Conference yukon::christian_v7

    Eric,
    
    What does it mean pragmatically to be the "New Israel"?  What happened
    to the "old" one?  Is G-d finished with Israel?
    
    (perhaps anudder topic?)
    
    Steve

>    What does it mean pragmatically to be the "New Israel"?  What happened
>    to the "old" one?  Is G-d finished with Israel?

When parents have a new child, does it mean that they are finished with
the old one?

/john

Hi John,
�         -< I don't think we need to start an argument on this at all >-
Aaarrggghh!!! ;-)  Who said 'argument' ?  ;-}  I thought we were just going 
to discuss it in agreement ;-)

� When parents have a new child, does it mean that they are finished with
� the old one?

But would they call the new one the same name? 

							Andrew

>But would they call the new one the same name?

Meet my brother Darrell and my other brother Darrell...

They might encourage the older brother to follow the example of the
younger brother (where appropriate), and might expect him to learn
what the younger brother has learned.

/john

I see a parallel between the Old Israel and the New Israel and the Old Covenant
and the New Covenant, and the Old Testament and the New Testament.

The Old Israel and Old Covenant have been transfigured -- fulfilled, as it were
-- into the New Israel and the New Covenant.

I think we would agree that with the coming of Christ, the temple sacrifices
no longer need to be offered, and the Law of Moses do not need to be obeyed
by Gentiles.  As the Old Covenant has thus been transfigured into the New 
Covenant in the Blood of Jesus, so the "Old" Israel has been transfigured into
the Church of Christ, the People of God, founded on the Apostles and the
prophets (Eph 2:20).  Christ talks in Romans about Gentiles being grafted into 
the "olive tree" (Israel), and the unbelieving Jews cut off and tossed away 
(although they, too, can be grafted back in).

It was never Christ's intention to have the Jews continue in their faith
unchanged; he came to establish a new covenant, a new people, a new way.
Unfortunately some Jews -- most in fact -- did not believe, and continued as
they were.  While God certainly looks kindly on those Jews today who believe
in Him and follow the law of Moses and obey Him, nonetheless despite the fact
they may believe -- and which _was_ before Christ -- they are a a part of the
people of Israel, in reality they are not perfectly integrated into the true
Israel, for they do not believe in Yeshua ha Maschiach.  Those who reject
Yeshua are necessarily cut off of the olive tree, as Paul says.

Because the Maschiach came to establish a new covenant, there can be no Israel
apart from the Church of Christ.  It's not that we broke off from Israel;
it's that the Jews broke off from Israel when they rejected Yeshua.

Hopefully the PC police won't arrest me; I am not at all intending to be anti-
Semitic.  I'm not inciting hatred against Jews, just explaining where theo-
logically I disagree with them, and hopefully so far theological disagreement
is not grounds for civil rights violations.

Now where did I put that asbestos underwear . . . 

Eric

    dang - Andrew opened the topic while I was replying in the inerrancy
    topic...
    
    uhm....
    
    there's a reply there.  if anyone knows how to move it here, please
    feel free.
    
    sorry!
    
    
    steve

    Andrew Yuille found my original note from 135.* and I have it (thanks
    Andy and Andrew!).
    
    I'm going to edit it and re-enter.  Sorry for the confusing delay.
    
    Steve

The point which Steve is highlighting in Eric's reply is clearest in the 
reply title - "-< There is only one Israel - the Church of Christ >-", 
rather than in the phrase 'new Israel", which does not appear in the New 
Testament.  Eric also mentions it later, as:
� Because the Maschiach came to establish a new covenant, there can be no 
� Israel apart from the Church of Christ.  It's not that we broke off from 
� Israel; it's that the Jews broke off from Israel when they rejected Yeshua.

This is known as 'replacement theology', which holds that Israel is reduced
to the status of every other nation.  The significant questions this
raises, as I see them, are: 

 "Do the meaning of words change in application through the Bible?"
  [ie - does "Israel" always mean the physical nation, or at some point 
   does it change to mean another group of people].

 "Do God's physical promises as given to Israel still stand?"

 "Does God's purpose for the future of the world have a particular role for 
  the nation of Israel?"

I can agree with Eric on many points - 
� It was never Christ's intention to have the Jews continue in their faith
� unchanged; he came to establish a new covenant, a new people, a new way.
This is clear from passages like Exodus 19:6, where the whole nation is
chosen as a nation of priests [ how this was relegated to the tribe of Levi
is off topic ], and Jeremiah 31:31... "The time is coming, declares the
LORD when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the
house of Judah .... I will put My law in their minds and write it on their
hearts.  I will be their God and they will be My people...." 

But that the 'Israel' referred to above only finds its fulfillment in the 
church, I cannot accept.  In the New Testament, 'Israel' consistently 
refers to the physical nation, except where it means a subset of the 
nation, in Galatians 6:16, where the 'Israel of God' is used to identify 
those Israelites who have the faith of Abraham, in contrast to those who 
are arguing that cirsumcision is necessary for the Christian.

Jeremiah 31 continues, to explicitly state that Israel would continue to be 
a nation before God as long as the world continued to be habitable.  To 
fulfil this by rename another group 'Israel' seems underhand and unworthy 
of the God Who sees the end from the beginning.

In Romans 9, Paul emphasises the inheritance of Israel, through whom all 
the signs and promises were received, and the adoption as sons.  In Romans 
11, he shows how Israel's experience was used to bring about the salvation 
of the gentiles, and, in verses 24-27, that God has a future restoration of 
Israel.  Verse 29 streses "God's gifts and His call are irrevocable".

The principle behind replacement theology has wide implications.  As the 
uniqueness of Israel is denied, so also is any of the precise end-times 
understanding which explicitly identifies Israel (as in Daniel 9 and 11), 
and much of the Bible is set aside as pictoral instead of literal.  This is 
the basic approach of amillennialism.

I'll stop there, and leave off my asbestos, trusting we'll not annihiliate 
each other ;-)

							Andrew

      Hi Andy,
    
        I was wondering what end-time prophecy you might have been
        referring to in Daniel Ch. 9.
    
        I believe that the time aspect of the 70 weeks (7x70) has
        a historicist fit, that it spans from 456 BC to 34 AD (I 
        might have the dates a little wrong) and that this conditional
        prophesy could go one of two ways.  It is a prophecy looking
        forward to a perfected last generation and it points to Israel
        as having the oppurtunity to allow God to finish the work thru
        them, "70 weeks are determined upon thy people."  The middle of
        the 70th week (which is adjacent to the 69th) marks the cross event.
        The end of the 70th week marks the time Israel would have done
        one of two things.  Either received God to such a fulness that
        they would have hastened the 2nd coming by being willing to 
        receive the latter rain OR by rejecting God _as a corporate body_.
    
        7x70.  Have you seen that number before?  That number symbolizes
        the limits of divine forbearance which is infinite, but whose 
        hands are tied when one has rejected God and His rejection of
        God is final.  Like Peter's conversation with Christ, "How often
        should I forgive...7 times?"  Jesus replies "7x70."
    
        Just as individuals have the free will to reject Christ, so do
        individuals.
    
        Jesus said of corporate Israel, "How often I wanted to gather 
        you as a mother hen gathers her chicks, but YE WOULD NOT!"
    
        Here is a corporate body utlizing its freely given choice, a
        choice God will not circumvent.  God honors the free choice of
        the will.
    
        That 7x70 in Daniel 9 is indication that as with individuals so
        with corporate bodies.  Each has a will it can exercise which
        God will not deny.
    
        I'm only speaking of the spiritual here.  I don't know  much about 
        'physical' promises.  I'd like to here about the promises you feel
        apply to only literal (physical) Israel and whether or not you
        see them as physical or spiritual promises.
    
                                                    Tony

Hey, I'll freely admit I'm an amillenialist.  Millenialism was condemned as a
heresy by the early church.

Since it appears the subject of the State of Israel has come up, I'm inspired
to make some comments on my thoughts of certain Christian ideas regarding this
State of Israel. 

I used to buy into all the Christian Zionist stuff.  But then I said, why should
Israelis (not Israelites) be excused from acting like the chosen people simply 
because the State of Israel might possibly have some place in end-times
theology?

The fact is, the people of Israel are acting in a manner entirely contrary to 
their calling as God's chosen people. I am not going to make excuses for the 
immoral and ungodly behavior of the State of Israel simply because I want Christ
to come again.  (Not that the Palistinians are angels.)  As I like to say, when
the Jews start acting like God's chosen people, then I'll start treating them as
God's chosen people. 

It really doesn't matter that there is a nation today named Israel.  A nation
set up by the Western powers by that name does not mean that this state will
play a part in end-times prophesy.  The Israel that will play a part in end
times prophesy is the nation of Abraham's children who obey the LORD and follow
his commandments.  I don't see a lot of similarity between the Israelis and 
God's chosen people of the Scriptures.

When the Israelis start acting like Israelites, instead of killing innocent
people and committing grave injustices, then I'll have some regard for the 
state of Israel.  Too many Christians are giving Israel a blank morality check
to do whatever they wish, just or unjust, simply because they think that the
success of Israel is going to make Jesus come again.  I refuse to gloss over
Israel's injustices for the sake of feeding my own eschatological craving. The
true Israel of end-times prophesy will be known by its fruits.

I am not dismissing the role of the Israel Paul mentions in end times, nor am
I dismissing the role of God's Chosen People, the Jews, in the latter day
history of salvation.  However, Scripture says that we shall know the tree by
its fruits, and so far I'm not convinced that the State of Israel today is the
Israel that Paul is referring to.

Eric

    Eric,  I tend to agree with you. Isreal the current nation was set up by
    political decree after WW II not by the Isrealites.  Yes, the Jews are
    the chosen people, BY which the chosen will be saved, but there are
    many in Isreal that do not fall into that catagory.
    
      PDM

Eric,

No need for asbestos underwear - heaven's sakes! ;-)

I originally wrote a quick reply for this in the other topic, but that 
ended up getting lost in a transfer - then found again - then attached to 
another note - then lost again.

Well - now it's found again, and I edited it to try to make the point 
clearer.  I'm going to split this into two replies - one to briefly cover 
"replacement 'theology'" and anti-Semitism; and the other to briefly cover 
the issue of all believers having one identity in Messiah, yet continuing to 
have distinct roles before and after putting their trust in Yeshua.
    
I'm glad Andrew opened the topic.  I usually only get to pop in here during 
lunch these days and serious noting requires a lot more time than I have.  I 
hope these brief notes suffice for now and are of some help.


On "replacement 'theology'" and anti-Semitism...
------------------------------------------------


Well - I do have to be honest with you, I think that "replacement
'theology'" (and related 'doctrine') is anti-Semitic as it seeks to "do
away" with the Jewish people (something G-d said would never happen, unless
someone could remove the stars from their order, ref. Jer 31:35-37) by 
replacing Jews with Gentiles; rather than to recognize that Gentiles are 
graciously grafted into Israel by their faith in Yeshua (Rom. 9-11, 
Eph. 2-3), the promised Jewish Messiah. 

I point this out because there are many Jewish people who think the NT 
itself to be anti-Semitic because it is said to teach this "replacement 
'theology'".  I think it's important to point out that:

	1) the NT emphatically does *not* teach "replacement" of Jews as 
	G-d's chosen people [though sadly, through the centuries, some of 
	its readers did], again, ref. Romans...

	2) there are plenty of comments in the Tanakh (what some call the OT) 
	that if lifted out of context would also appear to be anti-Semitic

Taking any Biblical quote out of context to "prove" G-d's disdain for His
chosen people is, in my mind, anti-Semitic, and sadly, this is done all the
time.  That said, I think it should be clear that it is *not* anti-Semitic
to challenge a Jewish person to re-think his/her belief or action anymore
than it is anti-Gentile to challenge a Gentile to re-think his/her same.  
If such challenges were anti-Semitic, G-d Himself and the prophets of the 
Tanakh would also qualify as anti-Semites, starting with Moshe (Moses) and 
on down the line. 

What *is* anti-Semitic is the writing off of the Jewish people as being 
"finished" as far as G-d is concerned (ref. Jer. 31:35-37), "Christ-killers" 
(see Luke 18:31,32), or forcing Jews to renounce their heritage and abolish 
Torah observance (ref. Luke 11:42, Matt. 5:14-20).  This is *especially* 
pathetic when proclaimed as necessary for believing in Yeshua!.  Sadly, much 
of this was fueled by what was called the church (non-caps purposely) and 
still is - in spite of the fact that these concepts directly conflict with 
Yeshua's own teachings on the matter.

The New Testament Scriptures are not anti-Semitic anymore than the Tanakh
is.  Like the Tanakh, the NT does present many challenges to G-d's chosen
people.  The primary challenge is to "wrestle" with this Yeshua of Nazareth 
and perhaps re-think the ways G-d's Torah has been perverted into legalism 
and a means of earning righteousness by works or birthright (which was never 
G-d's intention), and to see Torah in its proper light - through faith in 
Yeshua.

  
On Salvation and distinct roles...
----------------------------------

For what it's worth, I believe there is only one Way of Salvation (one way
of, in Hebrew, "yeshua"), through Yeshua the Messiah (ref. John 14:6). 
All, whether Jew or Gentile, slave or free, man or woman must be saved by
G-d's gracious gift of faith in Yeshua - period.  No one enters the kindgom
merely by birthright, or by his own 'good' works, but all may enter through
the Firstfruits - the Messiah.  There were some Jewish people who believed
that their observance of Torah and their being physical descendants of
Avraham (Abraham) guaranteed their righteous status in G-d's eyes - but
Yeshua challened them (and challenges us) that if we wish to consider
ourselves Avraham's children, we must do as Avraham did (John 8:30-39).  And 
what did Avraham do some 400 years before Torah was given to Moshe? 
    
See Genesis 15:6 - quite simply, he believed in G-d and in His promises to him. 
That has been the good news of salvation since before the foundation of the 
world...faith, period.
    
However - we're left with an interesting dillema - in that Rav Sha'ul 
(Paul) who himself said there was no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or 
free, man or woman (Gal 3:26-29), identifies himself continually as a Jew 
(Acts 21:39, 22:3, Rom 9:1-4, Phil 3:5,6, etc.), recognizes Gentiles, sent 
Onesimus (a slave) back to Philemon (a free man) as he was, (hoping for, but 
not requiring Philemon to free him), and certainly made many distinctions in 
the roles of believing men and women.
    
In fact, in Romans 9-11, Rav Sha'ul wishes he might be accursed if it would 
mean his own bretheren, the Jewish people, would see Yeshua for who He is - 
and by chapter 11...well, you read it ;-)
    
The point being - while there is only one Way of salvation (by G-d's
gracious gift of faith in the L-rd Yeshua the Messiah), men don't cease to
be men and become women, women don't cease to be women and become men,
slaves and free men don't automatically exchange places, and neither do
Jews and Gentiles lose their unique and distinct identities as we all live
out our lives as believers.  

Acts 15 makes it clear that Gentiles are not to be "Judaized", and one
could certainly make the assumption that neither are Jews to be "Gentilized".  
There are plenty of Scriptures that speak of the eternal requirements for 
Israel to observe Torah**, of Yeshua's own teaching that He had not come to 
do away with Torah (Mat 5:17), and of Rav Sha'ul affirming Torah observance 
for Jewish believers in Yeshua ([Rom 3:31] though Torah observance was *not* 
to be forced upon Gentile believers as a legalistic means of attaining 
righteousness [Acts 15]).

	** see  Gen 17:1-19
		Ex 12:1-42
		Lev 23
		Num 10:8
	    	Deut 7:6-9
	and compare Deut 6:4-5 with Mark 12:28,29

Which brings up a question - if, as you say, there is only one Israel and
that is the Church, and the Church is for the most part made up of
Gentiles, but Gentiles are not required to observe the Torah, but Israel is
commanded to observe Torah "as an everlasting covenant", "forever",
"eternally, in whatever lands you are in", etc., why doesn't the Church
observe Torah?  Logically, if the Church is now Israel - the Church should 
behave like Israel, should it not?  Especially since the L-rd Yeshua 
Himself told His fellow Jewish people not to think He had come to abolish 
or do away with Torah or the prophets - but had come to fulfill them.  
Perhaps that's another note... 
    
There are some Jewish people today who think Rabbi Schneerson is the messiah 
- you don't see them becoming Gentiles to do that.  Nor did the followers of 
Bar Kochba in the first century CE, nor did the followers of Shabbatai Z'vi 
in the middle ages.  It's just not logical to think of Jews ceasing to be 
Jewish because they believe Messiah has come.  Messiah is a Jewish concept 
to start with!
    
Just as Rav Sha'ul never claimed to be a Gentile because he believed Yeshua 
to be the promised Messiah, neither should today's Jews who believe as Rav 
Sha'ul did.  And just as the brothers at the council of Jerusalem (in Acts 15) 
decided that Gentiles who put their trust in in Yeshua needn't convert to 
Judaism to do so, neither should today's Gentiles feel the need to convert to 
Judaism to put their trust in the (Jewish) Messiah.
    
I think there is much G-d wants to show us in our being echad (one) in 
Messiah, but having different roles.  To me, the picture shows us that just 
as day isn't exalted over night, but each needs the other for definition and 
completeness, so too should be the relationship between Jewish and Gentile 
believers in Yeshua (as it should be between men and women, prisoners and 
free people, etc.).

We could take an object lesson from the first man and woman.  When G-d 
created her, He didn't say - "great - this is the new Adam - now I can be done 
with that old Adam I created".  

Likewise, in marriage, men and women are described as being no longer two,
but one flesh; yet the husband and wife continue to have different roles - 
both different, but equally vital to the relationship.

Rav Sha'ul described Messiah's body being like the marriage relationship as 
well (Eph 5:28-32).

Eric,

re: .10

>Hey, I'll freely admit I'm an amillenialist.  Millenialism was condemned as a
>heresy by the early church.

A good portion of "doctrine" taught by the "church" at the point where Jews 
were being forced (by the "church) to forsake their heritage or die, is 
heresy itself.  The earliest "church" wasn't "church" - it was Yeshua, a 
Jew, and his Jewish followers.  And as Gentiles began to flock to the good 
news of this Shepherd King, the true "church" fathers decided that it 
wasn't right to force Gentiles to give up their identity to believe in 
the Jewish Messiah.  Yet the heretical "'church' 'fathers'" decided that Jews 
should cease to be Jews to put their faith in Yeshua.   Wheat and tares do 
indeed grow together.

>Since it appears the subject of the State of Israel has come up, I'm inspired
>to make some comments on my thoughts of certain Christian ideas regarding this
>State of Israel. 

It wasn't my intention to discuss the State of Israel, I was merely picking 
up on your comment that the only "Israel" is the "Church" - a comment I 
wholeheartedly disagree with.  By whom do you feel inspired with regard to 
your following comments on Israel?

>I used to buy into all the Christian Zionist stuff.  But then I said, why should
>Israelis (not Israelites) be excused from acting like the chosen people simply 
>because the State of Israel might possibly have some place in end-times
>theology?

First, supporting Israel's right to the land has nothing to do with 
"end-times" theology.  It has everything to do with believing that when G-d 
makes an eternal promise, He means it.  That G-d promised to bring His 
people back from all the lands where He had scattered them is simply 
another promise that He, in accordance with His faithful character, chooses 
to keep.  I should think we'd want to rejoice that G-d is faithful even 
when man isn't.

Secondly, you should be thankful G-d's love and acceptance of you isn't as 
conditional as is yours towards Israelis.

>The fact is, the people of Israel are acting in a manner entirely contrary to 
>their calling as God's chosen people. 

I see.  And the "new Israel", the "church", who for the past 1800 years or 
so has a clear record on its anti-Semitic actions has nothing to be ashamed of?

To be sure - the Church has done many lovely and wonderful things during 
this time as well - and in my opinion, the good things have (by percentage) 
far outweighed the bad.  But do you deny the documented writs of the "fathers" 
calling Jews swine, devils, etc.? - the writs of "conversion" that forced 
the Jews to renounce everything about themselves under penalty of death?

If you can find it, I highly recommend Schonfeld's book, "The History of 
Jewish Christianity".  Or you might want to read a book that is currently in 
print by Dr. Michael Brown entitled, "Our Hands are Stained with Blood".

>I am not going to make excuses for the immoral and ungodly behavior of the 
>State of Israel simply because I want Christ to come again.  

No one should make excuses for immoral and ungodly behavior from anyone.  
Believe me, I have plenty of arguments with the State of Israel (not the 
least of which being their treatment of the Beresfords, their leaving of 
Ethiopian Jewish believers in Ethiopia when all other Jews were taken to 
the land, etc.).  I have plenty of arguments with many States.  No ungodly 
behavior should be excused.

>(Not that the Palistinians are angels.)  

The Palestinians aren't devils or angels - they're people - people who do 
some good things and some bad things.

>As I like to say, when the Jews start acting like God's chosen people, then 
>I'll start treating them as God's chosen people. 

As David liked to say, I'm glad my judge is the L-rd and not men!

>I don't see a lot of similarity between the Israelis and God's chosen people 
>of the Scriptures.

You don't?  Perhaps you should keep reading.  The Israelites of the 
Scriptures did their fair share of good things and stupid things.  For the 
good things, they were rewarded, for the stupid things, they suffered much.  

>When the Israelis start acting like Israelites, instead of killing innocent
>people and committing grave injustices, then I'll have some regard for the 
>state of Israel.  

Firstly, your premise of who is "innocent" could be tainted by the "fair" 
media reports we get here.  The Proverbs tell us that one side of the story 
sounds really neat - until you hear the other side.

Secondly, your conditional "regard" is quite the opposite of the 
unconditional love the L-rd has for you - or has He told you "when you 
start acting right, Eric, then I'll love you"?

>Too many Christians are giving Israel a blank morality check to do whatever 
>they wish, just or unjust, simply because they think that the success of 
>Israel is going to make Jesus come again.  

Some may be this extreme.  Firstly, let me say that nothing any man does is 
going to bring about the L-rd's return.  He will come when the Father sends 
Him - period.  And again - regardless of the source, I don't support 
immorality - be it in myself, in you, in the Church, or in the Kenneset.  
However, as many are fond of saying, we must hate the sin and love the one 
who sinned.

>I refuse to gloss over Israel's injustices for the sake of feeding my own 
>eschatological craving. 

Again - the State of Israel was not what I thought we were talking about.  
There are plenty of wacky eschatological theories floating around out 
there.  I don't subscribe to them.  I too abhor injustice, be it on 
Israel's part or the part of Israel's "neighbors", many of whom have 
published in their charters that they will not rest until Israel is driven 
into the sea.

>I am not dismissing the role of the Israel Paul mentions in end times, nor am
>I dismissing the role of God's Chosen People, the Jews, in the latter day
>history of salvation.  However, Scripture says that we shall know the tree by
>its fruits, and so far I'm not convinced that the State of Israel today is the
>Israel that Paul is referring to.

Fair enough assessment - Israel has a role and you're not sure that the 
State of Israel that exists today is what Sha'ul was referring to.

Sha'ul also said that it your role is to provoke the Jewish people to be 
jealous of your relationship with the L-rd.  In your own assessment, do you 
think that you're fulfilling your role such that the Jewish people you know 
are convinced that you're to be envied as Sha'ul referred to?  And if 
you're not, do you think the L-rd will simply "disregard" you until you 
start "acting the way you're supposed to"?

Jews and Gentiles have through the centuries failed to act as we're 
supposed to.  But thankfully, G-d isn't One who loves conditionally.

If You, Oh L-rd kept a record of our sins, who could stand?

Shalom, Eric,



Steve

Re .12, .13

I think that what you say is quite agreeable and I don't think I much disagree.
As Scripture tells us, it's not that the Law has been abolished, or Israel
abandoned.  The Gentiles have been grafted into the olive tree, Israel. 

interestingly enough, I just read a parts of a very bitter condemnation of
"Replacement theology" by Hal Lindsay who calls it anti-Semitic; however again
his motivation is due to his particular eschatological few and his firm belief
that the State of Israel is crucial to the Second Coming.

Anyway, I am certainly not arguing that Israel has been "replaced" or "finished"
or the promise broken, or the Jews "done away with."  As you say, the Gentiles 
are graciously grafted into the olive tree.  God does not disdain His chosen 
people, the Jews, at all, and although those Jews who deny Yeshua as Mashiach 
are no longer part of the olive tree, I still believe that God has a special 
plan for them and grants them special graces.

What we have now, unfortunately, is the nation of Israel being almost entirely
made up of grafted in wild branches, with a huge number of natural but cut off
branches who honestly believe themselves to still be part of the olive tree,
even those who do not even obey the Law of Moses. Those who obey the Law of
Moses, who fear God and follow the Tanakh, who await the coming of the Messiah
but through no fault of their own do not realize that Yeshua is the Mashiach,
are in a real but incomplete way members of the nation of Israel.

Regarding forced Gentilization of the Jewish believers in Yeshua: I don't think
that the Jews should be forced to become Gentiles anymore than the Gentiles
should be forced to become Jews.  However, I think that the issue of Jewish
believers in Yeshua maintaining their own traditions in the church is as
unresolved today as it was in the first century.  Historically, it appears that
Jewish Christians were quite common until they were forced out of the synagogues
by the destruction of the Temple and the number of Jews accepting Yeshua came
to a virtual halt.  Gentiles so overran the church that any hope of maintaining
a Jewish identity within the church was eventually lost, and antagonism between
Christians and Jews caused the Jewish Christians to abandon their traditions.
Ever since the second century, the church has been almost entirely Gentile.
I think that there is a degree of incompatibility between the practice of Jews
before Christ and Christianity; for example, obviously temple sacrifices have
ended.  Other changes have occurred; for example, I believe that the Passover
has been fulfilled by the Eucharist and the Christian Pascha (Easter) and should
no longer be celebrated according to the Jewish way.  I'm not sure we really
know how much the early Jewish Christians retained their Judaism.

Why doesn't the church observe the Mosaic Law, or look like Israel? First I
would say that because it is almost entirely Gentile, and especially in churches
like the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, and Anglican church which no longer 
really distinguish between Jews and Gentiles within themselves, that the church 
no longer strictly emphasizes all of the Jewish traditions.  However you will 
find I think that the Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican churches much more closely 
resemble the Israelite church than Protestant churches, especially in certain 
rites. For example, the Maronite Rite is a Syrian rite and is very, very 
strongly imbued with Jewish symbolism -- in fact, their churches are patterned 
after the Temple.  We rely on both written and oral tradition, we worship
liturgically like the Jews, we use physical signs such as oil, water, and wine,
and we have a visible leadership.

Anyway I have more to say but it's time to get home . . . by the way I haven't
read .14 yet.

Eric

    Regarding the state of Israel today. While modern day man created a
    state of Israel, it is very clear that God has blessed its
    establishment and redefined its borders. If God had not wanted Israel
    to remain an independent country the Israelis would have lost the war
    in 1948. If God had wanted the borders to remain the way man had
    established them they Israelis would not have won the war in 1967. It
    is very clear to me that God is working through men to set in order his
    plan.
    
    Also I'd like to interject a thought. It has been my observation that
    while the CHURCH and Israel are not linked through faith in Messiah
    today, there is however a very clear linkage. I have noticed that when
    things happen in the natural to Israel things happen, on a spiritual
    plane, to the body of Messiah.

  Hi Steve,

    I read through your replies and I'm presenting just one difference
    (which actually cuts very deep).

    That is our understanding of law.  Recognizing that there were several
    'laws' in the OT, all are schoolmasters but for different reasons.
    Certainly the sacrificial laws are a schoolmaster to point to the
    reality that God Himself would be a sacrifice for us.  That seems
    clear.  Before the cross, it must have been incredible to consider
    that God Himself would actually be the sacrifice.

    Then there are clearly moral laws.  "Love your neighbor" and "Love 
    God with all your heart" are in the OT.  Clearly, these are different
    than a law commanding the sacrifice of a dove for example.  Human
    reason easily recognizes the differences between these two types of
    laws.

    I see Romans 3:31 as being absolutely general and not applying to
    persons of Jewish descent and I cannot see how the context can 
    point to Romans 3:31 as applying to only physical Jews.  In the
    preceding verses, Paul speaks of both Jews and Gentile and he speaks
    of both in the context of the gospel and justification by faith.
    He justifies both (Rom 3:26), He is the God of both (Rom. 3:29), He
    justifies both by faith (Rom 3:30).  Romans 4 is an exposition of
    when (and how) one is justified.  Nothing of the context speaks of
    applying uniquely to physical Jews.  Abraham is used not as a physical
    Jew but rather as _a prototype of one who exercises faith_ (in
    Romans 4).

    And nestled in between these texts speaking of the everlasting gospel,
    Paul says...

    Romans 3:31
    Do we then make void the law through faith?  God forbid: yea, we
    establish the law.

    Steve, how did you contextually come up with the 'we' being physical
    Jews only??!

    Numerous passages reveal a different understanding of law and one
    that is inclusive of Gentile and Jew (should they have faith).

    Isaiah 51:4,5
    Hearken unto me, ye that            _know righteoussness_,
    the people in whose heart           _is my law;_

    The law in its spiritual depth is the righteoussness of Christ.  When
    we exercise faith, we receive Christ's righteoussness or in other
    words, WE RECEIVE THE LAW.  Its right in our hearts.

    That's what Paul is saying in Romans 3:31.  He is saying that we are
    justified by faith and that faith itself enables God to write His 
    righteoussness (His law) right in our hearts and thus justification
    by faith establishes the law (Rom. 3:31).

    But, yes, there is a difference in laws as explained above.  Some 
    are obviously moral.  Others are object lessons to teach us something
    about the plan of salvation.  Some have passed away because that which
    they taught was a shadow of that which has already taken place.  (Perhaps
    [as a sidethought] it would assist Israel to renew their sacrifices
    for it may lead them to see their fulfillment in Messiah.)

    But, all I'm saying is that your understanding is placing the law away
    from Gentile and only to Jew and my undersdanding is that precious 
    gospel truths (as foundational as justification by faith) are misunderstood
    because you are taking what applies to the gospel (Rom 3:31/understandings
    of law) and giving them a uniquely Jewish and thus not gospel basis.

    Doesn't Jeremiah speak of the law being written in the heart?  Just like
    Isaiah did?

    How do you reconcile this Steve?

    The jugular is being hit when the law that is written in our hearts is
    construed to be something else.  That law in Romans 3:31 is a critical
    piece of the puzzle that teaches us what justification by faith is and
    that piece is this...

    To be justified is to be made righteouss is to have the law written in
    our hearts.  God writes the law in our heart as our faith allows Him
    to.  Yes, its a continuous process, but the Word of God itself straightens
    out (justifies) the individual's character.

    And thus the truth of justification by faith establishes the law.

    Your view seems to support (perhaps indirectly) the view that justification
    is declaration only and doesn't include an actual heart-change.  But, the
    Bible says (as Paul quotes from Habbakuk 2:4) 

    "The doers of the law are justified."

    And that for the reasons above.  Faith allows God to do just that -
    actually write His law in our hearts, renovate the heart, make us
    righteouss (all the same thing).

                                                      Tony

re: .18

Hi Tony,

This is quite a bit off-topic, but I'll take a stab at it...I was only 
trying to address the issue Eric brought up in another note...I 
unfortunately can't seriously delve into discussions at this time because 
work is very swampped for me right now.  This is a brief answer to your 
question, but I hope it suffices for now...

>    ...all I'm saying is that your understanding is placing the law away
>    from Gentile and only to Jew and my undersdanding is that precious 
>    gospel truths (as foundational as justification by faith) are misunderstood
>    because you are taking what applies to the gospel (Rom 3:31/understandings
>    of law) and giving them a uniquely Jewish and thus not gospel basis.
>
>    Doesn't Jeremiah speak of the law being written in the heart?  Just like
>    Isaiah did?
>
>    How do you reconcile this Steve?

I will tell you how I reconcile what I think you're asking me to reconcile.  

Could you tell me how you reconcile the notion that gospel isn't Jewish?  
At least it appears that way to me when you say that I am taking what
applies to the gospel and giving it a "uniquely Jewish and thus not
gospel basis".  Romans 4 talks about Avraham being justified by faith
(before receiving circumcision in his flesh). If that's not the gospel
(being justified by faith) what is?  Isn't Avraham the first Hebrew?  

Seems to me Jewish and gospel are analagous to hand and glove, as is Jewish
and B'rit Chadesha (New Covenant).  If you look closely at the Jeremiah and
Isaiah passages you're referring to (specifically in verses Jer. 31:31, and
Is. 51:3, 16), you'll see that the New Covenant, and writing of Torah on
hearts and minds is a promise to the house of Israel, the house of Judah,
and Zion.

As to your question.

Firstly, I would hope we can agree that Acts 15 is abundantly clear on the 
issue of whether Gentiles are required to observe Torah.  If we don't agree 
on that, don't bother reading the rest of this ;-)

Now - whether a Gentile believer *chooses* to observe Torah is an open 
question in my mind.  Galatians warns Gentiles that being "judaized"** is a 
peril, making his faith of no use to him!

  **Judaized meaning, adopting the practices of Judaism thinking that observing 
  the commands (as opposed to, or even in addition to faith alone) will make 
  one righteous, or by thinking that the Jew has better position in Messiah 
  than the Gentile.

It's clear in Acts, Galatians, and really throughout the NT that Gentiles 
*are not required* to observe the commands of Torah.  It is also a common 
understanding among the Jewish community that Gentiles are only required to 
observe the Noachic Covenant (which, incidentally, is what the decision in 
Acts 15 is all about).

But I think Rav Sha'ul's point in Rom 3:31 is that in light of this fact 
(that both Jew and Gentile are justified by faith, apart from observing 
Torah), one might ask the question "what then are we to do with Torah?  Throw 
it away?"  Don't forget - he was preaching mainly to Gentiles and many of 
his fellow Jews were accusing him of abolishing G-d's eternal commandments 
of Torah.  Here's his reply:

From Romans 8:27-21

"Where then is boasting? It is excluded.  On what principle?  On that of 
obeserving Torah?  No, but on that of faith.  For we maintain that a man 
is justified by faith *apart from* observing Torah.  Is G-d the G-d of the 
Jews only [for whom Torah is a requirement, SM]?  Is he not the G-d of the 
Gentiles too [who are not required to observe Torah, SM]?  Yes, of the Gentiles 
too, since there is only *one* G-d who will justify the circumcised by faith 
and the uncircumcised through that same faith.  Do we then, nullify the 
Torah by this faith?  NOT AT ALL!  Rather, we uphold the Torah."

"We" uphold the Torah.  Who's the "we"?  If Gentiles aren't required to 
observe Torah, but "we" are upholding Torah, confirming that it is indeed 
*not* nullified by our faith in Yeshua...then the "we" this Torah 
observance is upheld for is Jewish believers in Yeshua - who through faith, 
apart from Torah observance, are justified.

In other words - Torah observance, though it doesn't make the Jewish 
believer righteous, is still upheld and maintained by the Jewish believer 
in Yeshua - who has been justified by his faith (which Habakkuk prophesied, 
see Hab. 2:4).

The Law written on the hearts of all believers, Jew and Gentile alike is 
the Law of Love.

When asked what was the *greatest* commandment, He said:

	Sh'ma Yisrael Adonai Eloheynu Adonai Echad!

	Hear, O Israel, the L-rd your G-d, the L-rd is One!
	*Love* the L-rd your G-d with all your heart, soul, mind & strength.
	The second is like it....*love* your neighbor as yourself. (see Mark 12)

In another gospel account of this same story, He adds that the Torah and 
the Prophets hang on these two commands (loving G-d, loving our neighbors).

Gal 6:2 says to bear one another's burdens and in so doing, *fulfill* the Law 
of Messiah.

In other words - if one *really* loves G-d, and if one *really* loves one's 
neighbor, he will not commit adultery, steal, murder, covet, etc. etc, and 
it matters not if one is a Jewish or Gentile believer in Yeshua - this is 
how we will behave because it is who we are.

However - there are unique commandments which make the Jewish people a holy 
(distinct, set-apart) nation, and they are upheld (Rom 3:31), even for 
those Jews who believe in Yeshua (as I hope I've explained above).  The 
commands of Torah are *everlasting* for the Jewish people (both believers 
in Yeshua and non-believers alike).

That is how I reconcile it, Tony.  Hope that helps some.

Steve

> The earliest "church" wasn't "church" - it was Yeshua, a Jew, and his Jewish 
> followers.

Well, Scripture calls it a church, I think, and Jesus even gave Rabbinical
authority to the Apostles "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,
whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." But that's another
story.

> Yet the heretical "'church' 'fathers'" decided that Jews 
> should cease to be Jews to put their faith in Yeshua.  

I think it was the scribes and the pharisees that decided that Christians
couldn't be Jews, not the church, at least that was a major part of it.
Scripture doesn't appear to be clear on the extent to which Jewish Christians
should maintain their traditions.

> By whom do you feel inspired with regard to your following comments on Israel?

I guess I just felt I needed to get it off my chest.  But when the subject of
the importance of Israel in the new covenant era comes up, it's almost always
linked to Christian Zionism and the current State of Israel.

> First, supporting Israel's right to the land has nothing to do with 
> "end-times" theology.  

I support Israel's right to the land. I do not however support forcibly dis-
placing and waging war against Christians to appropriate the land.  Is Israel
relying on Ha'Shem, or are they trusting in their own power?  Has Ha'Shem
instructed them to wage war against the inhabitants there, many of whom are
Christians, like he instructed them to rout and destroy the Chaldean pagans?

> Secondly, you should be thankful G-d's love and acceptance of you isn't as 
> conditional as is yours towards Israelis.

Love is one thing -- approbation is another.  For what it's worth, I'm probably
more disgusted with Palistinian Catholics and Orthodox than I am with the
Jews.  I'd say more serious injustices are committed by the "Catholics" in
Northern Ireland than by the Jews in Israel, and even worse injustices are
being committed by "Orthodox" (perhaps "Catholics" too) in the former Yugo-
slavia.  I condemn these even more than I do Israel, for "to whom much has been
given, much will be required."  However, evangelical Protestants do not praise
and support the I.R.A. or other unjust groups.

I'm probably more angry with the hypocritical Christians than I am with the
Israelis.  I just find it strange and disappointing that so many Christians 
virtually consider support for Israel a dogma of the faith as they lavish praise
on Israel, defend them, and send them money.  Israel loves it; newspapers there
return the strokes, praising the evangelical Protestants for seeing their view
while having not much good to say about Catholics and Orthodox who have to
endure the injustices of the Israelis.  Apparently the evangelicals would 
rather see Israel flourish than stop them from killing their fellow Christians.

God loves unconditionally, but he also visits wrath upon the unjust and dis-
obedient.  He does not approve of injustice committed by Israelis anymore than
he approves of injustice committed by Catholics or Orthodox or Protestants.
Loving sinners, be they Israelis, Catholics, or pagans, is one thing; lobbying
for and financially supporting injustice and persecution of Christians is quite
another.

If the Jews want Israel back, the best solution is to repent, humble themselves,
turn to the L-RD, trust in Ha'Shem, and rend their hearts, not to take up arms
and seize it by force.

>>The fact is, the people of Israel are acting in a manner entirely contrary to 
>>their calling as God's chosen people. 
> I see.  And the "new Israel", the "church", who for the past 1800 years or 
> so has a clear record on its anti-Semitic actions has nothing to be ashamed 
> of?

I didn't say that.  I'm speaking of the present, not the past.

> But do you deny the documented writs of the "fathers" 
> calling Jews swine, devils, etc.? - the writs of "conversion" that forced 
> the Jews to renounce everything about themselves under penalty of death?

Forced conversion has always been contrary to the teachings of the church;
whether or not it was carried out is another matter. Yes, those things were
done, but again I'm speaking of the present.  "Vengence is mine, says the L-RD;
I will repay." Past injustice does not merit Israel's retribution.

>>I am not going to make excuses for the immoral and ungodly behavior of the 
>>State of Israel simply because I want Christ to come again.  
> No one should make excuses for immoral and ungodly behavior from anyone.  

For the record, nor will I, whether it's Irish Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics
and Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, Croatian Catholics, or Syrian Catholics and 
Orthodox.

>>As I like to say, when the Jews start acting like God's chosen people, then 
>>I'll start treating them as God's chosen people. 
> As David liked to say, I'm glad my judge is the L-rd and not men!

I know a lot of evangelicals who reject as Christian a number of presidents 
who claim to be Christian on a lot less evidence.  I do not regard the I.R.A.
as Catholic, nor do I regard Serbian rapists as Orthodox (or Catholic), nor
any other group that rapes, pillages, murders, and destroys as followers of
Ha'Shem.

> Firstly, your premise of who is "innocent" could be tainted by the "fair" 
> media reports we get here.  The Proverbs tell us that one side of the story 
> sounds really neat - until you hear the other side.

True, the media _is_ pro-Palestinian.  But rarely to evangelicals tell you how
many Christians the Israelis are harming.

I am not implying that Palestinians are innocent in general, but there are 
innocent children and faithful Christians who are being harmed.
...

I'm very much a neophyte when it comes to the Jewish faith and traditions
but am wanting to learn more.

Anyway I have always had an admiration for the Jewish nation and people
as a whole.  That is not to say that I condone persecutions and killing
no more that I would for anyone else.

G_d made a promise to Abraham at the very start that his seed would be
blessed.  I don't believe that to be changed even now.

But, something to consider.  Our christian faith has sprung up from the
roots of the Jewish nation.  We are in fact grafted into the promises
of God.  There is a warning about us wild branches being grafted into Christ.
Beware of boasting and thinking we are better than the original branches 
being the Jews.

KJV
---
Romans 11:17\And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild o
live tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and f
atness of the olive tree;

Romans 11:18\Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not
 the root, but the root thee.
Romans 11:19\Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be g
raffed in.

Romans 11:20\Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest b
y faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

Romans 11:21\For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also
spare not thee.

Romans 11:24\For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature,
 and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall
 these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?

The prophesy regarding the second coming of Christ makes reference to the 
anti-christ rebuilding the temple in Jerusulem, turning it into an abomination
and re-instituting the animal sacrifices.  There is also mention of the 
conversion of 144,000 Jews after two old testament prophets return to earth 
and are killed.  These references do not appear to me that G_d has forgotten
his people the Jews.

From the standpoint of Isreal today, I can't say that I blame them for 
dealing with situations in what seems to be a very hostile manner.  They
have been persecuted since before Christ and after.  They as a people
have had to go through the holocaust.  Yet, they are still here as a 
nation and people today.  Isreal is surrounded by nothing but hostiles.
Compared to the U.S. which happens to have Canada and Mexico on it's 
boarders and is surrounded by ocean.  Terrorism is dealt with swiftly
in Isreal and quite effectively.  The loss of innocent life when they
deal with it in their way is significantly less.  Take WACO in the U.S.
as an example of how we can preserve innocent lives.

The U.S. is swiftly plunging into sin.  We are not totally innocent. Depending
on ones views on abortion it could be argued that we are no worse than
the persections going on in the middle east.  As a matter of fact the abortion
issue could be considered worse because the fetus has no way of defense {ie.
running, hiding, etc.} Anyway not to start a rathole here.

I had not heard the fellow brothers and sisters in Christ have been 
deliberate victims of attacks and killings.  This is sad if true and
something that I will be praying about.


                                               -Jim-




    

    I just found something interesting I never ran across before.
    
    Check out the introduction to the book of James.
    
    "James, a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve
    tribes in the dispersion, greetings."
    
    Evidence that the early church considered itself the New Israel?

    Eric,
    
    All that can be deduced from James 1v1 is that the original primary
    audience to which James was addressing this epistle were Jewish
    believers living in the dispersion; i.e; the mediterranaen region. 
    These Jews believers were part of the Jewish wing of the early Church;
    they were spiritual Jews or spiritual Israel; the Israel of God (Gal.
    6v16 ).
    
    A similar introduction is found in 1 Peter 1v1 :
    
    	"Peter, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, to the exiles of the dispersion
         in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia.... "
    
    The term "dispersion" is a technical term used to describe Jews
    resident outside the land of Israel. So the original primary audience 
    of this epistle were also Jewish believers.
    
    So, I don't believe that the whole Church either then or today make up
    spiritual Israel , but Jewish believers only.
    
    Tom.

re.21

	Eric,

> Evidence that the early church considered itself the New Israel?
	
	More probably evidence that James wasn't totally clear.

	8*)

ace

    The church is not Israel.  Israel is Israel.

    re:  .26
    
    See Romans 9:6-8.
    
    
    Steve
    

    See also Romans 11 and in Genesis dealing with the covenant with
    Abraham.  God does not break his covenants.  Gentiles have no hope for
    salvation without salvation for the Jews.