The Veil 2 Corinthians 3:1-18

[Teresias]

The Veil


The story concerns the birth and death of the Israelite religion. Moses ascends the mountain a second time, inscribes the ten commandments, and descends the mountain—his face shining like a divine being to demonstrate his interaction with God. Because they could not bear the intensity of his shining face, Moses put a veil on his face.

Writing to Christian rabbis [servants or ministers of the new covenant], Paul re-interprets the event to mean that the Israelites could not bear to see the fading glory of their religion. However, unlike Moses, Paul and other teachers did not veil their faces. Paul called himself a "minister of the new covenant"--evidently meaning servant of a new collective agreement. In modern unionized organizations, a new collective agreement does not necessarily mean a new organization. Likewise, the new collective agreement announced by Paul concerning the House of Israel and House of Judah (Hebrews 8:8-10) did not mean a new religion ("Christianity") but, rather, a new development within Judaism. That new development was the arrival of their Messiah--Jesus. Paul and other teachers, used great freeness of speech both when speaking about the passing of the Israelite Theocracy—symbolized by the stone tablets, and about the heavenly glory the Law portended.

When the ancient Israelites committed to their God-appointed Messiah, Jesus, they understood both the intent of the Law and its transience. Their sacrificial system and its festivals pointed forward to their Messiah who would lead them from their present glory as a God-created nation—to future glory—on a higher plane [spirit]. The Israelites emotionally resisted the suggestion that their world was passing away. Paul describes their emotional attachment to the existing Jewish Order as a veil on their heart!

I believe that the same veil remains on the hearts of all who envisage a future glorification of Israel. Ancient Israel and its capstone Messianic movement [“Christianity”] are done! However, this issue is not one that can be settled through “evidence” or proof—no more than Paul could convince his colleagues through recourse to the Torah. For Paul and his Israelite brothers, the veil undoubtedly symbolized different things—as it will for us.

2 Corinthians 3:1-18

2 Corinthians 3:1 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? Or do we need, as some [others,] epistles of commendation to you or [letters] of commendation from you? 2 You are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read by all men; 3 clearly [you are] an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, [that is,] of the heart. 4 And we have such trust through Christ toward God. 5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as [being] from ourselves, but our sufficiency [is] from God, 6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 7 But if the ministry of death, written [and] engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which [glory] was passing away, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation [had] glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. 10 For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. 11 For if what is passing away [was] glorious, what remains [is] much more glorious. 12 Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech -- 13 unlike Moses, [who] put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away. 14 But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the [veil] is taken away in Christ. 15 But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. 16 Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord [is,] there [is] liberty. 18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord. (NKJV)

All the best!

Teresias.

[Country Preacher]

So, what are you saying?
Christianity is "done"?

[Kelp]

I think he's saying Christian dispensationalism and Zionism are "done".

[Country Preacher]

I think he's saying Christian dispensationalism and Zionism are "done".

Interesting

[Teresias]

I think he's saying Christian dispensationalism and Zionism are "done".

Hello Kelp and Country Preacher,

I am of the opinion that what we call "Christianity" was, in reality, a movement within Judaism--albeit its highest expression. I don't believe "Christianity" was ever intended to become universal [catholic]. For example, imagining the readers of Paul's letters either as "Gentiles" or as Israelites will radically alter the meaning of those letters.
Paul was an apostle to Israelite minorities living among non-Israelite majority populations ("Gentiles"). I believe Paul wrote his letters largely to Christian rabbis scattered among the nations (mis-translated as "Gentiles").

In their Social Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul the authors urge readers of the New Testament to think about the "high context" milieu in which Paul wrote his letters. For example, Paul and his readers shared a common knowledge, language, history and culture. Paul did not have to "fill in the blanks" for his readers, presumably because they were Israelites scattered among the nations. They thus readily understood the symbols Paul used.

Following is a modern example of "high context": "when Israelis speak of "going to Americans" to sell U.S. tax-exempt bonds, they are presumed to be going to Jews resident in the U.S., not to non-Jewish Americans. Most American non-Jews are totally unaware of Israeli bonds" (p.7) Similarly, most non-Israelites in antiquity were totally unaware of Paul's activity among the Israelites scattered throughout the Mediterranean. Nevertheless, Paul proclaimed that he had "fully preached the good news of the Messiah" (Romans 15:19-20)

Similarly, when we take into account the high context in which Paul wrote his letters (to Israelites scattered among "the nations" or "Gentiles") the Christian Scriptures can take on a new meaning. I invite you to consider the following article as an example of "high context" understanding. While I do not support the author's application of Bible principles to present groups, I believe he adequately demonstrates the power of reading the Bible in Jewish context.


http://www.haderek.ca/articles/paul/romans13.htm

Bye for now!

Teresias

[Iskra]

...Similarly, when we take into account the high context in which Paul wrote his letters (to Israelites scattered among "the nations" or "Gentiles") the Christian Scriptures can take on a new meaning. I invite you to consider the following article as an example of "high context" understanding. While I do not support the author's application of Bible principles to present groups, I believe he adequately demonstrates the power of reading the Bible in Jewish context. http://www.haderek.ca/articles/paul/romans13.htm
Bye for now! Teresias

Here are some quotes from that website:

__"Christianity and all forms of replacement or separation theology (even as they may remain cloaked within the “Messianic” movement) are contrary to Scripture. Moreover, they function within and underpin a framework of anti-Semitism. Not surprisingly, various forms of anti-Semitism still exist among the Ten Tribes. All of it will need to be uprooted for the kingdom of Israel to be reestablished. Refusing to acknowledge the authority of the Orthodox Rabbis after being shown their legitimate authority from Scripture reveals a deep-seated and pernicious form of anti-Semitism."

__"Without the writings of Sha’ul and the numerous misunderstandings that go along with them, Christianity and much of the “Messianic” world have little justification for their beliefs and practices. For example, Sha’ul did not teach against the validity of the Torah (Written and Oral), nor did he teach against the importance of the physical sign of circumcision for those who are subject to the covenant at Sinai or for those who willing join themselves to it, nor did he teach against the importance for men to wear headcoverings during prayer."

__"Hebrew is the set-apart language of the Torah. Therefore, it should be learned to the best of one’s ability for prayer, worship, and praise (Tzephanyah/Zephaniah 3:9). Doing so will equip the people of Elohim to serve YHVH in unity with purity and truth, especially within the communities of Israel and within the greater Congregation of Ya’akov [Jacob]. In this regard, it is important to understand and remember that one is rewarded according to one’s effort."

__"Hashem is one (Devarim/Deuteronomy 6:4)—not two, and certainly not three."


My antenna always starts to buzzing whenever i hear some Gentile/faux Jew teaching that Christianity is false religion and that we must all return to Moses and Hebrewism. This website is another clear example of the perniciousness of the persistent Judaizer and his attempts to lure us away from our faith in the second person of the Trinity and instead of a faith in Christ alone this Judaizer would instead have us place our faith in useless Hebraic symbols, shadows and forms.

[Teresias]

[QUOTE
My antenna always starts to buzzing whenever i hear some Gentile/faux Jew teaching that Christianity is false religion and that we must all return to Moses and Hebrewism. This website is another clear example of the perniciousness of the persistent Judaizer and his attempts to lure us away from our faith in the second person of the Trinity and instead of a faith in Christ alone this Judaizer would instead have us place our faith in useless Hebraic symbols, shadows and forms.[/QUOTE]

Hello,

I was directing readers to an article showing how context influences meaning, and not the web site per se. In a previous post I stated that I do not support the aims of the site's author.

That said, I think I should clarify my position that there is neither Judaism nor Christianity in modern times. Judaism and 'Christianity' ceased to exist beyond the First Century C.E. Recent research into the terms “Jew” and “Gentile” in fact suggests that both terms applied to the ancient Israelites. Viewed as a movement within ancient Judaism, Christianity is a fait accompli -a accomplished act. In fine, it is anachronistic to refer to “Jews” and “Gentiles.” Following are some terms I believe have been mis-translated:

“Nations” =Israelites in the “New” Testament.
“Uncircumcision”=Israelites of the Dispersion.
“Circumcision” =Israelites of Judah.
“Jews”=Israelites of Judah and those practicing Orthodox Judaism.



A google search for the word “Gentile” is enlightening for serious students of the Bible. A growing body of opinion and research is shedding new light on taken-for-granted texts and creating an entirely new context for understanding the Bible. Here are some provocative statements gleaned from such search:

1) The word GENTILE, originated from the Latin Vulgate translation, where the Roman doctrine said that the Roman Church had become the Israel of the Bible. “Gentile”, in the Roman Catholic context is, “one who is not of Rome.” In the minds of those to whom Rome and Israel were synonymous, there was no difference; to be of the Roman Catholic Church was to belong to and to be part of Israel.

2) Gentile: the Latin noun “gen” means 'a nation' and is equivalent to “ethnos. The word Gentiles does not come from the noun but from the adjective, gentilis, which means “of” or “belonging to” a nation. Ethne is translated 93 times as Gentiles in the King James Version. In the Book of Galatians the word “hellenes” is translated “Greek.” Therefore, the words ethne [nations] and hellenes [Greeks] are not synonymous.

3) “Greeks” = Israelites. It is used as a synonym throughout the New Testament for the Dispersion [dispersed Israelites] located among the nations of the former Greek empire.

4) Paul writes exclusively to Israelites and uses ethne [nations] to refer to his outcast kinsmen of Israel. The term “Gentiles” distorts and obscures the meaning of ethne [nations].

5) It is historical fact that Israel separated into two Kingdoms and became known in prophecy as: The House of Israel [10 tribes]......also known as Ephraim and “the uncircumcision.” The House of Judah [2 tribes]........also known as Judah and “the circumcision.” Subsequently, both Kingdoms went into captivity in Assyria or Babylon. Following the captivities, all of the 12 tribes (except for a small remnant) went North and were dispersed among the nations. These became known as the Dispersion or Uncircumcision.

A small remnant of the Babylonian captivity of the Southern Kingdom returned to Palestine and formed the Judean nation. The ruling classes of the Judean nation were dominated by Edomites (Jews), and their subversion of the Scriptures, the Traditions of the Elders, became the religion of the land.

6) The Judean nation practiced circumcision. Hence, in the Scriptures, they are referred to as the Circumcision. The Uncircumcision are the Israelites outside the Judean nation.

The so-called “Old Testament” meant different things to the Israelites and their religion: for some, permanence; for others, like Paul, transience. I invite you and other readers to consider how the above taken-for-granted terms can completely alter the way we understand the Holy Scriptures.

Bye for now,

Teresias

[John Goddard]

6) The Judean nation practiced circumcision. Hence, in the Scriptures, they are referred to as the Circumcision. The Uncircumcision are the Israelites outside the Judean nation.

In other words you are saying that Paul is only talking to Israelites, either "Jews" and circumcised, or "Gentiles" uncircumcised -- that it could not refer to anyone not descended from Israel?

This assumes no non-Israelite would be turning to God, which ignores the famous example of Moabite Ruth, David's great-grandmother.

So I'd have to reject the idea that "Gentile" in Romans and elsewhere refers only to stray Israelites; by Ruth's example, it could also refer to non-Israelites.

[Teresias]

In other words you are saying that Paul is only talking to Israelites, either "Jews" and circumcised, or "Gentiles" uncircumcised -- that it could not refer to anyone not descended from Israel?

This assumes no non-Israelite would be turning to God, which ignores the famous example of Moabite Ruth, David's great-grandmother.

So I'd have to reject the idea that "Gentile" in Romans and elsewhere refers only to stray Israelites; by Ruth's example, it could also refer to non-Israelites.

Hello John,

Thank you, both for summarizing the issue so superbly and for your question about Ruth. With your indulgence, I will re-produce an article by the late Arnold Kennedy--with minor modifications (my summary questions are bolded). While Mr. Kennedy and I speak with a much different "voice," I believe his conclusions about Ruth are valid.


RUTH WAS AN ISRAELITE

RUTH AND BIBLE HISTORY.

Where was the territory of the Moabites? The territory of the Moabites was originally East and Northeast of the Dead Sea, extending from the River Arnon on the South to the River Jabbok on the North, and from the Dead Sea and Jordan River on the West across the plains and foothills into the mountains to the East. Also included were the “plains of Moab” which were across the Jordan River on the West Bank “towards Jericho”. Deut. 32:49, 34:1 and Josh.3:16 all say part of Moab was “against Jericho”, and this is confirmed by: Num. 26:63 “These are they that were numbered by Moses and Eleazar the priest, who numbered the children of Israel in the plains of Moab by Jordan, near Jericho.”

Now what is important here is that Jericho is on the West bank of Jordan, and thus this part of “the plains of Moab” are also West of Jordan, according to the verses given above. The story of Ruth does not involve anything about the extermination of Moabites (by race) in certain areas East of Jordan, such as is found during Israel’s advance towards their Jordan crossing.

What was the status of the Moabites? The story of Ruth is placed at about 1322 BCE. Before this in about 1406 BCE we read: “And they went down after him, and took the fords of Jordan toward Moab, and suffered not a man to pass over. And they slew of Moab at that time about ten thousand men, all lusty, and all men of valor; and there escaped not a man.”-- Judges 3:28 So Moab was subdued that day under the hand of Israel. And the land had rest fourscore years”

In the previous chapter we find that these Israelites came from Mt. Ephraim to the “fords of Jordan”. They allowed no Moabites who lived on the West Bank to escape across the river, to go to the East - “there escaped not a man”. Those Moabites on the East Bank of Jordan were not involved in the Ruth saga.

Where did Elimilech and his family go? Elimelech, a man of Judah, with his wife Naomi and his two sons were driven by famine out of Judea; and Ruth 1:1 says that he "went to sojourn in the country of Moab." Note the accuracy of that expression: NOT among the people of Moab, or the land of Moab, but in the country of Moab, which refers to “the plains of Moab”. These were occupied by Israelites exclusively. Elimelech’s sons married women of that country, one of them being Ruth. Ruth could not have been of any race or nation but Israel, for no other races lived in “the plains of Moab.”

It is important to understand here that “the country of Moab” is different to “the land of Moab”, since “country” and “land” are different words in Hebrew, with differing meanings. The “land of Moab” on the East side of Jordan does not feature in the Book of Ruth (KJV).

Why were Israelites called Moabites? The Israelite peoples within the land of Moab were known as “Moabites” because “the plains of Moab” was the name of the place where they lived. This is similar to those who lived in Galilee being called "Galileans" and those within Judea being called “Judeans”. Calling Ruth a ‘Moabitess’ thus is not a problem. Today, Anglo-Saxon English who live in New Zealand may be called "New Zealanders”, but this does not alter their place of birth if that was in England. A New Zealander may be an “Aucklander” or a “Wellingtonian”, but both are New Zealanders. The description here is determined by place of residence, not nationality.

Why is "Moabitess" a geographical rather than a racial term? So we might ask that if an Israelite Judean man took an Israelite wife from Galilee, would she not still be a Israelite after the marriage? She could also be called a “Galilean” just as Ruth was called a “Moabitess”. This wife would be described as being “of Galilee”, just as Ruth was as being “of Moab”. So if Ruth is called a Moabitess seven times, so what –it would not change her race! Should “of Moab” have a different meaning to “from Moab”? “Galilee” is used as a territorial term just as “Moab” is in the Book of Ruth. Then there is the phrase “wives of the women of Moab” that is really just, “wives from Moab”.

How does Strong’s Concordance support the geographical meaning of Moab? Even Strong’s Concordance will show us the words, “the women of” are not there. “Moab” is adjectival, but to be definitive we must first determine if the usage is about a place or a race. Until this is done we will just be presumptive. Strong’s Concordance indicates that Mow’ab (4124) means either a land or a nation, (a place or a people) and he shows the word is translated both ways about the same number of times. Then he indicates there are two Hebrew words, but does not show us which is which. So which one are we looking at?

Strong omits altogether the “country” of Moab as used right through the Book of Ruth, altogether. We do not find the “LAND” of Moab mentioned once in the Book of Ruth, so could the word “Moabitess”, as used in that book, have any reference to the “LAND”, (or the people) on the East of Jordan? So if any make the claim that Ruth “came from the “LAND” of Moab”, they are wrong. Ruth did not come from East of Jordan.

No, she came from the “COUNTRY” of Moab, which is West of Jordan and which was inhabited solely by Israelites for about 600 years. Now we come to Ruth 1:6-7, “Then she arose with her daughters in law, that she might return from the country of Moab: for she had heard in the country of Moab how that the LORD had visited HIS PEOPLE in giving them bread”. So, did God visit “His people” in the Land of Moab as Israelites or not? Are not “His people” Israelites? Here even Strong admits the particular word used for “people” as used here means, “members of one’s people”...and also “kinsmen.” The word “kinsmen” shouts loudly, does it not? So were they not all of one “kin” in both places?

If Ruth was an Israelite, why did she worship foreign Gods? Some suggest that the record indicates that Ruth was different from Boaz’s handmaidens, and that this difference might be racial. But from history, and from the Bible record, we find Israelites sometimes worshipping the gods of the lands that they had taken from other races. The indications are that Ruth, as an Israelite, came back to worship the God of Israel from having previously worshipped other gods when in the plains of Moab. [Example: see Judges 2:11-13]

In the case of Ruth and her identity, we must consider whether or not God would violate His, “I am the Lord – I change not”. The rules concerning the gene pool from which wives for Israelite men could draw was so well established (by God) before this time. The story about Ruth is Israelite kinsmen both marrying within God’s laws. Boaz says, “And he said, Who art thou? Ruth answers, “I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman. And Boaz’s replies, “And now it is true that I am thy near kinsman: howbeit there is a kinsman nearer than I”. If we start with the right viewpoint from simple statements that Ruth was of the same kin as Boaz, we will not create our own problems about whether or not Ruth was an Israelite.

GOD’S CONDEMNATION OF THE MOABITES

From the beginning God very strongly condemned the Moabites and Ammonites as races. See what God commanded. Deuteronomy 23:3 "An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of Yahweh; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord FOREVER."

In the tenth generation there could be as little as one part in 1056 BCE of Moabite blood when marrying back into Israelite stock. There is argument whether “ten generations” is a Hebraism meaning “forever”, and whether or not this has the same meaning as “for all generations,” but regardless of this, in the case of Ruth, in her time, if she had not been of Israelite stock, she could not possibly have been allowed to enter into the Congregation of the Lord.

So then, could Ruth possibly have been a Moabitess by race? Zephaniah 2:9 "Therefore, as I live saith the Lord of hosts, the surely Moab shall be as Sodom and the children of Ammon as Gomorrah. The whole 48th chapter of Jeremiah is a terrible condemnation of the people of Moab.

Bye for now,

Teresias
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/images/smilies/smile.gif

You've been warned already about the copyright rule. Please do not post more than 2 paragraphs or 8 sentences of copyrighted text, and when you do, please cite where you got it from

[John Goddard]

What was the status of the Moabites? The story of Ruth is placed at about 1322 BCE. Before this in about 1406 BCE we read: “And they went down after him, and took the fords of Jordan toward Moab, and suffered not a man to pass over. And they slew of Moab at that time about ten thousand men, all lusty, and all men of valor; and there escaped not a man.”-- Judges 3:28 So Moab was subdued that day under the hand of Israel. And the land had rest fourscore years”
...
Ruth could not have been of any race or nation but Israel, for no other races lived in “the plains of Moab.”

The idea here is that they killed all the men, but as a precedent, virgins were sometimes left to be taken as wives. Compare Numbers and Judges:

Judges 21:11 And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man.

Numbers 31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

So if not 100% Moabite, Ruth also may have descended from such a Moabite woman taken as a wife.

Why were Israelites called Moabites? The Israelite peoples within the land of Moab were known as “Moabites” because “the plains of Moab” was the name of the place where they lived. This is similar to those who lived in Galilee being called "Galileans" and those within Judea being called “Judeans”. Calling Ruth a ‘Moabitess’ thus is not a problem.

Why wasn't Naomi called a Moabitess, as Ruth was, since Naomi lived there too?

Ruth 1:22 So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter in law, with her, which returned out of the country of Moab: and they came to Bethlehem in the beginning of barley harvest.

This part of the explanation doesn't really add up.

If Ruth was an Israelite, why did she worship foreign Gods? Some suggest that the record indicates that Ruth was different from Boaz’s handmaidens, and that this difference might be racial. But from history, and from the Bible record, we find Israelites sometimes worshipping the gods of the lands that they had taken from other races. The indications are that Ruth, as an Israelite, came back to worship the God of Israel from having previously worshipped other gods when in the plains of Moab. [Example: see Judges 2:11-13]

Foreign women sometimes lured Israelite men to worship other gods, most famously with Solomon. If you say no Moabites were left in the region where Ruth was, how could Israelites have been swayed to adopt their gods? That doesn't add up either.

In the case of Ruth and her identity, we must consider whether or not God would violate His, “I am the Lord – I change not”. The rules concerning the gene pool from which wives for Israelite men could draw was so well established (by God) before this time. The story about Ruth is Israelite kinsmen both marrying within God’s laws. Boaz says, “And he said, Who art thou? Ruth answers, “I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman. And Boaz’s replies, “And now it is true that I am thy near kinsman: howbeit there is a kinsman nearer than I”. If we start with the right viewpoint from simple statements that Ruth was of the same kin as Boaz, we will not create our own problems about whether or not Ruth was an Israelite.

GOD’S CONDEMNATION OF THE MOABITES

From the beginning God very strongly condemned the Moabites and Ammonites as races. See what God commanded. Deuteronomy 23:3 "An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of Yahweh; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord FOREVER."

In the tenth generation there could be as little as one part in 1056 BCE of Moabite blood when marrying back into Israelite stock. There is argument whether “ten generations” is a Hebraism meaning “forever”, and whether or not this has the same meaning as “for all generations,” but regardless of this, in the case of Ruth, in her time, if she had not been of Israelite stock, she could not possibly have been allowed to enter into the Congregation of the Lord.
So then, could Ruth possibly have been a Moabitess by race?

Zephaniah 2:9 "Therefore, as I live saith the Lord of hosts, the surely Moab shall be as Sodom and the children of Ammon as Gomorrah. The whole 48th chapter of Jeremiah is a terrible condemnation of the people of Moab.

Are they really condemned for their bad genes, or for hardening their hearts against the God of Israel in favor of their false gods?

Ruth 1:16 And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:

Romans 2:28-29 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Galations 3:28-29 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

So I think all of this misses the point that Abraham was a Gentile and non-Israelite receiving the promise, being under the priestly authority of Melchizedek. And Jesus being the last Melchizedek also opens the doors to non-Israelites to receive promises of Abraham, if they open their hearts to God as Ruth did.

[Sparko]

Thread moved to unorthodox theology. Theology 201 is for discussions of theology within the orthodox framework. This thread does not fit that definition.

[Teresias]

Hello John,

First, permit me to apologize to TheologyWeb for posting to the wrong thread. Thank you for re-locating the discussion.

John, let me clarify that I do not subscribe to the “racial purity” thesis. I am simply trying to understand the Holy Scriptures in context. However, I believe a valid starting point must be Deuteronomy 7:1-6. The following texts are from the New American Standard Version:


1"When the LORD your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you,

2and when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them.

3"Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons.

4"For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you.

5"But thus you shall do to them: you shall tear down their altars, and smash their sacred pillars, and hew down their Asherim, and burn their graven images with fire.

6"For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth."

The above commands to Israel seem unequivocal to me. You shall not intermarry with them: “the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites.”

Why was the God of Israel prepared to make an exception in the case of Ruth? Especially when He was so specific about the Moabites: "An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of Yahweh; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord FOREVER." Deuteronomy 23:3 KJV

Based on Numbers 31:18 you suggest that Israelite men eventually married prisoners of war. : I note that the phrase “for yourselves” does not necessarily mean, “for your pleasure.” It seems to mean something like “do not kill them.” The text does not contravene the commandment: “you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons.” I doubt very much that the same God who so passionately prohibited foreign marriage would thereafter permit it. Wouldn't he have been sending a mixed message?

As to your question, ‘Why wasn’t Naomi called a Moabitess, since Naomi lived there too’ [the “fields of Moab”]? Ruth 1:2 says that Naomi was from Bethlehem. I imagine the core distinction between Ruth and Naomi is that Ruth was actually indigenous to the “fields of Moab” whereas Naomi was native to Judah.

I especially enjoy your question, “If you say no Moabites were left in the region where Ruth was, how could Israelites have been swayed to adopt their gods?” In answer I will say that idolatry seems to have been a persistent and pernicious issue in Israel. For example, Judges 2:10, 11 speaks of a generation of Israelites “who did not know Yahweh or the work that he had done for Israel” and who subsequently abandoned their God and served Baal and Ashtoreth images.” I opine that the Israelites dwelling in the “fields of Moab” had been infected by the virus of idolatry long before the land had been depopulated of resident Moabites.

You raise the issue of “bad genes” versus bad religion [idolatry’] as the basis of condemnation. I don’t know. Deuteronomy 7:6 says, “the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.” What does this mean? Why are they likened to a treasure kept in a safe?

I'll speak to the other issues later on, as time permits.

Bye for now!

[John Goddard]

The above commands to Israel seem unequivocal to me. You shall not intermarry with them: “the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites.”

Why was the God of Israel prepared to make an exception in the case of Ruth? Especially when He was so specific about the Moabites: "An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of Yahweh; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord FOREVER." Deuteronomy 23:3 KJV

Well, replace Moabite with liar, cheat, thief. Maybe even Christian killer. Saul could not have entered the Christian congregation as he sought to kill Christians, Acts 9:1.

But once converted as Paul, then he was cleansed of his past associations and entered into the congregation of Christ.

So with Ruth, when she said, "Your God and people are my God and people" she converted. She was no longer a Moabite, but an Israelite by conversion. Just as Paul was no longer Saul the Christian killer, but Paul the Christian by conversion.

I think this is the point you are missing regarding Romans 11 and related verses. Anyone can convert and shed their past associations and be graffed in, not just wayward Israelites.

[Teresias]

Well, replace Moabite with liar, cheat, thief. Maybe even Christian killer. Saul could not have entered the Christian congregation as he sought to kill Christians, Acts 9:1.

But once converted as Paul, then he was cleansed of his past associations and entered into the congregation of Christ.

So with Ruth, when she said, "Your God and people are my God and people" she converted. She was no longer a Moabite, but an Israelite by conversion. Just as Paul was no longer Saul the Christian killer, but Paul the Christian by conversion.

I think this is the point you are missing regarding Romans 11 and related verses. Anyone can convert and shed their past associations and be graffed in, not just wayward Israelites.

Hello John,

I understand the logic of your argument. However, its application collides head on with Deuteronomy 7:3 “you must form no marriage alliance with them. Your daughter you must not give to his son, and his daughter you must not take for your son.” “Must not,” seems to mean, “must not ever!” There is no provision for “conversion,” no escape clause. The commandment was unequivocal and immutable.

For example, note the issue of intermarriage in Ezra 10:1-19—centuries after Ruth. The only resolution of the national transgression was to put away foreign wives—send them out. I imagine that not a few of those women “converted” to Judaism, as you say. But that was not enough to retain them in the congregation of Israel.

In Nehemiah’s memoirs (Nehemiah 13:23-27) he recounts how he came to blows with Jewish officials and others who had intermarried. It would have been logical at this stage for a priest to appeal to the case of David the King—if, in fact his ancestress had been a foreign woman who converted. But there is no such reference because I believe there was no such historical precedent.

I look forward to a discussion about conversion—Saul’s in particular. We’ll also discuss Romans 11.

Bye for now!

[Teresias]

THE OLIVE TREE

12 Now if their fall riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness! 13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy [those who are] my flesh and save some of them. 15 For if their being cast away [is] the reconciling of the world, what [will] their acceptance but life from the dead? 16 For if the firstfruit [is] holy, the lump [is] also [holy;] and if the root [is] holy, so [are] the branches. 17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, [remember that] you do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in." 20 Well [said.] Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in [His] goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who [are] natural [branches,] be grafted into their own olive tree? Romans 11:12-24 NKJV

[B]SYNOPSIS

Because the Law observant Israelites collectively rejected Jesus as their Messiah, did that mean that they were beyond hope? Not necessarily—as the reference to Elijah’s day suggests. Though the nation in that era had descended to an all-time theological low, God preserved the prophet and intimated that a minority [remnant] worth saving existed.

Paul, in effect, suggests that a similar pattern reproduced itself in his day: Just as a minority of Israelites were “saved” in Elijah’s day—when rampant idolatry made it seem like the nation was doomed—so God would save “some” Israelites through Paul’s outreach to them. Paul uses the metaphor of the pruned olive tree to illustrate God’s goal for all ancient Israel.



THE OLIVE TREE

[I]Purpose: to correct the superior attitude of Israelite teachers from the nations [ethne] toward their brothers in Judah. Wild Olive Tree: the Hellenic [cultivated] Israelites. They were Israelites immersed in “worldwide values and behaviors.” To correct the superior attitude of the cultivated [Greek] Israelites, Paul calls them “uncultivated” whereas the Israelites of Judah are called “cultivated.” By using the metaphor this way Paul inverts the standing of the two groups. The “Greeks” or “nations” evidently originated in the 10 tribes that were dispersed during the Assyrian invasion 150 years before.

Cultivated Olive Tree: Israelites of Judah. They were the Jews—those from Judah who practiced Judean customs (i.e., by following the Mosaic Law and practicing circumcision).The Root: To live like the patriarchs—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—in trusting commitment to the messiah. The Goal: To make the 2 houses—Judah and Ephraim—one re-united nation under the leadership of their messiah. Note how Paul says that God would thereby save “all Israel” (Romans 11:26-27).


CONCLUSION

Paul’s dual purpose in giving the olive tree metaphor seems to have been: 1) to instill humility in the non-Judean Israelite teachers [Romans 2:17-24] and, 2) to promote unity among his Israelite brothers. One will observe that wild olive branches were integrated into a domestic olive tree—contrary to usual horticultural practice. However, Paul did not say that a pear tree or an apple tree were integrated into an olive tree. Paul applied the metaphor to his contemporaries. I don't believe an application of the metaphor beyond the First Century was ever intended.

Bibliography

Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul. Malina, Bruce J. and Pilch, John J. (2006). Fortress Press

The Olive Tree Metaphor: It’s Not What You Think. Allen, Stephen. Ha Derech.
This looks like it has been copied from another source and probably copyright protected. If so, please familiarize yourself with our policy on this matter (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/faq.php?faq=campus_decorum#faq_campus_decorum_copyright). Thank you.

[bc1980]

Teresias,

The problem is you seem to be expecting the O.T. Scriptures to be self-evident and stand alone apart from the N.T. You seem to be making the story about Israel.

The writer of Hebrews shows, exhaustively, that the O.T., with it's shadows and types cannot be understood correctly apart from Christ. The plot of the Bible (O.T. & N.T. combined) is one story centered in Christ, not Israel.

All Israel and all the apostles misunderstood the point of it all until Jesus (and the Holy Spirit) explained it to them.

The story is not about Israel. It is about Jesus.

A Jewish-centered hermeneutic will lead you to the same place of those who crucified Christ, in unbelief. Only, a Christ-centered hermeneutic will bring you to life and truth. There is one people of God, those who are in Christ.

[John Goddard]

I understand the logic of your argument. However, its application collides head on with Deuteronomy 7:3 “you must form no marriage alliance with them. Your daughter you must not give to his son, and his daughter you must not take for your son.” “Must not,” seems to mean, “must not ever!” There is no provision for “conversion,” no escape clause. The commandment was unequivocal and immutable.

Again the problem was not their in their genes, but in their allegiance to other gods.

Deuteronomy 7:4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

So the situation in Deuteronomy supposes that in-laws are continuing idolatry. However if they converted to Judaism and pledged allegiance to the God of Israel, then that situation would also change.

Uriah was also a Hittite and thus his wife Bathsheba, so we'd also have to wonder why God didn't complain about the mother of Solomon being a foreigner. The problem between David and Bathsheba was murder and adultery, not race. So apparently she converted to Judaism as well.

For example, note the issue of intermarriage in Ezra 10:1-19—centuries after Ruth. The only resolution of the national transgression was to put away foreign wives—send them out. I imagine that not a few of those women “converted” to Judaism, as you say. But that was not enough to retain them in the congregation of Israel.

How could wives have converted when the natives were still doing abominations?

Ezra 9:1 Now when these things were done, the princes came to me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites.

Again this is about Jewish men taking practicing heathen as wives, not about taking wives who converted to Judaism as Ruth did, repenting from idol worship.

This bibical message is not racist or about genes, there was nothing magical about Israelite blood that made them more "fit" than other peoples after repenting from idol worship. Idolaters are idolaters.

Rather, the message here is that anyone who wants to be a Jew must live like a Jew and cut themselves off from all former evils. Or in the NT, anyone who wants to be a Christian must live like a Christian. Doesn't matter if they are Israelite or non-Israelite.

Paul’s dual purpose in giving the olive tree metaphor seems to have been: 1) to instill humility in the non-Judean Israelite teachers [Romans 2:17-24] and, 2) to promote unity among his Israelite brothers. One will observe that wild olive branches were integrated into a domestic olive tree—contrary to usual horticultural practice. However, Paul did not say that a pear tree or an apple tree were integrated into an olive tree. Paul applied the metaphor to his contemporaries. I don't believe an application of the metaphor beyond the First Century was ever intended.

The olives are Israelites and non-Israelites in general, all humans from Adam, so the pear/apple example doesn't matter since it was intended to cover conditions beyond the first century since Abraham and Isaac are also discussed, and they were not descended from Israel.

Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

So then before Jesus, Natural Olives are Jews observing the Old Covenant, Wild Olives are not. Thus either can include Israelites and non-Israelites alike, since Abraham started as a Wild Olive Gentile converting to Natural Olive of the circumcision.

Then after Jesus, Jews observing the Old Covenant but not Jesus are partly blind for now and temporarily broken out of the Natural Olive, as the rest of the world gets a chance to accept Jesus and are graffed in as the Wild Olive.

Then at the end, blinded Jews in the Old Covenant will start to see and accept Jesus, and can be restored back to the Natural Olive.

So the idea that it applies only to people of the first century is also refuted by the fact that most Jews of the world are still blind to Jesus.

[Iskra]

Teresias, The problem is you seem to be expecting the O.T. Scriptures to be self-evident and stand alone apart from the N.T. You seem to be making the story about Israel. The writer of Hebrews shows, exhaustively, that the O.T., with it's shadows and types cannot be understood correctly apart from Christ. The plot of the Bible (O.T. & N.T. combined) is one story centered in Christ, not Israel. All Israel and all the apostles misunderstood the point of it all until Jesus (and the Holy Spirit) explained it to them. The story is not about Israel. It is about Jesus. A Jewish-centered hermeneutic will lead you to the same place of those who crucified Christ, in unbelief. Only, a Christ-centered hermeneutic will bring you to life and truth. There is one people of God, those who are in Christ.


That's what i should have said. Well put, bc1980.

No offence, but this focus on minutia from the OT is a rabbitt trail
and a distraction from serving the One True King and Savior of Israel and the Gentiles, Jesus of Nazareth.

Learn of Him.

[barnasha]

The writer of Hebrews shows, exhaustively, that the O.T., with it's shadows and types cannot be understood correctly apart from Christ. The plot of the Bible (O.T. & N.T. combined) is one story centered in Christ, not Israel.


Both libraries are centered on God. Christ is centered on God. The term messiah used in a theological sense largely does not appear except in the books of the "new testament" collection.




There is one people of God, those who are in Christ.

Only if you mean by heavenly standards (love, peace), and not worldly ones ("Christian").

[bc1980]

That's what i should have said. Well put, bc1980.
No offence, but this focus on minutia from the OT is a rabbitt trail
and a distraction from serving the One True King and Savior of Israel and the Gentiles, Jesus of Nazareth.
Learn of Him.

Thanks for the compliment. On the second part of your comment, I'm sorry, I don't understand. What are you saying?

[bc1980]

Both libraries are centered on God. Christ is centered on God. The term messiah used in a theological sense largely does not appear except in the books of the "new testament" collection.

I'm sorry, I'm not clear about your point. Are you saying that the Bible is not centered in Christ?

Only if you mean by heavenly standards (love, peace), and not worldly ones ("Christian").

I used the term "those in Christ" to differentiate from the term "Christian" which has been diluted in our society.

[Iskra]

That's what i should have said. Well put, bc1980.
No offence, but this focus on minutia from the OT is a rabbitt trail
and a distraction from serving the One True King and Savior of Israel and the Gentiles, Jesus of Nazareth.
Learn of Him.

Thanks for the compliment. On the second part of your comment, I'm sorry, I don't understand. What are you saying?

I was responding to Teresias. The "no offence" and following was for him.

[bc1980]

Correction:

Both libraries are centered on God. Christ is centered on God. The term messiah used in a theological sense largely does not appear except in the books of the "new testament" collection.

I'm sorry, I'm not clear about your point. Are you saying that the Bible is not centered in Christ?

Only if you mean by heavenly standards (love, peace), and not worldly ones ("Christian").

I used the term "those in Christ" to differentiate from the term "Christian" which has been diluted in our society.