you. The clarity brought forth, here again our Lord and Savior explicitly describes the “true Jew” from the “false Jew”. Also consider Rev 2:9 with it’s similar thought but a difference that brings clarity again to my project when Christ says not only are they not Jews, but are a synagogue of Satan. Once again the spiritual family is the prominent feature.

16 Excerpts / Concepts from Martin, R. P. (2002). Vol. 48: Word Biblical Commentary : James. Word Biblical Commentary (148). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Page 17 of 25 11/22/2009 2:21 PM

So if a person is NOT friend of the world, and hears the words of God (Jn 8:44), must be of God, and then he must a “true Jew” in the biblical sense that our Lord speaks.

TRUE ISRAEL

So the question shifts to the definition of a true son of Israel,or a "true Jew". Paul writes in Romans 2:29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

Matthew Henry writes, "These, he declares, shall be the portion of all the Israel of God, by whom he means all sincere Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, all who are Israelites indeed, who, though they may not be the natural, yet are become the spiritual seed of Abraham; these, being heirs of his faith, are also heirs together with him of the same promise, and consequently entitled to the peace and mercy here spoken of.17 " In John 3:6 we find the Spirit conveying That which is born of the flesh isflesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Again separating the fleshly world and the spiritual world, but only allowing for 2, dare I repeat only 2 parts.

Part of God's covenantal response to Abram in Gen 15 we find “Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness. And the prophetic response many years later is found in Galatians 3 verse 7 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham and verse 9 the thought continues So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham. Then adding in verse 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring and tying it to verse 26for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith and then ending the chapter by saying There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. (vv28-29) Now His covenant is spoken as a promise, His promise is kept through the blood of Christ, The blood of Christ is the only

17 Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Galatians 3

Page 18 of 25 11/22/2009 2:21 PM

mending portion of our iniquity, but it is not different for a spermicidal relation than a non-spermicidal relation.

Martin Luther writes of Gal 3:28 "The list might be extended indefinitely: There is neither preacher nor hearer, neither teacher nor scholar, neither master nor servant, etc. In the matter of salvation, rank, learning, righteousness, influence count for nothing...... When a person has put on Christ nothing else matters. Whether a person is a Jew, a punctilious and circumcised observer of the Law of Moses, or whether a person is a noble and wise Greek does not matter. Circumstances, personal worth, character, achievements have no bearing upon justification. Before God they count for nothing. What counts is that we put on Christ."18

These verse focus on being “in Christ” and the new relationships that result from that status — new relationships spiritually (“sons of God,” “clothed with Christ”) and new relationships societally and culturally (“neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female”). Most importantly for his Galatians argument, Paul lays stress on the oneness that exists among “all”who have responded to Christ “through faith” and have been “baptized into Christ.” For the ultimate answer to the Judaizers’is to but to assert that “in Christ” God has done something new that puts an end to the old.19

The list is endless, from John Wesley to Adam Clarke and John Gill, etc.. all men who read these words speak the same outcome, there can be no separation and no distinction. I believe you would say that, yet it remains in the minds of many that there isa separation in the economy of God for the true Israelite.

Then there is the issue of who God has called to be the workers of His Kingdom, and there we find in Matthew where Christ is again rebuking the chief priests and the elders for their continued disobedience to Good's Word saying Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God

18 Luther, Martin: Martin Luther's Commentary on Galatians: http://www.studylight.org/com/mlg/19 Longenecker, R. N. (2002). Vol. 41: Word Biblical Commentary : Galatians. Word Biblical Commentary (159). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Page 19 of 25 11/22/2009 2:21 PM

will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. And the one whofalls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him. (Matthew 21:43-44) Jesus applies the parable to them--the Jews. They had been the children of the kingdom, or under the reign of God; having his law, and acknowledging him as King. Theyhad been his chosen and peculiar people. But he says that now this privilege should be taken away, and they cease to be the peculiar people of God; and the blessing should be given to a nation who would bring forth the fruits thereof, or be righteous;that is, to the Gentiles, Acts 28:2820.

Considering Acts 28:25-28, when the Holy Spirit choose to quote Is 6:9-10 six times he brought power to those words and focus to these, in this place (at the end of Acts) the focus of God's developing revelation is concluding - driving home His message. In focusing upon the apostasy of the Nation of Israel and provinga clear voice of impending deserved judgment God clearly restatesin clarity, the message I have been expounding. The OT language makes it clear that the prophet was told to make the people obtuse lest they be saved when they deserved judgment; the purpose or aim is thus that that of God himself.... Luke would have agreed with Paul in Rom 9-11, yet the words are very harsh and clearly remove the Nation of Israel having a holistic return to glory, only individualized acceptance into the Kingdom of Heaven will ever be allowed. From this verdict Paul draws the consequence that the salvation will be offered to the Gentiles and prophesies that they will accept it... This implication is that God will gather a people for himself regardless of the Jewish response.21

What is most astonishing, however, is the salvation-historical perspective contained in the reference to the transferring of thevineyard from the original tenants to new ones—spelled out specifically as the transference of the kingdom of God to a new people (v. 43). For Matthew’s Christian-Jewish readers, this served to explain both the present futility of the contemporary

20 Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, Matthew Chapter 2121 Excerpts / Concepts from G. K. Beale and D. A Carson (2007): Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Baker Publishing Incorporated.

Page 20 of 25 11/22/2009 2:21 PM

Judaism of the synagogue and the emergence of the new entity, largely but not exclusively Gentile in composition, the church. Finally determinative for this sequence of events was the response given to the Son sent by the Father. Those who reject the Son, who has become the cornerstone of the new reality of thechurch, which becomes in effect the new Israel, forfeit their favored position and bring themselves into judgment (v. 44), while those who receive the Son receive with him the blessed reality of the now-dawning kingdom of God (for the decisive importance of relation to the Son, cf. 10:32–33).22

1 Peter 2:9-10

I told you on page 15 that I was planning on expounding upon 1 Peter 2:9-10 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. This is a particular powerful set of verses in understanding the Israel of God, consider if you will.

The scripture bring a series of honorific titles spelling out the"value" of those who believe. There are 5 titles of honor and they appear to be adaptations of titles from either Exod 19:6 or Isa 43:20–21, which were originally designations of Israel as thepeople of God (cf. the specific phrase, “people of God,” in v 10). And if you add 1 Peter 2:4-5 to the mix you can add, chosen and precious, like living stones and again a holy priesthood , which adds more honor to the mix. With the use of these titles, Peter makes explicit his basis for consistently addressing his Gentile Christian readers as if they were Jews. There is no trace of controversial passions in this practice, but only a curious appearance of innocence. Nowhere in 1 Peter are the readers addressed as a new Israel or a new people of God, as if to displace the Jewish community. The titles of honor are used with no awareness or recognition of an “old” Israel, as if they were applicable to Christians alone and had never had any other 22 Excerpts / Concepts from Hagner, D. A. (2002). Vol. 33B: Word Biblical

Commentary : Matthew 14-28. Word Biblical Commentary (624). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Page 21 of 25 11/22/2009 2:21 PM

reference. If there is “anti-Jewish polemic” here, it is a polemic that comes to expression simply by pretending that the “other” Israel does not exist.23

G. K Beale and D. A Carson tell us that in describing them as chosen race, Peter purposefully and boldly refers to his mixed audience in Asia Minor as descendants of Abraham specially due tothe commonality of the Blood of Christ, and constitutes them as the "true race" that God redeems. In the utilization of royal priesthood we find a controlling theme of verses 4 & 5 and we find it's source in Isa 43:20-21, and the designated people have experienced their own exodus from slavery to sin to within the dominion of the High King of the universe. Thirdly by calling them a holy nation (Ex 19:6) the original constitution as a tribe still applies, but the meaning was then, and still remains as "Jews and Gentile's alike", but constituted into one people, one nation, within the terms of both the New Covenant as they are a “nation” set apart for God by the Spirit. Fourthly, termed as a people for his own possession is literally, "a people for God's special possession" brings to mind a term in Hebrew, Cegullah [seg-ool-law' - Strgs 05459] from Ex 19:5 & Isa 43:20-21, and describes and clarifies the significance of these people, that they, like those who crossed the river Jordon, are God's "treasured people".And fifthly, the terms Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people brings the circumstance and beauty of Hos 2:23 as He said through His prophet And I will say to those who were not My people, 'You are My people!' And they will say, 'You are my God! This is extraordinarily important to understand the OT context to obtain the right understanding of these words in 1 Peter, as God had Hosea name his son "Lo-Ammi," or "Not My People", because God no longer viewed His covenant people (People of Israel - both Northern and Southern alike), as His people. The disowned people groups break His heart, yet he announces that they will one day flourish again24

23 Excerpts / Concepts from Michaels, J. R. (2002). Vol. 49: Word Biblical Commentary : 1 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary (107). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

24 Excerpts / Concepts from G. K. Beale and D. A Carson (2007): Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Baker Publishing Incorporated.

Page 22 of 25 11/22/2009 2:21 PM

It is important to note that the identity of the recipients is a more central concern to the author than his own identity. They are God’s “chosen people living as strangers in the diaspora” in several provinces of Asia Minor.....Although Peter’s greeting is not quite so specifically Jewish as that of James (“to the twelvetribes in the diaspora,” James 1:1), although it appears to be sent to a group of Jewish Christians arising out of the Jewish experience. Since there is no doubt that Peter is addressing Christians, it seems clear that he is writing to communities of Jewish Christians in Asia Minor. Yet the evidence of the rest of the epistle strongly favors an audience predominantly made up of Gentile Christians, “redeemed from the empty way of life that wasyour heritage” (1:18; cf. 4:3–4). Additionally, in this passage God’s call is “out of darkness into his marvelous light.” The “darkness” of which Peter speaks is the same as the “ignorance” (1:14) that belonged to his readers’ Gentile past (cf. “the emptyway of life that was your heritage,” 1:18). It was the darkness of not being a people and of not knowing the mercy of God (v 10).The apparent inconsistency can only be resolved by candidly acknowledging that Peter is addressing certain communities of Gentile Christians as if they were Jews. They are a “chosen people,” yet not simply “honorary Jews” in the sense of claiming for themselves the privileges of “Israel” without corresponding responsibilities. The prerogatives are there, but the responsibilities are there as well; even the social stigma of being Jews in Hellenistic Asia Minor (or in Rome) has been transferred to the Gentile Christian congregations addressed in this epistle.25

Peter brings clarity in the first major section of his epistle (1:3–2:10) by drawing the lines of two kinds of people for a confrontation. Two groups are differentiated—“unbelievers” and “you who believe”—on the basis of their contrasting responses to Jesus Christ, the “choice and precious Stone” (v 6). The former are on their way to “stumbling” and shame, the latter to “honor” and vindication. Of the two groups, believers are the more clearly defined. To Peter they are simply “Israel” as God

25 Excerpts / Concepts from Michaels, J. R. (2002). Vol. 49: Word Biblical Commentary : 1 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary (6). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Page 23 of 25 11/22/2009 2:21 PM

intended her from the time of the Exodus, a holy people called toworship and praise God in the world. In this sense they are a priesthood; their priestly activity is directed, by definition, toward God.Error: Reference source not found

CONCLUSIONARY REMARKS

Consider what I have provided, and understand that I did not comeupon my viewpoint lightly, nor without proper Biblical study and prayer for Spiritual strength and clarity (Eph 3:14-21). Consider how all this relates to being part of the Family of God.This is my focus, and I believe it is important to consider, focus upon, remember, and build a future upon.

That I believe that "racial Israelites" who in disobedience rejected Christ, have had the covenantal light removed from them,as a "People" or "nation" and they are not now, nor have they ever really ever been, the true Israel of God is now very clear, or so I hope. I believe that the "covenantal privileges" of being part of the "Nation of Israel" has been given to the believing Jews (see page 16 where I describe the Children of Promise) and to the believing Gentile Church And all who believed were together and had all things in common (Acts 2:44). Even though I will not expound here,there is a significant difference from covenantal privileges and being an active part of the believing people (Church). That fundamentally and legally God always has this in plan and practice (Gal 3:28; John 8:33; Rom 2:28-29; Jer 9:25-26). That the entirety of "racial Israel" was not considered a true Jew in the eyes of God, nor in the Biblical sense of the word. That theblessings of "Israel" apply now to the same people throughout thebible, the true Israel of God. This is now seen in the believing Christian Church consisting of both believing natural cultivated olive tree descendants of Abraham and wild olive tree grafted in as the Gentile children of the promise of Abraham. As He speaks in Rom 10: 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.

Page 24 of 25 11/22/2009 2:21 PM

The Church as "Ekklesia" is and always has been the "Called out ones", with or without that Greek term applied (Dt 7:6-9; Acts 7:38 [congregation = ekklēsia26). This never meant or cannot be taken to mean that the Church "replaced" Israel, but they are oneand the same. So I holistically and completely reject such a termas "Replacement Theology" to explain what I believe as it is term, given by those who do not believe in this interpretation, designed to be derogatory, mostly to defend an opposing opinion by clawing at the skin of those like me.

Now a final word, this does not mean that an Israelite can never be saved, but only by belief in Christ alone, via faith alone (Eph 2:8-10). Nor does it reject the fact that in some future date that most of the natural cultivated olive tree descendants of Abraham, at that time - continuing onward from that point to the end of history, will be saved by the same blood of Christ (Rom 11:24).

If any of this is unclear, please tell me - I can write more! Now that is funny!

Blessings;

Doug Hitzel

ENDNOTES

26 Polhill, J. B. (2001). Vol. 26: Acts (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (199). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers. With all these obvious overtones of Moses’ likeness to Christ in vv. 35–37, one cannot help wondering whether they do not carry over into v. 38 with thereferences to Moses’ being with the “assembly” in the wilderness and to his giving “living words” to the Israelites. The word for assembly, ekklēsia, is the normal word used in the Septuagint for the gathered community of Israel.The term also is one Christians used for their own assembly, the church.

Page 25 of 25 11/22/2009 2:21 PM