Modern Jews - In Covenant with God?

[Cherith]

Under another thread, I had said:


Outside of a covenant relationship they [the Jews] are (or have become) just like the rest of the nations.

To which, Yoshiah_Ap responded:


Luckily, we have a covenant still.

I was SO looking forward to having this debate! Perhaps this one is just too tough for even a self-professed "Jew" to tackle...

--C

[Conductor42]

I will get to this soon - I promise. However, some things have come up which have greatly reduced the time I can spend on forums, and I'm in the middle of switching hosts and changing my entire site design. If I haven't replied within 2 weeks, send me a PM and we'll start this debate.

My apologies for not messaging you earlier about this.

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

I second Yoshiah_ap, my Karaite friend.

We are still living under the eternally valid covenant established at Mt. Sinai.

What's the problem?

Be well!

ssv :hi:

[GrayPilgrim]

Did I mention that this very question is one of the issues I will be treating in my dissertation especially as it relates to Leviticus 26:40-6, where God said that if he executes the covenant curses, and even if after all that and he has displaced them that he will remember the covenant he made with "Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham," and he will restore them and renew the Covenant. Now from a Christian perspective (and I would say from some Jewish one as well) that it would be fair to say that the diaspora is part of the covenant curses brought about here. I find the four fold repetition in Leviticus 26 of the sevenfold increase of punishment if the children of Israel fail to repent after God begins his judgment very interesting (sure makes good sense of Daniel's 70 sevens).

then I will walk contrary to you in fury, and I myself will discipline you sevenfold for your sins.


However what I find most interesting is those last 6 verses in the chapter:

Leviticus 26:40-46 "But if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers in their treachery that they committed against me, and also in walking contrary to me, 41 so that I walked contrary to them and brought them into the land of their enemies- if then their uncircumcised heart is humbled and they make amends for their iniquity, 42 then I will remember my covenant with Jacob, and I will remember my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land. 43 But the land shall be abandoned by them and enjoy its Sabbaths while it lies desolate without them, and they shall make amends for their iniquity, because they spurned my rules and their soul abhorred my statutes. 44 Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not spurn them, neither will I abhor them so as to destroy them utterly and break my covenant with them, for I am the LORD their God. 45 But I will for their sake remember the covenant with their forefathers, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God: I am the LORD." 46 These are the statutes and rules and laws that the LORD made between him and the people of Israel through Moses on Mount Sinai.


In there is what I think is the answer to this question. Yes God executed the judgments in 586 BC then we enter into the 70 years of Jeremiah (or better Leviticus 26 to give the land its sabbaths) yet from reading Daniel it appears that God did not reckon that the people had humbled themselves and so he multiplied it by seven (ala the 490 weeks of Daniel). So I would say that any dissmissal of the Covenant with the Jews is a dissmissal of the Abrahamic Covenant which the New Covenant of Jeremiah (which we Christians claim was brought about by the death and ressurection of the Lord Jesus Christ). Notice that God predicated his faithfulness here based on that covenant and so I woudl have to say yes, we would though probably differ on the nuances of what it means, but that is not surprising since a Jewish person is Jewish and I as a Christian am Christian. So we of course qill quibble over the details, but the base answer to Cherith's question is yes they are I would probably say, in all humanity, that they are still under the covenant curses and waiting for their repentence...and that will be signalled by a full restoration of the blessings talked about earlier in Leviticus 26 and accompanied by the faith of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

GP

[kofh2u]

Whenever this type of discussion comes up, I always wait for some mention of that ever growing congregation of Hebrew-Christians and reflection on Revelation 7.

I have never been able to get attention focused on this third party to the meaning of the verses yo which this post refers.

[Conductor42]

I will be using the 1985 JPS (NJPS) Translation when I quote the Bible.

As Jews, we are commanded to be Torah Observant forever. Below are four examples of this.

Exodus 12:14 (speaking of Passover)
"This day shall be to you one of remembrance: you shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD throughout the ages; you shall celebrate it as an institution for all time."

Exodus 27:21 "Aaron and his sons shall set them up in the Tent of Meeting, outside the curtain which is over [the Ark of] the Pact, [to burn] from evening to morning before the LORD. It shall be due from the Israelites for all time, throughout the ages."

Leviticus 10:9 "Drink no wine or other intoxicant, you or your sons, when you enter the Tent of Meeting, that you may not die. This is a law for all time throughout the ages,"

Levitcus 15:15b "...There shall be one law for you and for the resident stranger; it shall be a law for all time throughout the ages. You and the stranger shall be alike before the LORD."

I am assuming that you believe we are out of a covenant because we have broken the covenant before. (I may be wrong in how you come to your conclusions). However, the Tanakh/Hebrew Bible does not say that when/if we break the covenant, that we are out of a covenant. Rather, there are consenquences for our actions.

If we break the covenant, the we merit curses. These are outlined in Deuteronomy 28:15-69. (Cf. 2 Chronicles 34:24)

But, does this mean we are out of luck for ever? No, in fact much of the Tanakh/Hebrew bible is a rebuke and a call to repentance to Israelites who are not Torah Observant.

Deuteronomy 4:29-31 "But if you search there for the LORD your God, you will find him, if only you seek him with all your heart and soul - when you are in distress because all these things have befallen you and, in the end, return to the LORD your God and obey Him. For the LORD your God is a compassionate God: He will not fail you nor will he let you perish; He will not forget the covenant which he made on oath with your fathers."

2 Chronicles 7:14 "When my people, who bear my name, humble themselves, pray, and seek my favor and turn from their evil ways, I will hear in my heavenly abode and forgive their sins and heal their land."

Isaiah 1:18 "Come, let us reach an understanding, says the Lord. Be your sins like crimson, they can turn snow-white; Be they red as dyed wool, they can become like fleece." If, then, you agree and give heed, You will eat the good things of the earth; But if you refused and disobey, You will be devoured [by] the sword - For it was the LORD who spoke."

Isaiah 49:14-15a "Zion says, "The LORD has forsaken me, My Lord has forgotten me." Can a woman forget her baby, or disown the child of her womb?"

Isaiah 58:13-14a "If you turn back you foot from the sabbath, frompursuing your affairs on my holy day; If you call the sabbath "delight," the LORD's holy day "honored"; And if you honor it and go not your ways, nor look to your affairs, nor stike bargains - then you can seek the favor of the LORD."

Also cf. 1 King 8:46-52, Hosea 14:2-3

The last straw here is, will the covenant required of us in the end of days? Yes, in the Book of Zechariah it says that we will be required to observe Sukkot. Cf. Zecharaih 14:16-19

[GrayPilgrim]

Yosiah,

I would also commend to you Leviticus 26: 40-46 which shows that if/when you break the covenant that you are "not out of luck forever".

GP

[Cherith]

Cherith, how about replying to my response to you in the thread you started 'Modern Jews - In Covenant with God?'? You did start the thread after all.

Well, so far I haven't seen you really make a point.


Yosiah, I would also commend to you Leviticus 26: 40-46 which shows that if/when you break the covenant that you are "not out of luck forever". GP

That's an amazing piece of exegesis, Gray. Perhaps you can tell us how the uncircumcised can humble (circumcise) their own hearts (v.41)?

And yet all of this nonsense begs the question seeing as how there are no longer any physical descendants of Abraham running around...

Has God fulfilled His Covenant with the fathers or NØT?

Do modern Jews continue to enjoy a covenantal relationship with God?

Can anyone enjoy a relationship with God apart from the NEW Covenant?

[JohnnyMac]

I am with you on this 100%, Cherith. You and I share the identical perspective on the supposed genetic connection between Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (not to mention Aaron) and the modern so-called "Jews" of today. I don't mean to insult anyone's intelligence or understanding of their own ethnicity - but the facts are the facts, documented and valid.

Moreover, the Scriptures themselves indicate in BOTH Testaments that (contrary to Gray Pilgrim's assertions) the Old Covenant Israelites/Jews were DISINHERITED forever, for rejecting their own God. Galatians 4 is exceedingly, unequivocally clear on this point. So are Deut. 28:15-68 and Deut. 30:17,18. In the former passage, we find NO mention of restoration of the Nation AFTER the time of punishment and destruction itemized in those verses. And every one of those curses came to pass in fulfillment of God's Covenant with His People, here - TO THE LETTER - in 70 AD. What we have before us in Deut. 28 is an itemization of the final, ultimate annihilation of the Old Covenant People as a People. There is NO restoration for them after these events. It is simply NOT THERE, because at the end of all of this - THEY NO LONGER EXIST. Their bloodlines are lost and they are intermingled with the other peoples and races of the planet in slavery, etc.

No modern "Jews" can trace their ancestry back to the ancient fathers of the Israelite Nation, via empirically verifiable documentation. All efforts to establish "genetic links" via spurious, unscientific "studies" have been proven erroneous and essentially speculative in nature. They have none of the DNA of the original Israelites with which to compare theirs - so the "studies" are moot. There IS no case. Anthropologists (the majority, even "Jewish" ones) are in agreement on this - there is no such thing as a "Jewish" race on the planet today.


"It is a common assumption, and one that sometimes seems ineradicable even in the face of evidence to the contrary, that the Jews of today constitute a race, a homogeneous entity easily recognizable. From the preceding discussion of the origin and early history of the Jews, it should be clear that in the course of their formation as a people and a nation they had already assimilated a variety of racial strains from people moving into the general area they occupied. This had taken place by interbreeding and then by conversion to Judaism of a considerable number of communities. . . .

"Thus, the diversity of the racial and genetic attributes of various Jewish colonies of today renders any unified racial classification of them a contradiction in terms. Despite this, many people readily accept the notion that they are a distinct race. This is probably reinforced by the fact that some Jews are recognizably different in appearance from the surrounding population. That many cannot be easily identified is overlooked and the stereotype for some is extended to all - a not uncommon phenomenon" (Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem, 1971, vol. 3, p. 50).

[Conductor42]

Well, so far I haven't seen you really make a point.

The point is that even when and if we have fallen short of our Covenant's requirements, we have not lost the covenant.



[COLOR=DarkRed]That's an amazing piece of exegesis, Gray. Perhaps you can tell us how the uncircumcised can humble (circumcise) their own hearts (v.41)?

I'm not gray, but this is fairly easy to answer. The same way a circumicized person does!



And yet all of this nonsense begs the question seeing as how there are no longer any physical descendants of Abraham running around...

Then you make God a lier. Cf. Leviticus 26:44-45, Jeremiah 5:18, 30:11, 46:28, Malachi 3:6, and others.

Also, where's your evidence that Hitler's goal was achieved?



Has God fulfilled His Covenant with the fathers or NØT?

Do modern Jews continue to enjoy a covenantal relationship with God?


Yup, or suffer from it.



Can anyone enjoy a relationship with God apart from the NEW Covenant?

Define what you believe is the 'New Covenant', for discussion purposes.

[JohnnyMac]

Has God fulfilled His Covenant with the fathers or NØT?

Yes, He did. God fufilled His Covenant with the "fathers" of ancient Israel back in Joshua's day.

43 So the Lord gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and dwelt in it. 44 The Lord gave them rest all around, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers. And not a man of all their enemies stood against them; the Lord delivered all their enemies into their hand. 45 Not a word failed of any good thing which the Lord had spoken to the house of Israel. All came to pass.


Do modern Jews continue to enjoy a covenantal relationship with God?

NO, they DON'T. And yep - they suffer for it alright. Identification with an accursed system of faith and belief in God yields great suffering. The history of the so-called "Jews" testifies to this fact.

[Conductor42]

Yes, He did. God fufilled His Covenant with the "fathers" of ancient Israel back in Joshua's day.

43 So the Lord gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and dwelt in it. 44 The Lord gave them rest all around, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers. And not a man of all their enemies stood against them; the Lord delivered all their enemies into their hand. 45 Not a word failed of any good thing which the Lord had spoken to the house of Israel. All came to pass.

Yup. And if he didn't continue to fulfill it he would be a lier, as he gave us an ETERNAL covenant. He wasn't done fulfilling the covenant there.

Observe and hear all these words which I command thee, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee for ever, when thou doest that which is good and right in the sight of the LORD thy God.
And Moses sware on that day, saying, Surely the land whereon thy feet have trodden shall be thine inheritance, and thy children’s for ever, because thou hast wholly followed the LORD my God.
And they sang together by course in praising and giving thanks unto the LORD; because he is good, for his mercy endureth for ever toward Israel. And all the people shouted with a great shout, when they praised the LORD, because the foundation of the house of the LORD was laid.



NO, they DON'T. And yep - they suffer for it alright. Identification with an accursed system of faith and belief in God yields great suffering. The history of the so-called "Jews" testifies to this fact.

You're not the first to make such claims. In fact, the prophet Jeremiah (my favorite scriptural character), dealt with the very same claims. The Creator had a very nice answer for him.


23 The word of YHWH came to Jeremiah: 24 You see what this people said: "The two families which YHWH chose have now been rejected by Him." Thus they despise My people and regard them as no longer a nation. 25 Thus said YHWH: As surely as I have established my covenant with day and night - the laws of heaven and earth - 26 so I will never reject the offspring of Jacob and My servant David; I will never fail to take from his offspring rulers for the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Indeed, I will restore their forturnes and take them back in love.

For clarification purposes, exactly which events in history are you reffering to? And if we are not Jews, prove it!

[GrayPilgrim]

I'm on Spring Break baby sitting my niece and nephew, but wanted to make a few brief comments.
1) On the Joshua passage, if the standard and method of reading that passage was used consistantly then all Go dwould have to do with a Christian is say at this particular second you are saved, but hey that is all I have to do so now you aren't, it makes God in to an evil being. The covenant was not jsut about giving a piece of land to a family group. It was about God making a kingdom out of a family.

Gen 12:1-3 "Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you, in order that you I may make you a great nation, in order that I may bless you and make your name great, in order that yo may be a blessing. In order that I may bless those that bless you, and curse those who defame you, and in order that in you all the families of the earth may be blessed

This rendering follows the understanding that a qetol follwed by a string w+yiqtols shows purpose. Thus the w+yiqtols indicate the purpose of the initial imperative.


Then we move to Genesis 15 where the Lord God passes between teh split carcasses saying that if the children of Abraham do not inherit this land for all eternity then may I be as these animals, it is a curse upon himself if the Lord God of the Universe does not fulfill that covenant.

2. This whole genealogical bilge. Even ion the OT it was never about genealogical descent. Don't misunderstand what I am saying here, to be a priest you had to be, for God to be faithful some descendents of Abraham had to inherit the land. however, it is not all there is to it, think of all the counter examples Caleb, Uriah, and Ruth were not descended from Abraham yet they were all brought into the People of God in the OT. (If you read carefully you will see that Caleb not a descendent of Isaac and Jacob). There is also the mixed multitude that came out of Egypt with the Children of Israel. The Law is replete with different instructions for the resident alien, guest worker, and immigrant (i.e. one who became a member ofthe Covenant from another group such as Ruth).

3. Leviticus 26 is not my assertion read it this is the legal writ that God obligated himself to. Thus if Israel repents he is bound by covenant to restore their fortunes. God has not written them off.

4. This does not mean that I support a via secundum for the Jewish people. THis goes back to my understanding that the Covenant relationship with the Jews was set in Genesis 15 and the rest of the Bible is fleshing out the implications of that covenant. It is interesting that God places obligation upon himself in that passage to give a piece of dirt to the children of Abraham who have his faith (Gen 15:6 "Abram believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. As a Christian I say that it was recconed to him based upion God looking on the finished workof Christ on the Cross.

5. Yosiah by the New Covenant Christians understand Christianity as the out working of Jeremiah 31:31. Cherith and Johnny Mac, ntoe that the law is written on the hearts of those in the New Covenant, adn as Paul said in Romans that the Law is good, but it is weak and that we as bone headed sinners need the active work of the Holy Spirit working through the Law of the Spirit of life (Romans 8, contrasts two laws the one of sin and death, which as 7 points out is good but powerless, and the law of the Spirit of life, which God actively works out in the life of those who are in him and thus no longer under any condemnation, who will share in Christ's ressurection, and reign with him for all eternity on the renewed earth, when God will release creation from the results of the orchard thieves.

GP

[JohnnyMac]

I'll respond to these good comments and rejoinders in reverse order.


1) On the Joshua passage, if the standard and method of reading that passage was used consistantly then all Go dwould have to do with a Christian is say at this particular second you are saved, but hey that is all I have to do so now you aren't, it makes God in to an evil being. The covenant was not jsut about giving a piece of land to a family group. It was about God making a kingdom out of a family.

The Old (Mosaic) Covenant attached certain requirements to God's Covenant with Israel. There is a distinct difference between the ABRAHAMIC Covenant and the MOSAIC Covenant, and the two should not be confused. The MOSAIC Covenant required that the PEOPLE remain faithful to their God, in response to His faithfulness to them. Should they depart from Him utterly and completely, demonstrating a complete inability to repent and be restored to Covenant relationship with Him, He would have no option but to utterly destroy them forever - which is what happened with the final, most wicked generation of Jews/Israelites, in 70 AD. They eternally violated the Mosaic Covenant with their God, and He destroyed them as a People, forever, as a result.

I am particularly concerned with YOUR perspective on these things, GP. As a Christian, you have the clear opportunity to comprehend these things from a more complete, Biblical perspective - acknowledging the equal authority of BOTH Testaments on this matter.

Allow me to demonstrate why I am concerned that a NEW TESTAMENT perspective on the Abrahamic Covenant is lacking in your thinking.

"Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you, in order that you I may make you a great nation, in order that I may bless you and make your name great, in order that yo may be a blessing. In order that I may bless those that bless you, and curse those who defame you, and in order that in you all the families of the earth may be blessed"

Compare the above text with this one.

8 By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. 9 By faith he dwelt in the land of promise as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise; 10 he waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God....13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, F52 embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. 14 For those who say such things declare plainly that they seek a homeland. 15 And truly if they had called to mind that country from which they had come out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them."

It is evident, in the passage above, that Abraham's expectation was for a fulfillment of God's Covenant with Him IN HEAVEN - the HEAVENLY LAND OF PROMISE! The great Nation of descendants he was promised were SPIRITUAL DESCENDANTS, who manifested "like faith". This is further confirmed in Romans 9:6-8.

6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed."

I would very much like yoshiah_ap to pay close attention to these things also. The ETERNAL COVENANT WITH ABRAHAM IS eternal - it is maintained with his spiritual offspring - the CHRISTIANS!

I mentioned Galatians 4 in passing, previously, and I will once again refer to it here.

21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar-- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children-- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written: "Rejoice, O barren, You who do not bear! Break forth and shout, You who are not in labor! For the desolate has many more children Than she who has a husband." 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman." 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free."

Any Christian who believes the "Jews" are somehow co-participants in any kind of ongoing Covenant with God by virtue of their supposed heredity and "Jewishness" is very sadly deceived. The ancient Jews of the First Century had NO PART in any future Covenant with God, as a People. They were DISINHERITED in the First Century, even as Ishmael was. He and his mother, Hagar, were ejected from the household of faith/Abraham and left without an inheritance of any kind. They had NO future considerations as descendants of Abraham.

The ONLY Covenant People of God alive on the planet today are CHRISTIANS - the "children of promise" and spiritual descendants of Isaac and Abraham. Nothing can be plainer, when the full counsel of God is considered, contextually.

Having read your response in its entirety, GP, I see that you agree with me on some of these things, and yet you see future fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant as somehow involved with the physical Nation of "Jews", today.

yoshiah - a word or two to you, now.

Your citation of Jeremiah removes it from its immediate context and misapplies it to me and others, today, who indicate that there is no longer a physical Nation of Israel maintained in accordance with the Abrahamic Covenant by the God of Israel. Here is the ACTUAL, TRUE context of Jeremiah 33:23-26.

"The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord in the tenth year of Zedekiah king of Judah, which was the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar. 2 For then the king of Babylon's army besieged Jerusalem, and Jeremiah the prophet was shut up in the court of the prison, which was in the king of Judah's house."

"This people" who spoke of God's rejecting of His People in Jeremiah 33:23 were the BABYLONIANS who were laying siege to Jerusalem at that time. THEY believed that God had completely abandoned and rejected His People AT THAT TIME. But, of course, He hadn't.

I need to make something very, very clear here, however.

15 'In those days and at that time I will cause to grow up to David A Branch of righteousness; He shall execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. 16 In those days Judah will be saved, And Jerusalem will dwell safely. And this is the name by which she will be called: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.' 17 "For thus says the Lord: 'David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel; 18 nor shall the priests, the Levites, lack a man to offer burnt offerings before Me, to kindle grain offerings, and to sacrifice continually.' " 19 And the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying, 20 "Thus says the Lord: 'If you can break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night, so that there will not be day and night in their season, 21 then My covenant may also be broken with David My servant, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and with the Levites, the priests, My ministers. 22 As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.' "

Due to the fact that the SPIRITUAL ISRAELITES (including a vast host of those who were the SUBSET within the physical, Old Covenant Nation of Israel, known as the "remnant" or "elect") dwell with God forever in the heavenly Land of Promise and serve Him in their various capacities there - the passage above finds fulfillment IN THAT SENSE AND PLACE. I believe there is a Davidic government in heaven with various governers answerable directly to God. I believe the priesthood established in the New Testament era (the First Century saints having been made "kings and priests unto God") is the eternal fulfillment of the promise concerning continual sacrifices to God. Obviously, the Levites who were spiritually faithful to God were translated into His Presence and eternal, spiritual Kingdom in the heavenlies to serve Him forever in the offering of sacrifices and offerings - spiritual offerings represented metaphorically in the "grain offerings" and sacrifices. In fact, it is highly possible that the FORM of those sacrifices was preserved in heaven, even though their substance was brought to fulfillment in Christ's death and substitionary atonement on behalf of His People.

One more note to yoshiah_ap. Note that Deut. 4:40 makes the blessing of the Covenant CONTINGENT upon the faithfulness of His People. That Covenant had more in it than simple blessing. There were also promises of DESTRUCTION and CURSES to be brought upon them for rejection of their God. God was required to remain faithful to that aspect of His Covenant with them also.

[Jaltus]

Sorry, I feel the need to butt in:


It is evident, in the passage above, that Abraham's expectation was for a fulfillment of God's Covenant with Him IN HEAVEN - the HEAVENLY LAND OF PROMISE! The great Nation of descendants he was promised were SPIRITUAL DESCENDANTS, who manifested "like faith".

Wow, what a wonderful misreading of the text. Did you completely neglect the theme of rest in Hebrews, or did you just not even read the rest of the book?

First, let us look at the verses you so conveniently skipped:

Hebrews 11:11-14 11 By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised. 12 Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born descendants as many as the stars of heaven and as many as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore. 13 These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. 14 For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland.

Well looky here, born descendants, a point which negates your point quite strongly. Could that be why you left them out of your above post?

Hebrews 3:7-11 7 Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, "Today, if you hear his voice, 8 do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, on the day of testing in the wilderness, 9 where your fathers put me to the test and saw my works 10 for forty years. Therefore I was provoked with that generation, and said, 'They always go astray in their heart; they have not known my ways.' 11 As I swore in my wrath, 'They shall not enter my rest.'"

What is that rest? Obviously the rest is linked closely with the land, otherwise this passage makes no sense.

Hebrews 3:12-19 12 Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. 13 But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end. 15 As it is said, "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion." 16 For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses? 17 And with whom was he provoked for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? 18 And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? 19 So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.

Look how closely not entering rest is linked with not entering the land here, and it is limited to physical Israel. While there are strong typological types being set up here by the author of Hebrews, this passage shows that the OT covenant was looking at the physical for a large part.

Saying anything different ignores the main argument of the author of Hebrews, who shows that physical descent is important but can be superceded. If it can be superceded, it means that it must have had some relevance in the past. The book itself defeats your argument, as long as you are willing to let it speak.

[themuzicman]

Is there a gym debate brewing, here? Yoshiah? GP? Maybe in a couple of weeks when GP is settled back at home? This is one I would watch with great interest!

Michael

[JohnnyMac]

Hi, Jaltus! I always enjoy your input in any discussion. You "debate theology seriously" (in conformity with this forum's billing). I appreciate and respect that.


Wow, what a wonderful misreading of the text. Did you completely neglect the theme of rest in Hebrews, or did you just not even read the rest of the book?

Evidently, you yourself have misread and misunderstood the theme and thrust of the Book of Hebrews, Jaltus. The passage under consideration, in particular, is NOT intended to lend any legitimacy to the idea that the physical descendants of Abraham have any continuing, Covenantal inheritance - particularly in relation to the geographical piece of real estate known as Canaan, Palestine, etc.

11 By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised. 12 Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born descendants as many as the stars of heaven and as many as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore. 13 These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. 14 For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland.

"These all died in faith". Did ALL of Abraham's physical descendants "die in faith", anticipating future fulfillment of the promises of God, Jaltus? According to Joshua 21 (as cited previously) a whole generation of them experienced the COMPLETE fulfillment of God's promises in terms of the physical land.

WHO "died in faith", then? Was it not those descendants of his who were SPIRITUAL descendants? Of course it was. The rest of the chapter confirms this. The physical heredity was of no consequence. It was the SPIRITUAL connection with Abraham that provided his SPIRITUAL descendants with an inheritance according to the Abrahamic Covenant. Many of those who descended from him physically were among the first to evidence this type of faith in God.


Well looky here, born descendants, a point which negates your point quite strongly. Could that be why you left them out of your above post?

I don't deliberately leave ANYTHING out of my posts, Jaltus. My desire is not to obscure but to ACCURATELY DIVIDE THE WORD OF TRUTH. I simply highlighted portions of the passage seemingly overlooked, as a rule, by others.


Hebrews 3:7-11 7 Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, "Today, if you hear his voice, 8 do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, on the day of testing in the wilderness, 9 where your fathers put me to the test and saw my works 10 for forty years. Therefore I was provoked with that generation, and said, 'They always go astray in their heart; they have not known my ways.' 11 As I swore in my wrath, 'They shall not enter my rest.'"............What is that rest? Obviously the rest is linked closely with the land, otherwise this passage makes no sense.

WHY would the passage "make no sense" if the SPIRITUAL, HEAVENLY "land of rest" were the ultimate consideration, here. Or how about the place of spiritual rest where the Old Covenant saints awaited the resurrection (Sheol)? Either is possible, and certainly - considering the tone and central focus of the passage - the SPIRITUAL nature of God's "place of rest" should be the primary understanding here. Yes, those who wandered in the wilderness - that whole generation - failed to enter the physical land of Canaan. But they were also denied entry into the SPIRITUAL "land of rest", evidently. The one was a type of the other (which was the core reality represented by the former).

"Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. 13 But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end. 15 As it is said, "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion." 16 For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses? 17 And with whom was he provoked for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? 18 And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? 19 So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief."

Note the SPIRITUAL condemnation expressed here, Jaltus. The emphasis is on the failure of the Old Covenant People to SPIRITUALLY appropriate the inheritance of a Covenant relationship with God on a SPIRITUAL level (by faith). Unbelief prevented that rebellious generation of Israelites from not only entering the land of Canaan, but also from entering into the "place of rest" and spiritual peace in God's spiritual care and protection - particularly after death. These people LOST their eternal inheritance available through their spiritual (and, in their case, physical) forefather. The emphasis, however, is on their SPIRITUAL lineage - not the physical.


Look how closely not entering rest is linked with not entering the land here, and it is limited to physical Israel. While there are strong typological types being set up here by the author of Hebrews, this passage shows that the OT covenant was looking at the physical for a large part.

The Old Covenant typologically MANIFESTED certain spiritual realities in terms of the spiritual condition of its adherents. The physical elements and aspects of God's Covenant with these people had an ultimate, eternal, enduring SPIRITUAL significance - beyond this life and planetary existence.


Saying anything different ignores the main argument of the author of Hebrews, who shows that physical descent is important but can be superceded. If it can be superceded, it means that it must have had some relevance in the past. The book itself defeats your argument, as long as you are willing to let it speak.

The only significance that physical descent had was that these people were the first to be given the opportunity to exercise faith in God on the level exemplified by Abraham. Abraham's faith had initial expression via many (not all) of his physical descendants. His TRUE descendants (SPIRITUAL descendants) were a subset within the larger group of his physical descendants. His true descendants were the true beneficiaries of the Abrahamic Covenant. THAT is the theme of Hebrews, echoing the Book of Romans.

[Cherith]

Yup [He fulfilled His Covenant with the "fathers"]. And if he didn't continue to fulfill it he would be a lier, as he gave us an ETERNAL covenant. He wasn't done fulfilling the covenant there.

Two things, Yoshiah before we go on.

First, a covenant is akin to our modern concept of a contract and as such can be fulfilled or broken. The term itself carries the idea of taking an "oath" and/or making a "commitment." Would you agree?

Second, the Old Covenant was conditional. It set forth conditions and stipulations which Israel was to obey/fulfill or else risk being "cut off" from the covenant. A person cannot "break" that which is not break-able. Would you agree to that?

"...it shall come to pass, IF ye hearken to these judgments, AND keep, AND do them, THEN The LORD thy God shall keep unto thee the Covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers: {13} And he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee... {14} Thou shalt be blessed above all people..."

There are many, many instances in the O.C. where the Lord commands that the unfaithful/ungodly be excommunicated (i.e. "cut off") - because "they have broken My Covenant." What is remarkable, is that when Israel does, in fact, break the covenant (e.g. Exo 32; Jer 11:10; Ezek 44:7; Deut 31:16, 20), God exercises His Right as Suzerain Lord and considers the covenant annulled - not by Him, but by the unfaithfulness of Israel. Israel pays a terrible price for their rebellion (Exo 32:28b,34-35), BUT God's Determination to keep the covenant FOR HIS OWN PURPOSE AND PLEASURE in spite of Israel's unfaithfullness demonstrates His tremendous Grace. No wonder the Israelites, who failed time and again to keep the covenant relationship, came to know God as "The One Who keeps covenant" (Deut 7:9, 12; 1 Kgs 8:23/2 Chron 6:14; Neh 1:5, 9:32; Dan 9:4)

You referred to a passage in Zechariah (which I'm pleased to discover that you read!), and I would also like for you to consider a passage in Zechariah:

"This is what the LORD my God says: "Pasture the flock marked for slaughter... {6} For I Will NØ Longer Have Pity on the people of the land," declares the LORD. "I Will Hand everyone over to his neighbor and his king. They will oppress the land, and I Will NØT Rescue them from their hands." {7} So I pastured the flock marked for slaughter, particularly the oppressed of the flock. Then I took two staffs and called one Favor and the other Union, and I pastured the flock. {8} In one month I got rid of the three shepherds. The flock detested Me, and I grew weary of them {9} and said, "I Will NØT be your Shepherd. Let the dying die, and the perishing perish. Let those who are left eat one another's flesh." {10} Then I took My Staff called Favor and broke it, revoking the covenant I Had Made with all the nations. {11} It was revoked on that day, and so the afflicted of the flock who were watching Me knew it was The Word of The LORD. {12} I told them, "If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it." So they weighed for My price thirty pieces of silver. {13} And the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter"--the handsome price at which they priced Me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into The House of The LORD to the potter. {14} Then I broke My second staff called Union, breaking the brotherhood between Judah and Israel."

The Lord broke His Staff of "Favor" toward Israel allowing the nations to have their way with her, His unfaithful bride. Then He broke their "Union" causing them to be dissolved - both from each other as a nation/family AND as His covenant nation/family.

Now, back to your original quote above. To full-fill something means to fill it up completely; to accomplish; to confirm; to be at an end. JohnnyMacpherson's point was that God fully-filled-up all of His end of the covenant obligations - both temporally and really. This He did IN SPITE OF Israel's failures, unfaithfulness and breaking their end of the covenant. Furthermore, the "eternality" of the covenant can only be fulfilled (i.e. filled up; accomplished; confirmed) by the spiritually faithful. Note:

"For IF that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. {8} For finding fault with them, He saith, Behold, the days come, saith The Lord, when I Will Make a New Covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: {9} Not according to the Covenant that I Made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued NØT in My Covenant, and I Regarded them NØT, saith The Lord. {10} For this is The Covenant that I Will Make with the house of Israel after those days, saith The Lord; I Will Put My Laws into their mind, and Write them in their hearts: and I Will Be to them a God, and they shall be to Me a people: {11} And they shall NØT teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know The Lord: for all shall know Me, from the least to the greatest. {12} For I Will Be Merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities I Will Remember NØ more. {13} In that He Saith, A New Covenant, He Hath Made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."

No, God was not "done fulfilling the covenant there" in Joshua, but He was setting forth the aspects of His Covenant Faithfulness as He Accomplished them, lest they (or we) forget and say that He NEVER did...

As for 'owlam, I would caution you not to put too much stock in this word to support your idea of an "eternal" covenant. This line of reasoning could come back to bite you in the butt! Believe me, I looked at all 400+ verses where this word is used years ago... But I'll offer just two examples for you to consider here:

∙ The Levitical priesthood was said to be an eternal covenant between God and the sons of Aaron (Exo 29:9, 40:15; Num 25:13; 1 Chron 15:2). Is the Aaronic priesthood still in existence today (cp. Neh 13:29)?

∙ And you quoted Jer 33:26 where the promise by God that David would ALWAYS have a descendant to rule His people (1 Kgs 2:45, 9:5; 2 Chron 13:5, 21:7) is reiterated, is that still applicable today (cp. Isa 9:6-7)?

BTW, JohnnyMac, I'm glad to meet you and find that I finally have an ally. I'm sure our Jacobite fathers would be glad to know that their descendants have once again joined forces against tyranny! :wink:

Glé mhath!
--a descendant of the GORDON Highlanders

[Cherith]

2. This whole genealogical bilge. Even ion the OT it was never about genealogical descent. Don't misunderstand what I am saying here, to be a priest you had to be, for God to be faithful some descendents of Abraham had to inherit the land. however, it is not all there is to it, think of all the counter examples Caleb, Uriah, and Ruth were not descended from Abraham yet they were all brought into the People of God in the OT. (If you read carefully you will see that Caleb not a descendent of Isaac and Jacob). There is also the mixed multitude that came out of Egypt with the Children of Israel. The Law is replete with different instructions for the resident alien, guest worker, and immigrant (i.e. one who became a member ofthe Covenant from another group such as Ruth).

Gray, where DO you get your information!?

Caleb was, most assuredly, biologically descended from Abraham. Note:

"OF the tribe of Judah, Caleb the son of Jephunneh."

"And the names of the men are these: OF the tribe of Judah, Caleb the son of Jephunneh."

And if that were not enough, his pedigree is given in 1 Chron 2:42-49 where his daughter Achsah is specifically mentioned:

--1 Chr 2:3-5, 9"The sons of Judah; Er, and Onan, and Shelah: which three were born unto him of the daughter of Shua the Canaanitess. And Er, the firstborn of Judah, was evil in the sight of the LORD; and he slew him." ...{4} "And Tamar his daughter in law bare him Pharez and Zerah. All the sons of Judah were five. {5} The sons of Pharez; Hezron, and Hamul." ...{9} The sons of Hezron, that were born unto him; Jerahmeel, and Ram, and Chelubai/Caleb."

--1 Chr 2:18-19 "And Caleb the son of Hezron begat children of Azubah his wife, and of Jerioth: her sons are these; Jesher, and Shobab, and Ardon. {19} And when Azubah was dead, Caleb took unto him Ephrath/Ephrathah, which bare him Hur."

--1 Chr 2:42-50 "Now the sons of Caleb the brother of Jerahmeel were, Mesha his firstborn, which was the father of Ziph; and the sons of Mareshah the father of Hebron. {43} And the sons of Hebron; Korah, and Tappuah, and Rekem, and Shema. {44} And Shema begat Raham, the father of Jorkoam: and Rekem begat Shammai. {45} And the son of Shammai was Maon: and Maon was the father of Bethzur. {46} And Ephah, Caleb's concubine, bare Haran, and Moza, and Gazez: and Haran begat Gazez. {47} And the sons of Jahdai; Regem, and Jotham, and Gesham, and Pelet, and Ephah, and Shaaph. {48} Maachah, Caleb's concubine, bare Sheber, and Tirhanah. {49} She bare also Shaaph the father of Madmannah, Sheva the father of Machbenah, and the father of Gibea: and the daughter of Caleb was Achsa. {50} These were the sons of Caleb the son of Hur, the firstborn of Ephrathah; Shobal the father of Kirjathjearim,"

--Josh 14:6-8 "Then the children of Judah came unto Joshua in Gilgal: and Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenezite said unto him, Thou knowest the thing that the LORD said unto Moses the man of God concerning me and thee in Kadeshbarnea. {7} Forty years old was I when Moses the servant of the LORD sent me from Kadeshbarnea to espy out the land (cf Num 13:1-6); and I brought him word again as it was in mine heart. {8} Nevertheless my brethren that went up with me made the heart of the people melt: but I wholly followed the LORD my God."

--Josh 15:13-20 "And unto Caleb the son of Jephunneh he gave a part among the children of Judah, according to the commandment of the LORD to Joshua, even the city of Arba the father of Anak, which city is Hebron. {14} And Caleb drove thence the three sons of Anak, Sheshai, and Ahiman, and Talmai, the children of Anak. {15} And he went up thence to the inhabitants of Debir: and the name of Debir before was Kirjathsepher. {16} And Caleb said, He that smiteth Kirjathsepher, and taketh it, to him will I give Achsah my daughter to wife. {17} And Othniel the son of Kenaz, the brother of Caleb, took it: and he gave him Achsah his daughter to wife. {18} And it came to pass, as she came unto him, that she moved him to ask of her father a field: and she lighted off her ass; and Caleb said unto her, What wouldest thou? {19} Who answered, Give me a blessing; for thou hast given me a south land; give me also springs of water. And he gave her the upper springs, and the nether springs. {20} This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Judah according to their families."

--1 Chr 4:15 "And the sons of Caleb the son of Jephunneh; Iru, Elah, and Naam: and the sons of Elah, even Kenaz."


Now, I don't know HOW the name Jephunneh ("he will be prepared") fits into Caleb's genealogy - whether it was another name for Hezron or one of his sons... whether it could have been a place name... or just what, I do NØT know. But this I DO know:

1) Caleb was said to be "OF the tribe of Judah"
2) Caleb is listed AMONG the descendants of Judah in 1 Chron 2
3) Caleb is said to be a "son of Hezron"
4) Caleb is said to have taken "Ephrathah as his wife who bore him Hur" (v.19) and that "the descendants of Caleb [were] the sons of Hur, the firstborn of Ephrathah" (v.50) and that
5) Caleb's daughter was Achsah (1 Chron 2:49; Josh 15:13-20)

Therefore, "whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, you be the judge." (Acts 4:19)

[JohnnyMac]

BTW, JohnnyMac, I'm glad to meet you and find that I finally have an ally. I'm sure our Jacobite fathers would be glad to know that their descendants have once again joined forces against tyranny!

It's a pleasure to make your acquaintance also, Cherith! Our position is constantly under attack by so many who claim allegiance to the Word of God and its Author and yet fail to grasp its import with respect to the ancient, Old Covenant Nation of Israel. Let us, indeed, stand fast in our defense of the Truth in the face of all opposition and efforts to tear down and distort the originally intended meaning and inferences of the sacred text. Good to discover you're a fellow Scotsman also! The Scots had tremendous influence in the shaping of our modern world - far more than I realized. We have a proud heritage.

[Cherith]

This whole genealogical bilge. Even ion the OT it was never about genealogical descent. Don't misunderstand what I am saying here, to be a priest you had to be, for God to be faithful some descendents of Abraham had to inherit the land. however, it is not all there is to it, think of all the counter examples Caleb, Uriah, and Ruth were not descended from Abraham yet they were all brought into the People of God in the OT. (If you read carefully you will see that Caleb not a descendent of Isaac and Jacob). There is also the mixed multitude that came out of Egypt with the Children of Israel. The Law is replete with different instructions for the resident alien, guest worker, and immigrant (i.e. one who became a member ofthe Covenant from another group such as Ruth).

Nonsense eh? I'll tell you what nonsense is: nonsense is a Christian supporting some Jew's assertion that their obsolete covenant is still in effect or that they have any hope apart from faith in The One promised throughout the Old Covenant ("Unless you believe that I Am He you will die in your sins"). Nonsense is thinking that I am advocating that foreigners could not come into the covenant made with the children of Israel. Sure they could come in, but this was a rarity - NØT the norm. Furthermore, they came in AS FOREIGNERS and not by birthright. They were even given an "inheritance" among the tribes where they settled, whereas the biological children were to maintain their tribal distinctions for inheritance purposes so that "the inheritance of the children of Israel shall NØT remove from tribe to tribe: for every one of the children of Israel shall keep himself to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers." (Num 36:7) "Neither shall the inheritance remove from one tribe to another tribe; but every one of the tribes of the children of Israel shall keep himself to his own inheritance." (Num 36:9) "These are the commandments and the judgments, which the LORD commanded by the hand of Moses unto the children of Israel in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho." (Num 36:13)

More nonsense would be to assert that for the last 2,000 years - since the dissolution of the Old Covenant - that foreigners that have interrmarried with these supposed descendants of Abraham could come into an obsolete covenant! Or that modern Jews, who NØT only have NØ covenant relationship by which they can relate to God can somehow hold over God's Head a spurious claim that they are - without proof - the direct descendants of father Abraham and that He still owes them something based on "the traditions of men." That, my dear friend, is utter nonsense!

ALL of their claims are spurious, a fraud and a sham! And it is nonsensical why a Christian (or Christians) would seek to shore up their nonsense instead of telling them the Truth - viz., that they have NØ hope in their pedigree or empty covenant claims, but must come to God the same way that the rest of the world does - through the Cross of Christ!

EVEN IF they could prove their ancestry, and EVEN IF they could humble their uncircumcised hearts, they could NEVER renew an obsolete covenant and come to God on their own terms - i.e. apart from faith in Jesus Christ. THAT is utter nonsense!

As for The Faithfulness of God, He proved that Faithfulness in the passages in Joshua that JohnnyMac cited. However, let us not forget that God was perfectly willing to wipe out the entire family of Jacob and build up His people (and His covenant promises to Abraham) through ONE direct descendant - Moses, and his children of mixed ancestry (Hagar's descendants)!

"And the LORD said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have showed among them? {12} I will smite them with the pestilence, and disinherit them, and will make of thee a greater nation and mightier than they."

Yes, nonsense abounds, but NØT from my posts! Rather it abounds from the posts of those who call themselves my brethren, Christians - followers of The ONLY Way, The ONLY Truth and The ONLY Source of Life! From those who apparently either don't understand the Good News or who reject it as one way among several or many. One is through Christ's substitionary atonement - The Gospel of Grace; the other is through an obsolete covenant of works-righteousness for genetic descendants of Abraham - The Gospel of Race!

"And think NØT to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is Able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. {10} And NOW also the ax is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth NØT forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."

Or as He says in another place "whatsoever is NØT OF faith is sin" (Rom 14:23) so that even something as innocuous as "the plowing of the wicked is sin" (Prov 21:4).

If the Jews want to continue to believe that they enjoy a covenant relationship with God then so be it, but "Woe be to the shepherds of Israel who do not feed them..." "Thus saith The Lord GOD; Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them." (Ezek 34:10) "Woe unto them that...put darkness for light, and light for darkness...!" (Isa 5:20) and "he shall die: because thou hast NØT given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he has done shall NØT be remembered, and his blood will I require at thy hand." (Ezek 3:20)

"But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow NØT the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand."

--Ezek 33:8 "When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand."

--2 Cor 5:11 "Knowing therefore The Terror of The Lord, we persuade men..."

If Yoshiah is so beknighted as to believe that the descendants of Abraham could break the covenant and sin with impunity or that he can gain something from God or has something to boast about (cp. Rom 4:2), then so be it. But "we are persuaded of better things", something different, "that accompanies Salvation" - viz., "...Cursed is every one that continueth NØT in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. {11} But that NØ man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live BY faith. {12} And the law is NØT of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live by them." (Gal 3:10-12; Deut 27:26; Hab 2:4; Lev 18:5)

[JohnnyMac]

Nonsense eh? I'll tell you what nonsense is: nonsense is a Christian supporting some Jew's assertion that their obsolete covenant is still in effect or that they have any hope apart from faith in The One promised throughout the Old Covenant ("Unless you believe that I Am He you will die in your sins").

I tell ya - Cherith sure tells it like it is! Those comments are deserving of a huge "AMEN"!


More nonsense would be to assert that for the last 2,000 years - since the dissolution of the Old Covenant - that foreigners that have interrmarried with these supposed descendants of Abraham could come into an obsolete covenant! Or that modern Jews, who NØT only have NØ covenant relationship by which they can relate to God can somehow hold over God's Head a spurious claim that they are - without proof - the direct descendants of father Abraham and that He still owes them something based on "the traditions of men." That, my dear friend, is utter nonsense!

Couldn't put it better myself! Another huge "AMEN" from my corner!


ALL of their claims are spurious, a fraud and a sham! And it is nonsensical why a Christian (or Christians) would seek to shore up their nonsense instead of telling them the Truth - viz., that they have NØ hope in their pedigree or empty covenant claims, but must come to God the same way that the rest of the world does - through the Cross of Christ!

Wow. Cherith and I should host a radio talk show (or PalTalk room) featuring this topic. This is the straight-up, no-holds-barred, utterly Scriptural goods, people!


EVEN IF they could prove their ancestry, and EVEN IF they could humble their uncircumcised hearts, they could NEVER renew an obsolete covenant and come to God on their own terms - i.e. apart from faith in Jesus Christ. THAT is utter nonsense!

"Obsolete" is definitely the key word here. Other terms that apply are "accursed", "terminated" and/or "superceded". The Mosque of Omar/Dome of the Rock represents, as far as I'm concerned, the tombstone God allowed to be placed on the ancient Temple site. Mosaic, Levitical worship is forever obsolete on this planet. It has NO Covenantal legitimacy before God - nor will it EVER be re-instated.

Charles Spurgeon put it rather well, himself.


"Did you ever regret the absence of the burnt-offering, or the red heifer, of any one of the sacrifices and rites of the Jews? Did you ever pine for the feast of tabernacles, or the dedication? No, because, though these were like the old heavens and earth to the Jewish believers, they have passed away, and we now live under the new heavens and a new earth, so far as the dispensation of divine teaching is concerned. The substance is come, and the shadow has gone: and we do not remember it." (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol. xxxvii, p. 354).

I believe modern Christians have some very, very serious rethinking to do on this subject. The Scriptures are utterly opposed to the idea that there is any continuing Covenant relationship with the physical descendants of Abraham (who no longer exist in any genetically pure sense anyway). The sooner Christian thinking is restored to a truly Biblical frame of reference, the sooner American support for modern "Israel" (or "Isn'treal" as one forum member on a different forum put it) will drop off and the Middle Eastern situation will resolve itself more readily according to the true dynamics of the situation.

[Conductor42]

The suggestion has been made to make this into a gym debate.

Cherith, as I have just posted in the Coach's Quarters, I hearby Challenge you to a 1v1 debate on this issue. I will take the position that "modern" Jews have a covenant with God, and will give you the honor of first posting should you accept.

[Cherith]

The suggestion has been made to make this into a gym debate.

Cherith, as I have just posted in the Coach's Quarters, I hearby Challenge you to a 1v1 debate on this issue. I will take the position that "modern" Jews have a covenant with God, and will give you the honor of first posting should you accept.

Hey Yoshi, I'm not sure that I know what all a "Gym Debate" entails.., but I'm perfectly willing to debate the issue with you. However, I do wish that you would respond to post #18 on this thread...

I would like to caution that if there is going to be some kind of time crunch then I'm not sure this will work... I just found out yesterday that the company I was dedicated to has changed their work hours and I'm transferring to a more wide-spread driving position (which might mean late hours and less "play" time online).

Truck-Drivers 'R' Us,
--C

P.S. I think that I'm better at reacting than asserting. I would be content for you to go first. :wink:

BTW, I'm currently reading about how the "eternal priesthood" for Aaron and his sons was co-opted through bribery during the wars with the Ptolemies and Seleucids and passed into the hands of non-Aaronic descendants... Very interesting. Especially in light of that "Cohen Modal Haplotype" nonsense. :lolo:

[Conductor42]

Cherith,

The Gym debates are formal debates that are held at this site that are restricted to only the parties involved. Dee Dee Warren posted information about them at:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12060

If you'd like, I have no quarrels with extending the deadlines for a response up to 1 or 2 weeks (let's keep the number simple). To officially accept this challenge, please reply to my post in the thread located at:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21538

Thanks, and Erev Tov! (Good night!)

P.S. I am postponing my contentions and arguments on this issue until the Gym debate officially starts, I'm not trying to ignore you.

[kofh2u]

Two things, Yoshiah before we go on.

First, a covenant is akin to our modern concept of a contract and as such can be fulfilled or broken. The term itself carries the idea of taking an "oath" and/or making a "commitment." Would you agree?

Second, the Old Covenant was conditional. It set forth conditions and stipulations which Israel was to obey/fulfill or else risk being "cut off" from the covenant. A person cannot "break" that which is not break-able. Would you agree to that?

"...it shall come to pass, IF ye hearken to these judgments, AND keep, AND do them, THEN The LORD thy God shall keep unto thee the Covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers: {13} And he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee... {14} Thou shalt be blessed above all people..."

There are many, many instances in the O.C. where the Lord commands that the unfaithful/ungodly be excommunicated (i.e. "cut off") - because "they have broken My Covenant." What is remarkable, is that when Israel does, in fact, break the covenant (e.g. Exo 32; Jer 11:10; Ezek 44:7; Deut 31:16, 20), God exercises His Right as Suzerain Lord and considers the covenant annulled - not by Him, but by the unfaithfulness of Israel. Israel pays a terrible price for their rebellion (Exo 32:28b,34-35), BUT God's Determination to keep the covenant FOR HIS OWN PURPOSE AND PLEASURE in spite of Israel's unfaithfullness demonstrates His tremendous Grace. No wonder the Israelites, who failed time and again to keep the covenant relationship, came to know God as "The One Who keeps covenant" (Deut 7:9, 12; 1 Kgs 8:23/2 Chron 6:14; Neh 1:5, 9:32; Dan 9:4)

You referred to a passage in Zechariah (which I'm pleased to discover that you read!), and I would also like for you to consider a passage in Zechariah:

"This is what the LORD my God says: "Pasture the flock marked for slaughter... {6} For I Will NØ Longer Have Pity on the people of the land," declares the LORD. "I Will Hand everyone over to his neighbor and his king. They will oppress the land, and I Will NØT Rescue them from their hands." {7} So I pastured the flock marked for slaughter, particularly the oppressed of the flock. Then I took two staffs and called one Favor and the other Union, and I pastured the flock. {8} In one month I got rid of the three shepherds. The flock detested Me, and I grew weary of them {9} and said, "I Will NØT be your Shepherd. Let the dying die, and the perishing perish. Let those who are left eat one another's flesh." {10} Then I took My Staff called Favor and broke it, revoking the covenant I Had Made with all the nations. {11} It was revoked on that day, and so the afflicted of the flock who were watching Me knew it was The Word of The LORD. {12} I told them, "If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it." So they weighed for My price thirty pieces of silver. {13} And the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter"--the handsome price at which they priced Me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into The House of The LORD to the potter. {14} Then I broke My second staff called Union, breaking the brotherhood between Judah and Israel."

The Lord broke His Staff of "Favor" toward Israel allowing the nations to have their way with her, His unfaithful bride. Then He broke their "Union" causing them to be dissolved - both from each other as a nation/family AND as His covenant nation/family.

Now, back to your original quote above. To full-fill something means to fill it up completely; to accomplish; to confirm; to be at an end. JohnnyMacpherson's point was that God fully-filled-up all of His end of the covenant obligations - both temporally and really. This He did IN SPITE OF Israel's failures, unfaithfulness and breaking their end of the covenant. Furthermore, the "eternality" of the covenant can only be fulfilled (i.e. filled up; accomplished; confirmed) by the spiritually faithful. Note:

"For IF that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. {8} For finding fault with them, He saith, Behold, the days come, saith The Lord, when I Will Make a New Covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: {9} Not according to the Covenant that I Made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued NØT in My Covenant, and I Regarded them NØT, saith The Lord. {10} For this is The Covenant that I Will Make with the house of Israel after those days, saith The Lord; I Will Put My Laws into their mind, and Write them in their hearts: and I Will Be to them a God, and they shall be to Me a people: {11} And they shall NØT teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know The Lord: for all shall know Me, from the least to the greatest. {12} For I Will Be Merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities I Will Remember NØ more. {13} In that He Saith, A New Covenant, He Hath Made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."

No, God was not "done fulfilling the covenant there" in Joshua, but He was setting forth the aspects of His Covenant Faithfulness as He Accomplished them, lest they (or we) forget and say that He NEVER did...

As for 'owlam, I would caution you not to put too much stock in this word to support your idea of an "eternal" covenant. This line of reasoning could come back to bite you in the butt! Believe me, I looked at all 400+ verses where this word is used years ago... But I'll offer just two examples for you to consider here:

· The Levitical priesthood was said to be an eternal covenant between God and the sons of Aaron (Exo 29:9, 40:15; Num 25:13; 1 Chron 15:2). Is the Aaronic priesthood still in existence today (cp. Neh 13:29)?

· And you quoted Jer 33:26 where the promise by God that David would ALWAYS have a descendant to rule His people (1 Kgs 2:45, 9:5; 2 Chron 13:5, 21:7) is reiterated, is that still applicable today (cp. Isa 9:6-7)?

BTW, JohnnyMac, I'm glad to meet you and find that I finally have an ally. I'm sure our Jacobite fathers would be glad to know that their descendants have once again joined forces against tyranny! :wink:



Glé mhath!
--a descendant of the GORDON Highlanders


1) I don't wish to intrude, but this question you ask is extremely important and L assume your question is rhetorical... the assumption being the answer "no." But, the answer is "Yes."

The Levitical priesthood was said to be an eternal covenant between God and the sons of Aaron (Exo 29:9, 40:15; Num 25:13; 1 Chron 15:2). Is the Aaronic priesthood still in existence today (cp. Neh 13:29)?

ANSWER:
Yes, these priests are active in he synagogues today. (See long esssy at bottom.)


2) A second question seems to incorrectly suggest again a negative response.

"And you quoted Jer 33:26 where the promise by God that David would ALWAYS have a descendant to rule His people (1 Kgs 2:45, 9:5; 2 Chron 13:5, 21:7) is reiterated, is that still applicable today (cp. Isa 9:6-7)?"


Yes:

Rev. 5:5 ... Weep not: behold, the Lion of Judah, the root of David, (one whose name is called by this hearldry), ... hath prevailed to open the book (of Sacred Hebrew Scriptures), and to loose the (mystery of the multuplicity of seven), seven seals thereof.

ESSAY EXPLAINING THE Aaronic priesrhood:

From: journal Lancet

"Applying the techniques of modern genetics to members of the ancient institution known as the Cohanim, the Jewish priesthood which predates
the present system of Rabbi, genetics has allowed them to trace their origins back 3300 years.

Beginning with Aaron, priestly status has been passed down through the ages, from fathers to sons through word of mouth. To this day, all the Cohanim are seen as descendants of Aaron, not just figuratively but by blood. Many, but not all, have the surname Cohen, Kohen, Cohn, Kohn,
Cone, Kone, Cahn, Kahn or Kahane. (Cohan in Hebrew means priest.)

In Orthodox and some Conservative congregations, they are accorded special respect and are the only ones who can perform certain important religious duties. The Cohanim Blessing is made by holding the hand with a split between the ring finger and the middle finger- a gesture decidedly similar in posture to the greeting of Dr. Spock's hand on
"Star Trek."

The test examined certain portions of the Y-chromosome, which, like the priestly distinction, belongs only to men, and is passed strictly from father to son. As the researchers reported in the journal Lancet, the men who had been told they were Cohanim shared certain distinctive genetic traits, indicating that they may represent a single line tracing back to one male forebearer, perhaps even Aaron.

Important to the dating of the time of Exodus, some Rabbis are quick to point out, the study not only confirms the genetic links among Cohanim, it also validates the reliability of the word-of-mouth, father -to- son transmission of the priesthood.

It confirms that the Jewish people have for 3300 years maintained their authenticity and familial integrity. In this, the record measuring 3300 years we have an independent measurement of time, one which sets the date of the Exodus, during the life time of Aaron, at @1200BC.

[kofh2u]

I tell ya - Cherith sure tells it like it is! Those comments are deserving of a huge "AMEN"!



Couldn't put it better myself! Another huge "AMEN" from my corner!



Wow. Cherith and I should host a radio talk show (or PalTalk room) featuring this topic. This is the straight-up, no-holds-barred, utterly Scriptural goods, people!



"Obsolete" is definitely the key word here. Other terms that apply are "accursed", "terminated" and/or "superceded". The Mosque of Omar/Dome of the Rock represents, as far as I'm concerned, the tombstone God allowed to be placed on the ancient Temple site. Mosaic, Levitical worship is forever obsolete on this planet. It has NO Covenantal legitimacy before God - nor will it EVER be re-instated.

Charles Spurgeon put it rather well, himself.



I believe modern Christians have some very, very serious rethinking to do on this subject. The Scriptures are utterly opposed to the idea that there is any continuing Covenant relationship with the physical descendants of Abraham (who no longer exist in any genetically pure sense anyway). The sooner Christian thinking is restored to a truly Biblical frame of reference, the sooner American support for modern "Israel" (or "Isn'treal" as one forum member on a different forum put it) will drop off and the Middle Eastern situation will resolve itself more readily according to the true dynamics of the situation.


The Jews are back in the Holy Lands promised to them through Abraham. No doubt the Hebrew Christians who are mixed, wheat amongst the tares, with the mostly secular Jewish majority figure into your contemplations concerning end-time prophecy.

Nevertheless, the symbolic "fig tree" has been re-established, and that is one of the signs of the end.

(In another post, below, I had offered an article from the Journal,Lancet.)
I repeat some of that article for your consideration, since you said this, I quote you here: "(...physical descendants of Abraham...who no longer exist in any genetically pure sense anyway)."


Applying the techniques of modern genetics to members of the ancient
institution known as the Cohanim, the Jewish priesthood which predates
the present system of Rabbi, genetics has allowed them to trace their origins back 3300 years.

Beginning with Aaron, priestly status has been passed down through the
ages, from fathers to sons through word of mouth. To this day, all the
Cohanim are seen as descendants of Aaron, not just figuratively but by
blood. Many, but not all, have the surname Cohen, Kohen, Cohn, Kohn,
Cone, Kone, Cahn, Kahn or Kahane. (Cohan in Hebrew means priest.)

In Orthodox and some Conservative congregations, they are accorded
special respect and are the only ones who can perform certain important
religious duties. The Cohanim Blessing is made by holding the hand with a split between the ring finger and the middle finger- a gesture
decidedly similar in posture to the greeting of Dr. Spock's hand on
"Star Trek."

The test examined certain portions of the Y-chromosome, which, like the
priestly distinction, belongs only to men, and is passed strictly from
father to son. As the researchers reported in the journal Lancet, the
men who had been told they were Cohanim shared certain distinctive
genetic traits, indicating that they may represent a single line tracing
back to one male forebearer, perhaps even Aaron.

Important to the dating of the time of Exodus, some Rabbis are quick to
point out, the study not only confirms the genetic links among Cohanim, it also validates the reliability of the word-of-mouth, father -to- son transmission of the priesthood. It confirms that the Jewish people have for 3300 years maintained their authenticity and familial integrity. In this, the record measuring 3300 years we have an independent measurement of time, one which sets the date of the Exodus, during the life time of Aaron, at @1200BC.

[Goose]

A father leaves a set of difficult instructions to his two sons, until he returns. After the father leaves, the sons try very hard to keep the instructions.

Time goes by, and the youngest son tells himself that it is impossible to keep these instructions. So he quits and hopes in the graciousness of his father when he returns.

The oldest son tells himself that althought the instructions are difficult and he doesn't always do them correctly, he will try his best. He will try to take delight in his father's instructions and meditate on them. He also hopes in the graciousness of his father when he returns.

After a time, their father returns.

Who will receive more grace? Who will receive the double portion? Who will receive the family's covenant from HaShem?