Grafted into what?

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Because I don't want to post in Theolog's thread, but wanted to explore this issue, I'm starting my own thread on the issue. More than one poster made the statement "Gentiles were then grafted into Israel". Silly me, but I thought they were grafted into Christ, the true vine :huh:

Thoughts?

[Geek Eclectic]

Christ is Israel. That's why Gentiles can be grafted in and national Jews can be pruned off.

[Secretary of Defense Crow]

Because I don't want to post in Theolog's thread, but wanted to explore this issue, I'm starting my own thread on the issue. More than one poster made the statement "Gentiles were then grafted into Israel". Silly me, but I thought they were grafted into Christ, the true vine :huh:

Thoughts?

I always figured that it was a way to describe being brought into relationship with Christ.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

:hrm: Christ IS Israel? Can you back that up with scripture?


Israel is God's chosen nation in the OT and the church is the bride of Christ in the NT, not Christ Himself.

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

Christ is Israel. That's why Gentiles can be grafted in and national Jews can be pruned off.

Very good point. I would change "can" to "could" in both instances as there really is no Jew/Gentile distinction anymore.

[The Curtmudgeon]

Because I don't want to post in Theolog's thread, but wanted to explore this issue, I'm starting my own thread on the issue. More than one poster made the statement "Gentiles were then grafted into Israel". Silly me, but I thought they were grafted into Christ, the true vine :huh:

Thoughts?

I won't claim to speak for everyone that used that phrase in t'other thread, :btc:, but as a general idea, the claim "Gentiles were then grafted into Israel" doesn't have anything to do with the vine = Christ, but rather Paul's simile of the olive tree.

17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; 18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.

The argument is based on the idea that the olive tree is used throughout Scripture as a symbol of Israel, and that therefore Paul is saying here that Gentiles were grafted into Israel.

If you, on the other hand, argue that Paul is talking about Gentiles being grafted into Christ, then you're faced with the perplexing question, "How then were the Jews previously in Christ, prior to being broken off?" This is especially considered nonsense by those who accept OSAS, but it's a tough question even if you don't: Paul would seem to be teaching that the Jews were Christians already, before Christ was incarnated, and that doesn't really mesh with his teachings elsewhere.

I (and I'm not original in this) reject both of these positions: The Jews were not pre-Christ Christians, and Gentiles are not grafted into Israel. Just because the olive tree is used as a symbol of Israel in some Scriptures (and it definitely is), does not require it to be seen as the same symbol in other Scriptures (e.g., Jesus is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, but Satan goes about as a roaring Lion seeking whom he might destroy, and in Daniel 7 the Lion symbolises the Kingdom of Babylon).

Rather, I believe that Paul's point here is to picture the relationship to God, or what Arnold Fruchtenbaum calls "The Place of God's Blessing". This brings the picture into line with other Scriptures: The Jews were in the Place of God's Blessing, even though they were not Christians, but lost it (collectively, not meaning every individual Jew) through their hardness of heart; the Gentiles, originally not in the Place of God's Blessing, have been grafted into that Place by accepting Christ; the Jews, as Paul goes on to state, will (or can) later be grafted back into the Place by also accepting Christ:

23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. 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 (does that clarify it for you?) Curtmudgeon

[Geek Eclectic]

My main scriptural support for my view on this is Galatians 3, specifically verse 16. Also, Jesus' speech to his disciples about his being the true vine. It fits together, to me, to say that this means Jesus is the promised Israel, and the nation promised to Abraham is therefore all who are in Christ, not necessarily only those of Hebrew heritage. I see the suzerainty treaty that established national Israel in Deuteronomy(and which I have good reason to believe was nullified by God in Revelation due to national Israel's continuing failure to keep up their own end of the treaty) as something different. I think the existence of non-Hebrew followers of God such as the Ninevites shows that being in Christ wasn't tied specifically to national Israel even in times prior to Christ's Advent.

[Secretary of the Navy Sparko]

:hrm: Christ IS Israel? Can you back that up with scripture?


Israel is God's chosen nation in the OT and the church is the bride of Christ in the NT, not Christ Himself.

Read Isaiah 49 and tell me who Israel is in verse 3

[dizzle]

:hrm: Christ IS Israel? Can you back that up with scripture?


Christ is the ideal Israel. "Out of Egypt I have called My Son" - we are "in Christ" which is entrance into the "New Jerusalem" which is the True Israel

[dizzle]

Read Isaiah 49 and tell me who Israel is in verse 3

Exactly, and it is the way to understand the Servant Songs.

[dizzle]

My main scriptural support for my view on this is Galatians 3, specifically verse 16. Also, Jesus' speech to his disciples about his being the true vine. It fits together, to me, to say that this means Jesus is the promised Israel, and the nation promised to Abraham is therefore all who are in Christ, not necessarily only those of Hebrew heritage. I see the suzerainty treaty that established national Israel in Deuteronomy(and which I have good reason to believe was nullified by God in Revelation due to national Israel's continuing failure to keep up their own end of the treaty) as something different. I think the existence of non-Hebrew followers of God such as the Ninevites shows that being in Christ wasn't tied specifically to national Israel even in times prior to Christ's Advent.

I really recommend The Israel of God in Prophecy. There is a chapter called "the Christological interpretation" and it is fantastic. Truly all of the Scriptures are about Christ. And that is where dispensenationalists get it wrong. Israel after the flesh was NEVER the focus - it was always Christ.

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

I really recommend The Israel of God in Prophecy. There is a chapter called "the Christological interpretation" and it is fantastic.

I have that book as well. :thumb:

Truly all of the Scriptures are about Christ. And that is where dispensenationalists get it wrong. Israel after the flesh was NEVER the focus - it was always Christ.Absolutely correct. That is Pauls point in Romans 9-11 as well. :thumb:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Christ is Israel. That's why Gentiles can be grafted in and national Jews can be pruned off.
Yeah, that's what I've come to think too. It can't simply be Israel that Gentiles are grafted into, because there are Israelites who are pruned out, even though they are part of Israel. It has to be the true Israel, the Jerusalem above, which is our mother, the Israel of God - Christ, the vine.

All these biblical sayings, in my view, rule out the view that it is the geo-political nation of Israel that God is concerned with, and that the biblical prophecies about "Israel" are all about that thing. These passages and more all work together to show that this is not what God is concerned about. That's why (well, it's one reason why) I can never ever consider a dispensational view of prophecy plausible at all. It overlooks the fundamental shift in Identity that the covenant people of God underwent in the New Testament.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

I won't claim to speak for everyone that used that phrase in t'other thread, :btc:, but as a general idea, the claim "Gentiles were then grafted into Israel" doesn't have anything to do with the vine = Christ, but rather Paul's simile of the olive tree.

17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; 18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.

The argument is based on the idea that the olive tree is used throughout Scripture as a symbol of Israel, and that therefore Paul is saying here that Gentiles were grafted into Israel.

If you, on the other hand, argue that Paul is talking about Gentiles being grafted into Christ, then you're faced with the perplexing question, "How then were the Jews previously in Christ, prior to being broken off?" This is especially considered nonsense by those who accept OSAS, but it's a tough question even if you don't: Paul would seem to be teaching that the Jews were Christians already, before Christ was incarnated, and that doesn't really mesh with his teachings elsewhere.

I (and I'm not original in this) reject both of these positions: The Jews were not pre-Christ Christians, and Gentiles are not grafted into Israel. Just because the olive tree is used as a symbol of Israel in some Scriptures (and it definitely is), does not require it to be seen as the same symbol in other Scriptures (e.g., Jesus is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, but Satan goes about as a roaring Lion seeking whom he might destroy, and in Daniel 7 the Lion symbolises the Kingdom of Babylon).

Rather, I believe that Paul's point here is to picture the relationship to God, or what Arnold Fruchtenbaum calls "The Place of God's Blessing". This brings the picture into line with other Scriptures: The Jews were in the Place of God's Blessing, even though they were not Christians, but lost it (collectively, not meaning every individual Jew) through their hardness of heart; the Gentiles, originally not in the Place of God's Blessing, have been grafted into that Place by accepting Christ; the Jews, as Paul goes on to state, will (or can) later be grafted back into the Place by also accepting Christ:

23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. 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 (does that clarify it for you?) Curtmudgeon

You hit many of my thoughts on the matter. It makes no sense to draw a distinction here between Israel and the gentiles and then expect it to be tossed in favor of an "Israel the vine". I COULD (highly stressed) look at it as "all who are attached TO the vine are in Christ, and THEREFORE belong to Israel, but it ignores totally the distinction Paul was trying to make. Paul is directly addressing the distinction between Jew and gentile. The vine is not Israel. but it's King. Now I understand the Isaiah verse where the messiah is said to BE Israel (but I believe the Messiah is shown in Isaiah representing the nation of Israel i.e. the 12 tribes) , but that was not in Paul's view here. He is very careful in showing that national Israel as a whole WAS connected to the vine, but was cut off because of their unbelief in the Messiah. I'll respond more on this particular point to the others.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Christ is the ideal Israel. "Out of Egypt I have called My Son" - we are "in Christ" which is entrance into the "New Jerusalem" which is the True Israel

So that makes Christ the New Jerusalem?

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

I really recommend The Israel of God in Prophecy. There is a chapter called "the Christological interpretation" and it is fantastic. Truly all of the Scriptures are about Christ. And that is where dispensenationalists get it wrong.

I'm not a Dispy any more, remember? :wink:


Israel after the flesh was NEVER the focus - it was always Christ.

I agree and disagree based on this particular bit of scripture we are discussing. The natural Jews were attached to the vine, were they not? Or else, how were they "cut off" having never been attached?

As a New Covenant Theology holder, this verse fits my belief perfectly. At the cross, lineage became unimportant. Before the cross, all of the Jews were attached by nature of who they were. They were never said to have been grafted in to begin with. Their natural existing attachment had to be severed by their unbelief while the unattached gentiles had to be grafted in based on belief.

[gharfish]

To begin with, I am seeing that the "New Jerusalem" is the "True Israel." (Next): I wonder how does the "True..." differ from the "ideal..." ? Most importantly, our identification as being "in" Christ is the way of entrance into "New Jerusalem" = "True Israel."

I find this very confusing--don't understand any of it.

[jesterbr549]

I (and I'm not original in this) reject both of these positions: The Jews were not pre-Christ Christians, and Gentiles are not grafted into Israel. Just because the olive tree is used as a symbol of Israel in some Scriptures (and it definitely is), does not require it to be seen as the same symbol in other Scriptures (e.g., Jesus is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, but Satan goes about as a roaring Lion seeking whom he might destroy, and in Daniel 7 the Lion symbolises the Kingdom of Babylon).

Rather, I believe that Paul's point here is to picture the relationship to God, or what Arnold Fruchtenbaum calls "The Place of God's Blessing". This brings the picture into line with other Scriptures: The Jews were in the Place of God's Blessing, even though they were not Christians, but lost it (collectively, not meaning every individual Jew) through their hardness of heart; the Gentiles, originally not in the Place of God's Blessing, have been grafted into that Place by accepting Christ; the Jews, as Paul goes on to state, will (or can) later be grafted back into the Place by also accepting Christ:


The (does that clarify it for you?) Curtmudgeon

The problem with your belief is that the Apostle specifically states that we have been grafted into "the commonwealth" of Israel. That is exactly the same as saying a person moved to America and became a Citizen.

Period.

[themuzicman]

I think Paul is essentially drawing the continuity of God's purpose for Israel to come into the New Covenant via the remnant (see the first part of 11), and pointing out that Gentiles have come into the New Covenant, when Jews, who (according to the beginning of chapter 9) who were given the promises and covenants and adoption, rejected them and were, then broken off.

I don't think the vine is supposed to be specifically Israel OR God, per se, but "the people of God", those who engage in covenant with Him. Thus, the Jews who didn't believe were cut off from that people and the promises of the New Covenant therein. (Maybe the vine IS the New Covenant?)

Michael

[The Curtmudgeon]

The problem with your belief is that the Apostle specifically states that we have been grafted into "the commonwealth" of Israel. That is exactly the same as saying a person moved to America and became a Citizen.

Period.

Try again. The only reference to "commonwealth of Israel" in Paul's letters (at least, in KJV -- if you're using another translation help me out by giving me a reference) is Ephesians 2:12, and he never talks about grafting in that passage. He talks about the "middle wall of partition" being broken down, but that's not the same thing as being grafted into Israel at all.

The (bzzt -- thanx for playing!) Curtmudgeon

[jesterbr549]

Try again. The only reference to "commonwealth of Israel" in Paul's letters (at least, in KJV -- if you're using another translation help me out by giving me a reference) is Ephesians 2:12, and he never talks about grafting in that passage. He talks about the "middle wall of partition" being broken down, but that's not the same thing as being grafted into Israel at all.

The (bzzt -- thanx for playing!) Curtmudgeon

Says who, may I ask?

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."

Exactly how can a person be grafted into a tree?

Obviously, then, he is talking about being engrafted into the Kingdom of Israel which is why he gave the Keys of that Kingdom to Peter and contrary to popular ignorance, there is only one Kingdom.

Therefore, when Paul specifically mentions that the Gentiles have been brought near and in fact been made members of the Commonwealth of Israel, that is exaclty what it means.

The phrase, straining at a gnat occurs to me...

[jesterbr549]

"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God."

Thus, we are no longer "illegal aliens" of Israel but are now citizens of the commonwealth.

Try again...

[The Curtmudgeon]

Says who, may I ask?

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."

This passage says exactly nothing about grafting, and exactly nothing about "the commonwealth of Israel". Derailing your own train of thought is an interesting ploy, but of no usefulness whatsoever.

You claimed:
... the Apostle specifically states that we have been grafted into "the commonwealth" of Israel...

I countered that by showing that the only place the Apostle says anything at all about "the commonwealth of Israel" he doesn't say anything at all about grafting.

Your apparent answer to my counter-point is to bring up passages that are not about grafting and not about "the commonwealth of Israel". I'm sure you were (are?) a wizard at Dodgeball in school, but try to keep to the point in these discussions.

Exactly how can a person be grafted into a tree?

Ah, humour. How droll.

Obliviously, then, he is talking about being engrafted into the Kingdom of Israel which is why he gave the Keys of that Kingdom to Peter and contrary to popular ignorance, there is only one Kingdom.

I corrected your spelling. You're welcome.

I mean, you quote a passage that does not even mention the concepts of grafting or the Kingdom of Israel, and try to assert that it "obviously" is talking about that combination? "Oblivious" is the only applicable word for your argument.

Therefore, when Paul specifically mentions that the Gentiles have been brought near and in fact been made members of the Commonwealth of Israel, that is exaclty what it means.

The phrase, straining at a gnat occurs to me...

Except that you haven't shown any passage where Paul specifically mentions anything of the kind. When and if he ever does in the future, I'll be sure to pay attention to it, but for now, I'm relying on his written works, and I suggest that you try to do the same.

"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God."

Thus, we are no longer "illegal aliens" of Israel but are now citizens of the commonwealth.

Try again...

No, as he says, we are "fellow-citizens with" -- not "of" -- "the saints, and of the household of God" -- not "the commonwealth of Israel". Is English not your first language? If it is, your reading skills are deplorable.

Here, I'll try to make a modern analogy that perhaps (hopefully!) you'll find easier to understand than Paul's letters. In Ephesians 2, from which you quoted, Paul speaks about breaking down the "middle wall of partition" (or "the dividing wall of hostility" in the NIV). In the southern US states in the 1950s and earlier, it was common to have "Whites Water Fountain" and "Coloreds Water Fountain" clearly labelled. This is an example of a "dividing wall of hostility", I think we can agree. By laws and by forced enforcement of them in some cases, this no longer holds -- we only have "Water Fountains" now. This is an example of breaking down said wall, n'est ce pas? But the removal of this dividing wall of hostility does not make "whites" members of "the commonwealth of blacks" (or "blacks" members of "the commonwealth of whites", of course) -- it merely acknowledges that both are members of "the commonwealth of the USA" and have equal legal rights under the laws of that country.

Likewise, when Paul's "dividing wall of hostility" was broken down between Jews and Gentiles, it didn't make Gentiles into Jews/Israelites, nor did it make Jews into Gentiles; it merely acknowledged both groups as (potential, in this case) members of the Household of God. Previously, Gentiles (in general) were not members of God's Household, because before the Incarnation that Household was defined on different terms. But after Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, members of both groups could claim equal access to God and equal rights as members of His Household.

You appear to have a Humpty-Dumpty idea of how you can use the phrase "specifically stated", but in fact it has a clear meaning (outside the Looking-Glass world) that you are ignoring. When you have shown that Paul "specifically states" in any of his letters what you claim that he does, then we can have a meaningful conversation. If, on the other hand, you wish to assert merely that Paul teaches such a concept, then you should learn to say what you mean -- and then, of course, you'll still have the burden of showing that Paul means for such widely-separated passages chosen (apparently) at random from different letters to be understood as talking about a single concept.

The (words and phrases do have specific meanings, y'know) Curtmudgeon

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

As a New Covenant Theology holder, this verse fits my belief perfectly. At the cross, lineage became unimportant. Before the cross, all of the Jews were attached by nature of who they were.
I guess the issue there is "unimportant in regard to what?" The very point of God choosing a people for Himself was to bring Christ into the world, and it is in this sense that Israel was to be a blessing to all nations. Lineage was important for being part of that unique people, but was it important in being united to Christ? After all, being part of that unique covenant people and being united to Christ are not the same thing.

[jesterbr549]

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."

This passage says exactly nothing about grafting, and exactly nothing about "the commonwealth of Israel". Derailing your own train of thought is an interesting ploy, but of no usefulness whatsoever.

That passage is that passage concerning the commonwealth of Israel.

I countered that by showing that the only place the Apostle says anything at all about "the commonwealth of Israel" he doesn't say anything at all about grafting.

And I countered by reminding you of the complications of grafting a person into a tree.

Your apparent answer to my counter-point is to bring up passages that are not about grafting and not about "the commonwealth of Israel".

Which shows that you don't know your bible as well as you claim because, as stated, the verse I provided was from the passage in Ephesians that talks about the commonwealth.

I'm sure you were (are?) a wizard at Dodgeball in school, but try to keep to the point in these discussions.

"The same judgment you judge others with, you are guilty of yourself" - I am keeping the point on the discussion but you keep going round in circles and claiming that the passage I provided is not related to the very passage in question concerning the commonwealth of Israel.

Exactly how can a person be grafted into a tree?
Ah, humour. How droll.

That was not humor, troll, that was an obvious point. We can not be grafted into a tree so, therefore, we must be 'grafted' into the Nation of Israel.

I mean, you quote a passage that does not even mention the concepts of grafting or the Kingdom of Israel, and try to assert that it "obviously" is talking about that combination? "Oblivious" is the only applicable word for your argument.

Exactly what do you think the Household of Faith is? What is the commonwealth? What is the Kingdom? What is the Family of God? You may - or may not - know your English but you don't know much about the Judaism of the day and all those words are referring to exactly the same thing and it ain't no sticking tree.

"Therefore, when Paul specifically mentions that the Gentiles have been brought near and in fact been made members of the Commonwealth of Israel, that is exaclty what it means."

Except that you haven't shown any passage where Paul specifically mentions anything of the kind. When and if he ever does in the future, I'll be sure to pay attention to it, but for now, I'm relying on his written works, and I suggest that you try to do the same.

Apparently you are not relying on his written work. Perhaps you need to go back and take a reading course in school. But, to remove all doubt, I will include the entire passage for everyone to see :

"That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God."

That passage in context makes it clear that the Gentiles were at one time far off from God and that now, through Christ they are brought near and been made citizens of the Commonwealth of Israel.

No, as he says, we are "fellow-citizens with" -- not "of" -- "the saints, and of the household of God" -- not "the commonwealth of Israel". Is English not your first language? If it is, your reading skills are deplorable.

Actually, it is your interpretive skills are deplorable.

Here, I'll try to make a modern analogy that perhaps (hopefully!) you'll find easier to understand than Paul's letters. In Ephesians 2,from which you quoted, Paul speaks about breaking down the "middle wall of partition" (or "the dividing wall of hostility" in the NIV). In the southern US states in the 1950s and earlier, it was common to have "Whites Water Fountain" and "Coloreds Water Fountain" clearly labelled. This is an example of a "dividing wall of hostility", I think we can agree. By laws and by forced enforcement of them in some cases, this no longer holds -- we only have "Water Fountains" now. This is an example of breaking down said wall, n'est ce pas?

Actually, a better example would be the fence they are putting on the border of this country between us and Mexico - that is a barrier a wall of hostility - get it?

But after Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, members of both groups could claim equal access to God and equal rights as members of His Household.

And, that Household is defined in the context as the Commonwealth of Israel.

You appear to have a Humpty-Dumpty idea of how you can use the phrase "specifically stated", but in fact it has a clear meaning (outside the Looking-Glass world) that you are ignoring.

The same judgment you judge others with you are quilty of yourself. So, back down the rabbit hole for you...

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

“I am the rtrue vine, and my Father is sthe vinedresser. 2 tEvery branch of mine that does not bear fruit uhe takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, vthat it may bear more fruit. 3 Already wyou are clean xbecause of the word that I have spoken to you. 4 yAbide zin me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine; ayou are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bbears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in me che is thrown away like a branch and withers; dand the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.

Jester, I think this saying of Jesus answers your problems with what is being said here. The believing Jews were only ever branches in their relationship with God. They were not the vine itself. The vine sustained them, just as it sustains non-Jews who come to the vine.

[jesterbr549]

“I am the rtrue vine, and my Father is sthe vinedresser. 2 tEvery branch of mine that does not bear fruit uhe takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, vthat it may bear more fruit. 3 Already wyou are clean xbecause of the word that I have spoken to you. 4 yAbide zin me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine; ayou are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bbears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in me che is thrown away like a branch and withers; dand the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.

Jester, I think this saying of Jesus answers your problems with what is being said here. The believing Jews were only ever branches in their relationship with God. They were not the vine itself. The vine sustained them, just as it sustains non-Jews who come to the vine.

No, actually, what you have just mentioned only proves what I have said for Judah is Y'hova's "choice vine" and that is the context that Y'shua was using it - at the Messianic King of the Lineage of David from Judah.

In fact, along with engrafting into the Nation we also have adoption and, in fact, the entire Christian Church can claim to be adopted into the Royal Line of Judah - Pharas - Y'shua.

Period.

I remind the reader that both the Old Testament and the New Testament are legal documents and I can take those documents and argue in Y'hova's Court of Law - in fact I did - that I am adopted into the Royal Lineage of Judah.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

No, actually, what you have just mentioned only proves what I have said for Judah is Y'hova's "choice vine" and that is the context that Y'shua was using it - at the Messianic King of the Lineage of David from Judah.
This is how it looks to me:

Someone: What are the Gentiles grafted into?

Someone else: Into Christ, the vine. israel is not the vine.

You: No, ISRAEL is the vine.

Me: But Jesus said He was the vine, and speaking to the believing Jews, He said they were merely the branches.

You: Well that proves my point. Judah is the vine.


No - it doesn't prove your point. It proves the opposing view - the Vine is Jesus, and Jews who believe are on that vine, and Jews who don't believe are thrown away. The context says nothing about Judah being the vine. It's in John 15. Where in John 15 is there anything about Judah being the vine. Jesus directly states "I am the true vine," and "I am the vine, you are the branches."

You're doing a disturbing thing - a type of replacement theology whereby you remove Jesus from the picture and replace Him with the nation of Israel!

[jesterbr549]

No - it doesn't prove your point. It proves the opposing view - the Vine is Jesus, and Jews who believe are on that vine, and Jews who don't believe are thrown away. The context says nothing about Judah being the vine. It's in John 15. Where in John 15 is there anything about Judah being the vine. Jesus directly states "I am the true vine," and "I am the vine, you are the branches."

You're doing a disturbing thing - a type of replacement theology whereby you remove Jesus from the picture and replace Him with the nation of Israel!

Actually, I am exalting Y'shua to his Theocratic Position as King of Israel and the Church and you people need to realize that the Old Testament is not a dead letter but is "Living and Powerfull and sharper than any two edged sword" and that when Y'shua used symbology, he used it consistantly with the Old Testament and thus, Judah - and specifically as I stated, Y'shua himself - is the Vine and the other tribes - which would be the people he was talking too - are the branches which includes engrafted Gentiles.

And, in case you missed it, "Salvation is of the Jews" and you can not separate Y'shua from the Tribe of Judah or from the Nation of Israel. He is their King and he is gonna set up his Kingdom on this earth in Israel and if you don't have a green card, as a Gentile, then you ain't getting in.

Clear it up any for ya...

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Actually, I am exalting Y'shua to his Theocratic Position as King of Israel and the Church
So why say that Israel is the vine, and not Jesus?
and you peopleYou people?
need to realize that the Old Testament is not a dead letter but is "Living and Powerfull and sharper than any two edged sword"Straw man.
and that when Y'shua used symbology, he used it consistantly with the Old Testament and thus, Judah - and specifically as I stated, Y'shua himself - is the Vine and the other tribes - which would be the people he was talking too - are the branches which includes engrafted Gentiles.He was speaking to the tribes? Where is that in the context of John 15?
And, in case you missed it, "Salvation is of the Jews" and you can not separate Y'shua from the Tribe of Judah or from the Nation of Israel. He is their King and he is gonna set up his Kingdom on this earth in Israel and if you don't have a green card, as a Gentile, then you ain't getting in.

Clear it up any for ya...
What a shame. The Jerusalem Council settled this, and you want to undo it all!

[TyRockwell]

I'm on your side, Jack. Jesus didn't call himself the king in that analogy, he was speaking figuratively, calling himself the vine, and the disciples branches.

[Theolog]

Because I don't want to post in Theolog's thread, but wanted to explore this issue, I'm starting my own thread on the issue. More than one poster made the statement "Gentiles were then grafted into Israel". Silly me, but I thought they were grafted into Christ, the true vine :huh:

Thoughts?

Beware of mixed metaphors.

One of my lines of reasoning is that “Israel” is the “elect of God” in the Old Covenant and the New Covenant Israel is the “the elect of God”.

New Covenant. .


ISRAEL OF GOD. Paul’s statement that ‘not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel’ (Rom. 9:6) is in line with the prophetic insistence that the true people of God, those who are worthy of the name of Israel, may be but a relatively small ‘remnant’ of faithful souls within the nation of Israel. In the NT the concept of such a remnant appears in the preaching of John the Baptist, who insists that descent from Abraham is valueless in itself (Mt. 3:9 = Lk. 3:8). Jesus’ calling of disciples around himself to form the ‘little flock’ who were to receive the kingdom (Lk. 12:32; cf. Dn. 7:22, 27) marks him out as the founder of the new Israel; he explicitly designated the twelve apostles as judges of ‘the twelve tribes of Israel’ in the new age (Mt. 19:28; Lk. 22:30). The ‘little flock’ was to be augmented by the accession of ‘other sheep’ who had never belonged to the Jewish fold (Jn. 10:16).
Whether the expression ‘the Israel of God’ in its one appearance in the NT (Gal. 6:16) denotes believing Jews only, or believing Jews and Gentiles without distinction, is disputed; the latter is more probable, especially if the expression is to be construed in apposition to ‘all who walk by this rule’. But that the community of believers in Jesus, irrespective of their natural origin, is looked upon as the new Israel throughout the NT is clear. They are ‘the twelve tribes in the dispersion’ (Jas. 1:1), ‘the exiles of the dispersion’ (1 Pet. 1:1), who are further designated, in language borrowed from OT descriptions of Israel, as ‘a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people’ (1 Pet. 2:9).
But the nucleus of this new Israel is Jewish (Rom. 11:18). And while the greater proportion of ‘Israel according to the flesh’ is at present prevented, by a partial and temporary blindness, from recognizing their ancestral hope in Jesus, the time is coming when the veil will be removed from their eyes (2 Cor. 3:16) and they will be re-established by faith as members of the beloved community: their present estrangement will last only ‘until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved’ (Rom. 11:25ff.).
BIBLIOGRAPHY. L. Gillet, Communion in the Messiah, 1942; M. Simon, Verus Israel, 1948; A. Oepke, Das Neue Gottesvolk, 1950; R. Campbell, Israel and the New Covenant, 1954; J. Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, E.T. 1959; idem, Christ and Israel, 1967; P. Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church, 1970.

6:16 Who Is the Israel of God?
Galatians 6:16 is part of Paul’s benediction with which he closes the letter. Who is included among “the Israel of God”? What is “this rule”? The answer to the last question emerges quite naturally from the context. Based on differing understandings of both the structure of the sentence and Paul’s terminology, opinions vary widely concerning the answer to the first.
Let us begin with the context. Paul has argued throughout this letter that God’s way of salvation consists of his grace, offered in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through which persons are freed from the bondage of sin and legalistic religion. This redemptive work of God in Christ is appropriated in the response and life of faith. That thesis is worked out over against what can be called a Judaizing faction among the Galatian Christians who believed and taught that right standing before God (that is, justification) is achieved, for Jews and Gentiles alike, only through adherence to the ritual of circumcision (and other parts of the ceremonial-ritual law).
This discussion is brought to a conclusion in the verses immediately preceding our saying (Gal 6:12–15). Those who insist on circumcision (which for Paul is here shorthand for religion under the law) are really seeking to establish an external measuring stick for human achievement before God on the basis of which one can boast (Gal 6:12–13). But, counters Paul, the only ground for “boasting” is outside us, namely, the cross of Christ (Gal 6:14).
In such a case, boasting really becomes the praise of God for his unspeakable gift! That leads Paul to the sum of the matter: “Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation” (Gal 6:15). That is, in the new creation inaugurated in Christ “there is neither Jew nor Greek” (Gal 3:28; see also 2 Cor 5:17). Neither the practice of external ritual or ceremony nor its absence is a basis for redemptive relationship with God. The only basis is the new creature, established by grace and through faith. That is the “rule” (or principle) to which Paul refers in this saying.
An understanding of the structure of the sentence, as well as the unique term “the Israel of God,” is our second order of business. Notice first that the sentence punctuations in our English version, as well as in the Greek texts behind them, are the work of interpretation. Thus there are often a number of ways in which the text can be punctuated. And how one punctuates can determine the meaning or nuances of a text. In Galatians 6:16 there are basically two options, and slight variations within each of these:
1. The text used in this book (NIV), as well as most other modern English versions, places the essential comma between two sentence parts: one contains the words “peace” and “mercy,” the other contains the term “the Israel of God.” This reading, based on the punctuation of the commonly accepted Greek text,2 can be understood in at least two ways: (a) The benediction “peace and mercy” is pronounced on one group. “All who follow this rule,” in part one of the sentence, are identified as “the Israel of God” in the second part of the sentence. Such a meaning is implied in the NIV reading of “even to the Israel of God,” and the RSV’s “upon the Israel of God.” (b) The benediction is pronounced on two groups, those “who follow this rule” and the Israel of God. However, the term “Israel of God” is seen as a comprehensive term, including those in Galatia “who follow this rule.” Among modern versions, the TEV (“may peace and mercy be with them—with them and with all of God’s people”) and NEB (“and upon the whole Israel of God”) support this understanding of the text.
2. Some commentators punctuate the Greek text differently.3 It is grammatically possible to place the decisive comma so that the terms “peace” and “mercy” are separated as belonging to two distinct parts of the sentence. In that case it would read: “Peace to all who follow this rule, as well as [or, ‘and’] mercy upon the Israel of God.” On this reading, the benediction is divided and addresses two very distinct groups. “Peace” is pronounced upon believers in Christ (“those who follow this rule”); “mercy” is pronounced upon Israelites who are not yet, but may become, participants in the redeemed community of God’s people.
The first option assumes that the term “Israel of God” is used by Paul for all those who are “in Christ,” whether they are Jews or Gentiles. Since Paul uses the term only here, and it is found nowhere else in the entire New Testament, the use of it as synonymous with “Christian” must be derived from the broader Pauline context.
As in Galatians, so in Romans Paul argues that righteousness (right standing before God) comes by faith, not by works of the law. In Romans 4 he shows that way to have been God’s way from the start. Proof is given in the example of Abraham, who believed God and thus came into right relationship with him before the external sign of circumcision was given (Rom 4:9–11). From this Paul draws the conclusion that Abraham “is the father of all who believe,” both the uncircumcised (that is, Gentile believers, Rom 4:11) and the circumcised (that is, Jewish believers, Rom 4:12). Since Abraham (the father of historical Israel) is also the father of all who believe, the designation of this company as the “Israel of God” would surely be appropriate (see also Rom 9:6–8).
Further support for such a correlation comes from Philippians, where Paul pointedly calls all those who put their faith in Christ Jesus “the circumcision,” in contrast to those “who put [their] confidence in the flesh” (Phil 3:3), that is, who depend on their circumcision (Phil 3:4–6). In Galatians, too, “those who believe” are called “children of Abraham” (Gal 3:7), including Gentiles who respond in faith (Gal 3:8). This strand in Paul’s thought is brought to a focal point in Galatians 3:26–29. Addressing the company of believers, consisting of both Jewish and Gentile believers, Paul says to them, “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:26). This designation is grounded in the Old Testament, where Israelites are called “sons of the living God” (Hos 1:10) or, collectively, “Son [of God]” (Hos 11:1). Here emerges the equation: Israel = son/sons of God = believers in Christ. Paul concludes the thought by affirming that those who are in Christ, both Jew and Gentile, are Abraham’s offspring (Gal 3:27–29).
It would be difficult to deny that the designation of the Christian fellowship as “Israel of God” could have emerged out of Paul’s thought-development. Thus there is a high degree of probability in this line of interpretation. Yet the second option outlined—which assigns to the term “Israel of God” a more limited scope—has merit and should be given serious consideration.
In addition to seeing Abraham as “the father of all who believe” (Rom 4:11), Paul distinguished two groups within historic Israel. In Romans 2:28–29, he argues that there are two kinds of Jews: those who meet only the external requirements (circumcision and physical descent) and those who, in addition, are authentic Jews inwardly, whose circumcision is not only external but also of the heart, worked “by the Spirit.” To this idea of a “true” Israel within the historical, physical Israel may be assigned Paul’s concept of the “remnant,” which he explores in Romans 11. By God’s grace, there are those within Israel who, like Paul, will yet respond in faith to God’s work in Christ (Rom 11:1, 5). Is it possible, in light of this distinction between the whole people and the remnant, that Paul coined the term “Israel of God” to distinguish the remnant from simply “Israel”? If so, this text would receive a unique meaning. Paul’s benediction of “peace” would be addressing “those who follow the rule,” that is, those who already belong to Christ. The benediction of “mercy” would be addressed to the faithful remnant within Israel, all those who had not yet grasped God’s revelation in Jesus the Christ, but who by God’s mercy would yet come to faith.
A final support for such an interpretation comes from the fact that the normal Pauline sequence in benediction and greetings is “grace and peace” (or “mercy and peace”), while here it is “peace and mercy.” Since, according to Paul, God’s mercy is that which leads to the condition of peace (with God, self and others), logical consistency would assign “peace” to those who are already in Christ, and “mercy” to those who are “not yet.” That is plausible, with the reservation that greetings and benedictions are not always or necessarily logical formulations.
Whichever interpretation is accepted, one fact is clear; namely, Paul’s overall view saw the church, the fellowship of God’s people, as a new covenant community in which Jew and Greek, Israelite and Gentile, become one new people. And this people is the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham at the beginning of redemptive history: “All peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (Gen 12:3; Gal 3:29).
See also comment on ROMANS 11:26; REVELATION 7:4.

[jesterbr549]

So why say that Israel is the vine, and not Jesus?

Because the Scriptures say both so I say both - apparently you have a problem with half of the Revealed Word of Y'hova.


You people?

That would include you


Straw man.

And I suspected that, in fact, you were just that.


He was speaking to the tribes? Where is that in the context of John 15?

If you want to get a clue, just count the amount of Apostles he chose.


What a shame. The Jerusalem Council settled this, and you want to undo it all!

Hate to tell you this but there ain't no council on the face of this earth that can undue the Word or Plan of Y'hova.

[jesterbr549]

I'm on your side, Jack. Jesus didn't call himself the king in that analogy, he was speaking figuratively, calling himself the vine, and the disciples branches.

Really? You say that Y'shua is casting off his birthright the same as Esau did?

I don't think so...

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Jesus is the firstborn of ALL creation. THAT is His birthright.

[TyRockwell]

Really? You say that Y'shua is casting off his birthright the same as Esau did?

I don't think so...
I'm not saying that Jesus wasn't the king. I'm saying he was using an analogy of branches staying connected to the vine in order to partake of the same life flow, spirit, or anointing. You can do nothing if you don't remain in, abide in, the vine.

[dizzle]

Hate to tell you this but there ain't no council on the face of this earth that can undue the Word or Plan of Y'hova.

:rofl:

Jack don't tell him that the Jerusalem Council is in Acts.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Because the Scriptures say both so I say both - apparently you have a problem with half of the Revealed Word of Y'hova.
So show me in Paul's talk of grafting that the vine is Israel. Show me in Jesus' teachon on Himself being the true vine that He meant to say that Israel is also the true vine. Don't bring the attitude, just show me.
And I suspected that, in fact, you were just that.No, you created a straw man when you suggested that I/we were making the Old Testament irrelevant. I'm a fereakin' Theonomist, so you were totally wrong.
If you want to get a clue, just count the amount of Apostles he chose.Show us that by telling His disciples that they were only branches, and He was the true vine, and they could do nothing without Him, He was saying that they were representing in the imagery the twelve tribes of Israel the true vine. Again, none of this macho talk about people who have a clue, bring the evidence from the context here.
Hate to tell you this but there ain't no council on the face of this earth that can undue the Word or Plan of Y'hova.
Here's some suggested reading: Acts 15ff. the Jerusalem Council was overseen by the Apostles, and it's decision is Scripture.

I want you to be brutally honest right now: Until reading my post to you, did you even know what the Jerusalem Council was?

[Theolog]

Vines do not have branches only more vines.
Trees however do have branches.
Maybe this will help.

[jesterbr549]

:rofl:

Jack don't tell him that the Jerusalem Council is in Acts.

So was the council that condemned him to be crucified...

[jesterbr549]

So show me in Paul's talk of grafting that the vine is Israel. Show me in Jesus' teachon on Himself being the true vine that He meant to say that Israel is also the true vine. Don't bring the attitude, just show me.

No, you created a straw man when you suggested that I/we were making the Old Testament irrelevant. I'm a fereakin' Theonomist, so you were totally wrong.

Show us that by telling His disciples that they were only branches, and He was the true vine, and they could do nothing without Him, He was saying that they were representing in the imagery the twelve tribes of Israel the true vine. Again, none of this macho talk about people who have a clue, bring the evidence from the context here.

Here's some suggested reading: Acts 15ff. the Jerusalem Council was overseen by the Apostles, and it's decision is Scripture.

I want you to be brutally honest right now: Until reading my post to you, did you even know what the Jerusalem Council was?

Paul does not refer to the vine, he refers to the Olive Tree which, by the way, is used to typify the Levitical Priesthood and for the Church this would be a symbol of the Melchizedec Priesthood.

And the "attitude" apprently, started with you - see next sentance - as well as your "macho talk."

"The same judgment you judge others with, you are guilty of yourself" - interesting your referrence to straw men - getting ready for halloween, huh? The only straw man is you for, if you held the Old Testament as equal to the New you would interpret symbols equally between them, as Y'shua did.

And, as stated, all you have to do is count the number of Apostles. You think he chose 12 cause it was, like, in vogue or something?

Yeah, now, it was the Jerusalem council that decided to send Paul to the Gentiles and the rest of the Apostles to the Jews, huh?

Brutally Honest.

Here ya go.

I didn't waste time trying to understand what you meant by that referrence because you had previously demonstrated that you don't understand the Church's relationship or standing in the Theocratic Kingdom.

However, I am perfectly familiar with the Jerusalem Council which was headed up by James, the step brother of Y'shua who exercised authority over the whole Church, including over Peter, because, with the ascension of Y'shua, he was now Crown Prince of the Davidic Throne.

Imagine that...

[jesterbr549]

I'm not saying that Jesus wasn't the king. I'm saying he was using an analogy of branches staying connected to the vine in order to partake of the same life flow, spirit, or anointing. You can do nothing if you don't remain in, abide in, the vine.

To this I agree, but, now, ask yourself this.

To whom was the New Covenant first promised?

The blessing that you are talking about is ours because of the New Covenant which was stated in Jeremiah chapters 30 and refers to the indwelling Holy Spirit.

You will also notice in that very passage of the New Covenant the prominence given to both the Levitical Priesthood and the Throne of David of which Y'shua himself was the reigning King - and still is, I might add.

Those of you who say that Y'shua would discard his Judaic Birthrite as King of Israel and thus this whole world, are sadly mistaken and are taken unwarrented liberties with someone else's birthrite.

I can assure you that Y'shua has ever plan on returning to this earth and "restoring the fallen down tabernacle of David" because, simply put, it belongs to him and "he does all things well."

[Theolog]

It does not get any clearer than Hebrews 8. You may notice that Jesus was on the throne, reigning as KING clear back then. John the Baptizer was hearlding the King not the prince.

The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man.

3 Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer.

4 If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. 

5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”a

6 But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.

7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 

8 But God found fault with the people and saidb:
“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.

9 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them,
declares the Lord.

10 This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.

11 No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.

12 For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”c

13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

[jesterbr549]

It does not get any clearer than Hebrews 8. You may notice that Jesus was on the throne, reigning as KING clear back then. John the Baptizer was hearlding the King not the prince.

8 But God found fault with the people and said: 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.

13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

Well, now, funny you should mention that cause Barnabus was quoting Jeremiah while establishing the New Covenant Promise to the Nation of Israel which is recorded in chapter 31 and then again in chapter 33 in which it is clear that the New Covenant is founded upon the Mosaic and Davidic Covenants which includes the Palistinic Covenant and all of which are founded in the Abrahamic Covenant and all of which were given to the Nation of Israel :

Jer 31 "And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD. " The Authorized Version

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will perform that good thing which I have promised unto the house of Israel and to the house of Judah. In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our righteousness. For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually. And the word of the LORD came unto Jeremiah, saying, Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me. Moreover the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying, Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which the LORD hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? thus they have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them. Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth; Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David my servant, [so] that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them." The Authorized Version

All of which, again, shows that Gentile Believers in Christ have been engrafted into the Commonwealth of Israel.

As I have stated in my post on the Theocratic Covenant "[I]Perhaps it would be well to state here that the belief that the Mos. Cov. was voided is primarily drawn from Heb 8:13, "in that he says, a New Covenant, he has made the first old. Now that which decays and waxes old is ready to vanish away."

Some say that this means that the Mosaic is now done away with, however, not only is the statement in the future tense (it had not passed away yet, during the Church age), but this is also in contradiction to Y'shua's words that he came to fulfill the (Mosaic) law and that "one jot or
tiddle" would not pass from the Law until ALL WAS FULFILLED.

This will not be the case until death and hell are cast into the lake of fire at the END of the Mill, when death finally dies. It is, then, to this time that Barnabas is referring to and thus, after the
millennium, when the human race, as a race, is redeemed and sinless, and the curse removed and the earth renewed, THEN the need for the sacrificial system will "vanish away."

But even that does NOT make void ANY of the covenants as such, including the Mosaic, but it will be the ultimate intended fulfillment of them.

Even if you want to discard the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic and Palestinic Covenants you are still left with the fact that the New Covenant is given to the Nation of Israel and the only way a Gentile will partake of that New Covenant is by entrance into that Commonwealth.

Period.

And that is why Y'shua presented himself as the Messiah of that Commonwealth - "Salvation is of the Jews" and specifically the Jewish Messiah.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Paul does not refer to the vine, he refers to the Olive Tree which, by the way, is used to typify the Levitical Priesthood and for the Church this would be a symbol of the Melchizedec Priesthood.

And the "attitude" apprently, started with you - see next sentance - as well as your "macho talk."

"The same judgment you judge others with, you are guilty of yourself" - interesting your referrence to straw men - getting ready for halloween, huh? The only straw man is you for, if you held the Old Testament as equal to the New you would interpret symbols equally between them, as Y'shua did.

And, as stated, all you have to do is count the number of Apostles. You think he chose 12 cause it was, like, in vogue or something?

Yeah, now, it was the Jerusalem council that decided to send Paul to the Gentiles and the rest of the Apostles to the Jews, huh?

Brutally Honest.

Here ya go.

I didn't waste time trying to understand what you meant by that referrence because you had previously demonstrated that you don't understand the Church's relationship or standing in the Theocratic Kingdom.

However, I am perfectly familiar with the Jerusalem Council which was headed up by James, the step brother of Y'shua who exercised authority over the whole Church, including over Peter, because, with the ascension of Y'shua, he was now Crown Prince of the Davidic Throne.

Imagine that...This is an incoherrent ramble. I'm sorry, what in the world does any of this say?

[Jezz]

I agree and disagree based on this particular bit of scripture we are discussing. The natural Jews were attached to the vine, were they not? Or else, how were they "cut off" having never been attached?
This is correct.

As a New Covenant Theology holder, this verse fits my belief perfectly. At the cross, lineage became unimportant. Before the cross, all of the Jews were attached by nature of who they were.
This is, I believe, a misconception, and a common one at that. Lineage was never the important factor. This is exactly what St Paul is trying to prove in Romans 9:6ff - "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel". He notes that, while a covenant was made with Abraham and his descendants, not all of his descendants were a party to that covenant - some (eg, Ishmael and his descendants, Esau and his descendants, etc) were cut off. There are other examples - for example, when 10 of the 12 tribes were carried off by the Assyrians as judgement for their unfaithfulness, they were effectively cut off from Israel, even though they were descendants of Jacob by lineage.

Furthermore, even before Christ, not everyone who was a member of Israel was a descendant of Jacob. A very famous example was that of Ruth - who became an Israelite, not by birth, but by adoption/naturalisation - and subsequently became an ancestor of King David, and of Christ Himself.

So given that:

1. Not everyone descended from Israel was of Israel, and
2. not everyone who was of Israel was descended from Israel,

we see that lineage was never actually the important factor in determining who was Israel.

The key to understanding this language of St Paul is to understand how salvation history worked in the OT. It basically goes like this:

1. God makes a covenant with His people (the vine).
2. A large part of the covenant community rebel against the terms of the covenant, while a small part remains faithful.
3. God warns them to repent.
4a. If they repent, then all is well.
4b. If they fail to repent, God sends judgement to cut off the unfaithful from the covenant community (ie, pruning them from the vine/olive tree). The "faithful remnant" then becomes the entire covenant community - purified and purged of all the dead wood.
5. Repeat steps 2-4.

With the advent of the New Covenant to abrogate the old, the same process happened as had happened a zillion times before - God pruned off the unfaithful from the community, and the remaining vine continued to grow.

They were never said to have been grafted in to begin with. Their natural existing attachment had to be severed by their unbelief while the unattached gentiles had to be grafted in based on belief.
I mostly agree, but I would say that the attachment of the unfaithful Jews was severed by their unfaithfulness, more so than their unbelief. Likewise, the Gentiles were grafted in by their faithfulness. A subtle, but an important difference.

[Jezz]

Yeah, that's what I've come to think too. It can't simply be Israel that Gentiles are grafted into, because there are Israelites who are pruned out, even though they are part of Israel. It has to be the true Israel, the Jerusalem above, which is our mother, the Israel of God - Christ, the vine.
To say "there are Israelites who are pruned out, even though they are part of Israel" is effectively question-begging. I would respond: once they were pruned out, they were no longer a part of Israel. As I pointed out in my previous response to BTC, this is nothing other than what had happened at several times in the history of Israel - God sent judgement, pruned off the unfaithful branches (ie, cast them out of Israel), but preserved a remnant, which became Israel. An example which I brought up in the previous post was the one of the Northern Kingdom - 10 whole tribes were cut off due to their unfaithfulness, and were no longer part of the covenant community of Israel. The remnant became Israel (just as when you prune a vine, the remnant is the vine)

All these biblical sayings, in my view, rule out the view that it is the geo-political nation of Israel that God is concerned with, and that the biblical prophecies about "Israel" are all about that thing. These passages and more all work together to show that this is not what God is concerned about. That's why (well, it's one reason why) I can never ever consider a dispensational view of prophecy plausible at all. It overlooks the fundamental shift in Identity that the covenant people of God underwent in the New Testament.
I agree with your rejection of this dispensational view, though for different reasons. I agree that the prophecies are not about the modern state of "Israel" - but that's not because I don't believe that the prophecies are about the nation of Israel (note that I pointed out in my post to BTC that biblical Israel is not, strictly speaking, a geo-political entity - it is a covenant community). I reject this notion because I don't believe that the modern state which is known as "Israel" is the the nation of Israel that we read about in both the Old and New Testaments. The modern state of "Israel" is a wannabe, pretend Israel - it is a different nation built in the same place with the same name. True Israel still exists, though it is more commonly known as "the Church", aka "the body of Christ". It is to this true Israel, not the modern fake "Israel", that the Biblical prophecies concerning Israel apply (or, since I am a preterist, I should say "applied").

This view resolves the confusion over whether the prophecies applied to Christ or to Israel. As Christ is Israel, and the fact that the covenant community is known as "the body of Christ" completes the connection - when one becomes a member of the commonwealth of Israel under the New Covenant, one becomes a member of the body of Christ, and vice-versa. Since the time that Christ instituted the New Covenant with Israel, the terms "Israel", "the body of Christ" and "the Church" are all synonyms.

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

To say "there are Israelites who are pruned out, even though they are part of Israel" is effectively question-begging. I would respond: once they were pruned out, they were no longer a part of Israel. As I pointed out in my previous response to BTC, this is nothing other than what had happened at several times in the history of Israel - God sent judgement, pruned off the unfaithful branches (ie, cast them out of Israel), but preserved a remnant, which became Israel. An example which I brought up in the previous post was the one of the Northern Kingdom - 10 whole tribes were cut off due to their unfaithfulness, and were no longer part of the covenant community of Israel. The remnant became Israel (just as when you prune a vine, the remnant is the vine)


I agree with your rejection of this dispensational view, though for different reasons. I agree that the prophecies are not about the modern state of "Israel" - but that's not because I don't believe that the prophecies are about the nation of Israel (note that I pointed out in my post to BTC that biblical Israel is not, strictly speaking, a geo-political entity - it is a covenant community). I reject this notion because I don't believe that the modern state which is known as "Israel" is the the nation of Israel that we read about in both the Old and New Testaments. The modern state of "Israel" is a wannabe, pretend Israel - it is a different nation built in the same place with the same name. True Israel still exists, though it is more commonly known as "the Church", aka "the body of Christ". It is to this true Israel, not the modern fake "Israel", that the Biblical prophecies concerning Israel apply (or, since I am a preterist, I should say "applied").

This view resolves the confusion over whether the prophecies applied to Christ or to Israel. As Christ is Israel, and the fact that the covenant community is known as "the body of Christ" completes the connection - when one becomes a member of the commonwealth of Israel under the New Covenant, one becomes a member of the body of Christ, and vice-versa. Since the time that Christ instituted the New Covenant with Israel, the terms "Israel", "the body of Christ" and "the Church" are all synonyms.

You rock, Jezz. POTD.

[jesterbr549]

we see that lineage was never actually the important factor in determining who was Israel.




Then, what, exactly, was the point of ensuring that the Messiah sprang from the Loins of David, may I ask?

[jesterbr549]

I agree with your rejection of this dispensational view, though for different reasons. I agree that the prophecies are not about the modern state of "Israel" .




Then what would you do with the words of James that, "after this" and the calling out of the Gentiles that Y'hova will return and restore the fallen down tabernacle of David?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

To say "there are Israelites who are pruned out, even though they are part of Israel" is effectively question-begging. I would respond: once they were pruned out, they were no longer a part of Israel. By Israel here, I meant the ethinic group, or the national group that we call israel. That's all. And the nation of israel as a geo-political entity certainly still existed when these words were written, and the Jews that were being written about as "pruned out" were still part of that nation.

The writer means that they are pruned out of God's covenant dealings, which no longer resided in the nation of Israel (the political entity). Since Christ had come, and those dealings were always meant to be with Christ, the nation of ISrael is no longer unique in a covenantal sense.

I'm surprised that you thought I meant something more than the political nation of Israel here when I said that unbelieving Jews were still part of "Israel," but had been pruned out.
I agree with your rejection of this dispensational view, though for different reasons. I agree that the prophecies are not about the modern state of "Israel" - but that's not because I don't believe that the prophecies are about the nation of Israel (note that I pointed out in my post to BTC that biblical Israel is not, strictly speaking, a geo-political entity - it is a covenant community). I reject this notion because I don't believe that the modern state which is known as "Israel" is the the nation of Israel that we read about in both the Old and New Testaments. The modern state of "Israel" is a wannabe, pretend Israel - it is a different nation built in the same place with the same name. True Israel still exists, though it is more commonly known as "the Church", aka "the body of Christ". It is to this true Israel, not the modern fake "Israel", that the Biblical prophecies concerning Israel apply (or, since I am a preterist, I should say "applied").I think you're agreeing with me more than you say. I accept fully that the OT prophecies (e.g. Jeremiah 31) are applied to the Church, and that by "Israel" they mean the true Israel of God. We just disagree over whether or not it is meaningful to distinguish between two things that are rightly called "Israel."

I say that one can be pruned out of the vine and still be an Israelite in the earthly sense. I think that's quite clear when Paul says "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" (Rom 9.6). They are of Israel in one sense, but in another sense they are not.
This view resolves the confusion over whether the prophecies applied to Christ or to Israel. As Christ is Israel, and the fact that the covenant community is known as "the body of Christ" completes the connection - when one becomes a member of the commonwealth of Israel under the New Covenant, one becomes a member of the body of Christ, and vice-versa. Since the time that Christ instituted the New Covenant with Israel, the terms "Israel", "the body of Christ" and "the Church" are all synonyms.
There I agree, with the caveat that Israel can also refer to an earthly nation, as we just saw in Paul's comments.

[Jezz]

...we see that lineage was never actually the important factor in determining who was Israel.
Just to ensure that there is no confusion, allow me to refine my original statement: "we see that lineage was never actually the important factor in determining who was an Israelite."

Then, what, exactly, was the point of ensuring that the Messiah sprang from the Loins of David, may I ask?
Because God promised that the Messiah would be a descendent of David, and God must keep His promises.

More importantly, how does this conflict with the above statement? God promised that the Messiah would be a descendent of David. This is not the same thing as promising that every descendent of Jacob would be an Israelite (He did not make this promise), nor is it the same thing as promising that every Israelite would be a descendent of Jacob (He did not make this promise).

The events described in the OT itself prove that not every descendent of Jacob was an Israelite (eg, the Northern Kingdom after it was carried off due to unfaithfulness) and that not every Israelite was a descendent of Jacob (eg, Ruth).

[Jezz]

I agree with your rejection of this dispensational view, though for different reasons. I agree that the prophecies are not about the modern state of "Israel" .

Then what would you do with the words of James that, "after this" and7 the calling out of the Gentiles that Y'hova will return and restore the fallen down tabernacle of David?
I presume that you are talking about this passage:

16"'After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it,

17that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things'

18that have been known for ages.

(Thanks for making my job easy by giving me the Scripture reference so that I didn't have to go looking for it by myself, btw... :smile:.)

(Also a bit of trivia that is not directly relevant: this is one of those passages where an Apostle clearly quotes from an OT which is much more like the LXX than the MT.)

The answer to your question is quite simple. Generally, when a person in the NT quoted an OT passage, they did so because they saw it as being fulfilled in their present time. St James cited this passage for exactly this reason - he saw it as being fulfilled at that point in time. Let us examine the prophecy in a little detail: the prophecy was predicting a time when Israel (the tabernacle of David) would:

1. Fall and be "ruined" through unbelief,
2. Be rebuilt by God, from:
2a. the remnant, and
2b. all the faithful Gentiles who bear His name.

Now, consider why the Jerusalem Council was called (which is where St James was when he cited this passage): it was called to discuss the question of how Gentiles were to be accepted into the covenant community of which he was a part. In this context, it is clear that St James saw the following as the fulfillment of the above:

1. The "ruin" was the the mass apostasy and unbelief of Jews who had rejected their Messiah.
2a. The faithful remnant were himself, the other apostles, Christ's mother, and all of the other Jews who had remained faithful and accepted Christ as their Messiah.
2b. The faithful Gentiles were those Gentiles who were just now starting to come into the covenant.

Because the influx of Gentiles was happening at that time, St James saw the "rebuilding of David's fallen tent" as happening in his own time. It doesn't refer to some future time. That is why he decided that they ought not to make the Gentiles' entry into the covenant more difficult than it needs to be, so that they wouldn't be trying to stand in the way of God's attempts to rebuild the fallen tabernacle.

I don't know how you read this passage - but if you suppose that St James is citing this as a prophecy of Israel being rebuilt at some future time (perhaps even further in the future than our own time), then that strikes me as being a bit odd. It makes his citation pretty much irrelevant to the topic that was being discussed at the Jerusalem council, because they were dealing with the question of Gentiles in the present - not at some remotely distant time in the future. The question is then left: why did he cite the passage at all if it wasn't relevant to the discussion or the conclusion he was drawing?

[Jezz]

By Israel here, I meant the ethinic group, or the national group that we call israel. That's all. And the nation of israel as a geo-political entity certainly still existed when these words were written, and the Jews that were being written about as "pruned out" were still part of that nation.

The writer means that they are pruned out of God's covenant dealings, which no longer resided in the nation of Israel (the political entity). Since Christ had come, and those dealings were always meant to be with Christ, the nation of ISrael is no longer unique in a covenantal sense.

I'm surprised that you thought I meant something more than the political nation of Israel here when I said that unbelieving Jews were still part of "Israel," but had been pruned out.
I didn't think you meant something more than the political nation of Israel. I realised that you were trying to distinguish between the "political nation" of Israel and "true Israel". My point was, you seemed to be using your example as though it were in support of this very distinction - which would be question begging, because unless one assumes that these two Israels exist, then the conclusion wouldn't follow.

I maintain that there is no exegetical mandate for distinguishing between two Israels in the way that you suggest. I will discuss this in more detail below.

I think you're agreeing with me more than you say. I accept fully that the OT prophecies (e.g. Jeremiah 31) are applied to the Church, and that by "Israel" they mean the true Israel of God. We just disagree over whether or not it is meaningful to distinguish between two things that are rightly called "Israel."
Well, the question is not so much whether or not it is "meaningful" to distinguish - clearly, it can have meaning. The question is really whether or not it is correct to distinguish - ie, whether or not St Paul and the other NT writers knew of or taught such a distinction. And it was precisely this difference that I was trying to focus on. I wasn't trying to make our differences look any bigger than that (although that is a big difference).

As a matter of fact, I do believe it is correct to distinguish between two things that are rightly called "Israel" - just not the two that you identify. The Scriptures clearly distinguish between the following two Israels:

1. Israel, the nation (God's people)
2. Israel, aka Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham.

I say that one can be pruned out of the vine and still be an Israelite in the earthly sense. I think that's quite clear when Paul says "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" (Rom 9.6). They are of Israel in one sense, but in another sense they are not.
Well, I certainly agree that this passage mandates that there must be two different Israels. However, I don't see the need for inventing a second Israel (really a third) in order to make sense of this passage, when the Scriptures already clearly attest to two different Israels (see above). It is these two Israels which are clearly in view in this passage - St Paul is basically saying: "For they are not all Israel, which are of Jacob", ie "they are not all Israel [the nation], which are [descended] from Israel [the man]". St Paul is contrasting national membership (Israel) with physical descent (those who are "from Israel").

That this reading (where Paul is contrasting physical descent with covenant is the correct one is made clear by the fact that, in the very next verse, he starts talking about the physical descendants of Abraham and showing how not all of them were reckoned as children of the covenant.

In a group-oriented culture which has the concept of "group headship", the natural assumption would be that anyone descended from a person is part of the nation/tribe named after that person. It was necessary for St Paul to refute this assumption and point that this is not always the case (citing Abraham as proof), and it isn't the the case with Israel either - much as Christ had to refute it, when He said: "I tell you the truth, out of these stones God could raise up children of Abraham". St Paul is not merely saying that physical descent doesn't define the nation of Israel since the advent of Christ - he is saying that physical descent never did defined the nation of Israel. To remain a member of the nation of Israel always required faithfulness - if one was unfaithful, then one would eventually be kicked out.

There I agree, with the caveat that Israel can also refer to an earthly nation, as we just saw in Paul's comments.
But the caveat shows that you actually don't agree. The "can also refer to an earthly nation" implies that you thought I wasn't referring to an earthly nation, when in fact I was referring to the earthly nation of Israel.

It is incorrect to try and distinguish between "Israel" in a covenantal sense, and "Israel" in an ethnic sense - the covenant of Israel defines the nation (= ethnos) of Israel. This would be like trying to distinguish between "the United States of America in a constitutional sense" and "the United States of America as a nation". This is non-sensical - it is the US constitution that defines the US as nation - there are not two different USs.

Even when the entire nation of Israel was in slavery in Egypt, it was still the nation of Israel (which clearly rules out the "geo" aspect of defining the nation of Israel, at the very least). And anyone, anywhere, who was a member of the covenant of Israel, was considered to be an Israelite. As a matter of fact, this is pretty much the case even with the modern state of "Israel" - any Jew in the world is considered to be a citizen of that state.

[jesterbr549]

Because God promised that the Messiah would be a descendent of David, and God must keep His promises.

This is not the same thing as promising that every descendent of Jacob would be an Israelite (He did not make this promise), nor is it the same thing as promising that every Israelite would be a descendent of Jacob (He did not make this promise).

The events described in the OT itself prove that not every descendent of Jacob was an Israelite (eg, the Northern Kingdom after it was carried off due to unfaithfulness) and that not every Israelite was a descendent of Jacob (eg, Ruth).

1) You are using circular reasoning and did not answer the question so I will rephrase it for you. Why did God promise that the Messiah would come from the Loins of David if the lineages were not important.

2) You are missing the point of this thread. The adoption of Ruth - based upon the future promise of the New Covenant - and the adoption of Christians today - based on that New Covenant Realized - is adoption into the Commonwealth of Israel - that is the purpose of the Grafting Symbology.

And that is why God promised the Messiah through the Loins of David and you cannot separate the Adoption of the Christian from the Theocratic Kingdom on this earth.

[jesterbr549]

(Thanks for making my job easy by giving me the Scripture reference so that I didn't have to go looking for it by myself, btw... :smile:.)

The answer to your question is quite simple. Generally, when a person in the NT quoted an OT passage, they did so because they saw it as being fulfilled in their present time. Because the influx of Gentiles was happening at that time, St James saw the "rebuilding of David's fallen tent" as happening in his own time.


I don't know how you read this passage - but if you suppose that St James is citing this as a prophecy of Israel being rebuilt at some future time (perhaps even further in the future than our own time), then that strikes me as being a bit odd.

It makes his citation pretty much irrelevant to the topic that was being discussed at the Jerusalem council, because they were dealing with the question of Gentiles in the present - not at some remotely distant time in the future.

The question is then left: why did he cite the passage at all if it wasn't relevant to the discussion or the conclusion he was drawing?



1) I believe you were the one that mentioned that they were familiar with the Jerusalem Council which is where that quote came from so, exactly what is the problem?

2) And James was talking about the calling out of the Gentiles in the Present therefore, "after this" the Tabernacle of David will be restored - exactly what is the problem with your understanding of what I and he said. The reason that this is important is because James was now the Crown Prince of the Davidic Throne and the Apostles were looking for the restoration of the Kingdom at that time and James - who had been given a priveledged meeting with his Resurrected Brother - emphatically states that the Kingdom would not be restored at that time, only after Y'hova got done calling out the Gentiles. There is no confusion of the passage at all and it does, emphatically, state that the Davidic Throne will be restored in the future after the engrafting of the Gentiles.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I didn't think you meant something more than the political nation of Israel. I realised that you were trying to distinguish between the "political nation" of Israel and "true Israel". My point was, you seemed to be using your example as though it were in support of this very distinction - which would be question begging, because unless one assumes that these two Israels exist, then the conclusion wouldn't follow.

I maintain that there is no exegetical mandate for distinguishing between two Israels in the way that you suggest. I will discuss this in more detail below.OK, the distinction I draw is between "political Israel" and the true or spiritual Israel. You say now that there's no biblicalmandate for this? OK, let's go through your reasons:
Well, the question is not so much whether or not it is "meaningful" to distinguish - clearly, it can have meaning. The question is really whether or not it is correct to distinguish - ie, whether or not St Paul and the other NT writers knew of or taught such a distinction. And it was precisely this difference that I was trying to focus on. I wasn't trying to make our differences look any bigger than that (although that is a big difference).OK.
As a matter of fact, I do believe it is correct to distinguish between two things that are rightly called "Israel" - just not the two that you identify. The Scriptures clearly distinguish between the following two Israels:

1. Israel, the nation (God's people)
2. Israel, aka Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham.[quote]Unless you mean something funky by "nation," you've left out those in Christ. I'm assuming that "nation" here carries the normal political meaning.
[quote]Well, I certainly agree that this passage mandates that there must be two different Israels. However, I don't see the need for inventing a second Israel (really a third) in order to make sense of this passage, when the Scriptures already clearly attest to two different Israels (see above).Who's inventing? I see what you think the passage means, but it looks much simpler to read it as: Those who are Israel after the flesh are not necessarily part of spiritual Israel. Spiritual israel is the genuine people of God, and there are people living in the nation of Israel, that is, that political body consisiting of children of Jacob, who are not part of the spiritual israel.
It is these two Israels which are clearly in view in this passage - St Paul is basically saying: "For they are not all Israel, which are of Jacob", ie "they are not all Israel [the nation], which are [descended] from Israel [the man]". St Paul is contrasting national membership (Israel) with physical descent (those who are "from Israel").I agree about what Paul is contrasting. But "of jacob, simply due to the facts of history," identifies a nation.
That this reading (where Paul is contrasting physical descent with covenant is the correct one is made clear by the fact that, in the very next verse, he starts talking about the physical descendants of Abraham and showing how not all of them were reckoned as children of the covenant.Nothing to add here, see below.
In a group-oriented culture which has the concept of "group headship", the natural assumption would be that anyone descended from a person is part of the nation/tribe named after that person. It was necessary for St Paul to refute this assumption and point that this is not always the case (citing Abraham as proof), and it isn't the the case with Israel either - much as Christ had to refute it, when He said: "I tell you the truth, out of these stones God could raise up children of Abraham".I think Jesus' point there was to stress that their physical relationship to Abraham was of no value, givent he state of their heart.

St Paul is not merely saying that physical descent doesn't define the nation of Israel since the advent of Christ - he is saying that physical descent never did defined the nation of Israel. To remain a member of the nation of Israel always required faithfulness - if one was unfaithful, then one would eventually be kicked out.This is clearly question begging. I never said that Paul was claiming that since the advent of Christ, physical descent does not define the true people of God. This was always the case, which is why so many Jews rejected Jesus when He came. But to just insert here the view that all people who remained members of the nation remained faithful is in dispute. Why were so many who had remained in the political nation so hostile to Christ when He came? My answer is a very simple one: It's because while they had never been kicked out of the covenant nation, they were nonetheless not spiritual Israel! I just don't see the need for more complex theories than this.
Even when the entire nation of Israel was in slavery in Egypt, it was still the nation of Israel (which clearly rules out the "geo" aspect of defining the nation of Israel, at the very least).I don't consider this relevant. I used "geo-political" to refer to a particular stage of Israel's history, when they became a nation proper. They were, while in Egypt, a family waiting for its nationhood.
And anyone, anywhere, who was a member of the covenant of Israel, was considered to be an Israelite. As a matter of fact, this is pretty much the case even with the modern state of "Israel" - any Jew in the world is considered to be a citizen of that state.And now, as then, people who are regarded as members of the nation are not ipso facto part of spiritual Israel, if they are outside of Christ.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

2) And James was talking about the calling out of the Gentiles in the Present therefore, "after this" the Tabernacle of David will be restored - exactly what is the problem with your understanding of what I and he said. The reason that this is important is because James was now the Crown Prince of the Davidic Throne and the Apostles were looking for the restoration of the Kingdom at that time and James - who had been given a priveledged meeting with his Resurrected Brother - emphatically states that the Kingdom would not be restored at that time, only after Y'hova got done calling out the Gentiles. There is no confusion of the passage at all and it does, emphatically, state that the Davidic Throne will be restored in the future after the engrafting of the Gentiles.

Jester.... "after" what? The whole point of James' comment was that since the Scripture delcared that the fallen tabernacle would be restored, the gentiles should be included!

Why would he make that connection, Jester?

[Jezz]

1) You are using circular reasoning and did not answer the question so I will rephrase it for you.
I'm sorry if I did not answer your question. I certainly felt that I had. Perhaps the way that it was originally phrased was a little ambiguous?

Why did God promise that the Messiah would come from the Loins of David if the lineages were not important.
God promised that the Messiah would come from the loins of David because He chose to - pure and simple. He did not promise it because it was important that the Messiah be descended from David. Had He desired, He could have chosen another Israelite king (or even a non-king) to be the ancestor of Christ, but He didn't. I could speculate as to the reasons why He did so, but any answer I (or you, for that matter) could come up with would be exactly that - speculation.

If I had to speculate, I would speculate that God promised that the Messiah would be a descendent of David because He chose to honour His faithful servant David in this way for His devotion.

The problem is, your question is not relevant to the question that I asked. At best, you are showing that physical lineage was important for the Christ. Which is fine - I agree that it was. I did not say:

"we see that lineage was never actually the important factor in determining who was the Messiah"

... rather, I said:

"we see that lineage was never actually the important factor in determining who was an Israelite"

Whatever you may prove about the importance of the lineage of the Messiah in particular, my comments about the lineage of Israelites in general remain.

2) You are missing the point of this thread. The adoption of Ruth - based upon the future promise of the New Covenant - and the adoption of Christians today - based on that New Covenant Realized - is adoption into the Commonwealth of Israel - that is the purpose of the Grafting Symbology.
:hrm: I am not missing this point at all. This is precisely the position that I have been advocating.

But the fact that adoption is possible (coupled with the fact that God sometimes "cuts off" the unfaithful branches) proves that physical lineage is not important in determining who is a member of the Commonweath of Israel.

And that is why God promised the Messiah through the Loins of David and you cannot separate the Adoption of the Christian from the Theocratic Kingdom on this earth.
I don't separate Adoption from the Kingdom of God on this earth. The Church is that kingdom, and when one is received into the Commonwealth of the Church, one is adopted.

The modern state of "Israel", while perhaps consisting of people who are physically descended from Jacob son of Isaac, nevertheless is not actually Israel. True Israel is the Church.

[Jezz]

1) I believe you were the one that mentioned that they were familiar with the Jerusalem Council which is where that quote came from so, exactly what is the problem?
If you cared to, you could have checked that belief for yourself. Go back through my previous posts and see where I mentioned the Jerusalem Council prior to your response (I'll save you the effort: I didn't).

2) And James was talking about the calling out of the Gentiles in the Present therefore, "after this" the Tabernacle of David will be restored - exactly what is the problem with your understanding of what I and he said.
I have no trouble understanding what you said, or what St James said. However, what you said is not what St James said. The "after this" is not after the present influx of Gentiles.

To understand what it is that the rebuiliding is supposed to be after, you need to read Amos in context (and you need to read the LXX, because that's the version that St James used). You can find it here (http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx-kjv/Amos/Amos_009.htm) (it's the one on the left).

9:9 For I [will] give commandment, and sift the house of Israel among all the Gentiles, as [corn] is sifted in a sieve, and [yet] a fragment shall not in any wise fall upon the earth.

9:10 All the sinners of my people shall die by the sword, who say, Calamities shall certainly not draw near, nor come upon us.

9:11 In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and will rebuild the ruins of it, and will set up the parts thereof that have been broken down, and will build it up as in the ancient days:

9:11 is the start of the verse that St James cited (he paraphrases slightly). Clearly "after this" means "after all the sinners of God's people shall die by the sword, who say, Calamities shall certainly not draw near, nor come upon us."

The Roman sword was already falling on Israel by the time of St James, and climaxed in the Roman-Jewish war at around AD 70. This was at the same time that God was rebuilding the tabernacle (ie, the Church) as He had promised. The tabernacle of David refers to God's people.

The reason that this is important is because James was now the Crown Prince of the Davidic Throne and the Apostles were looking for the restoration of the Kingdom at that time and James - who had been given a priveledged meeting with his Resurrected Brother - emphatically states that the Kingdom would not be restored at that time, only after Y'hova got done calling out the Gentiles. There is no confusion of the passage at all and it does, emphatically, state that the Davidic Throne will be restored in the future after the engrafting of the Gentiles.
This is a rather strange reading of the text. The tabernacle of David is not the same thing as the throne of David.

In verse 14, St James plainly states:

Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

Note that "showed" is in the past tense. God has already taken from the Gentiles a people for himself. He then cites the prophecy as though this completed event was the fulfillment of that prophecy - not as though the prophecy was something to be fulfilled in the future.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

In case anyone cares... I'm bored with this thread so I'm unsubscribing.

[Secretary of the Navy Sparko]

In case anyone cares... I'm bored with this thread so I'm unsubscribing.

me too.

[Theolog]

Gentiles are grafted into Israel, Jews are cut off and burned but of course "All Israel will be saved" but some will be chared a bit. The point is that Christ is king, follow him or die.

And YES Jews that do not follow the NEW COVENANT are cursed above all men because they are the Israel that is not Israel.

And yes it was a boring thread except my exellent post from The NEW BIBLE DICTIONARY
THIRD EDITION;
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=2084897#post2084897