Critic’s Call in Day

[Download MP3]

Dr. Brown opens the phones to all who disagree with him from any perspective on any subject, encouraging those who differ with him on social media and elsewhere to air their differences publicly. He’ll also stay on top of on any major, breaking news. Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.

 

Hour 1:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: If your positions can’t take criticism and scrutiny then you need to be more sure about what you believe.

 

Hour 2:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: As believers, we can differ on all kinds of secondary, minor points, but let us hold fast to the fundamental truths of the gospel.

SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!

This week, when you purchase The Messianic Jewish Family Bible for $70 postage paid (free shipping US only) we’ll give you a FREE The Appointed Times DVD (a $20 value!) This resource package will be an excellent addition to your family library and will bless you greatly! Order Online Here!

Other Resources:

Dr. Brown Responds to the Critics, the Crazies, and the Jew Haters

The Danger of Exaggerated End-Time Mentality and a Question for Israel’s Critics

Dr. Brown and Pastor Gino Geraci Discuss Myths and Facts About Bible Translations and Bible Interpretation

102 Comments
  1. Dear Dr. Brown,

    Thank you so much for taking my call. I just wanted to leave you with this blog post to consider. Please read this post and consider the other posts on the permanence of marriage. I know the Holy Spirit is working on the hearts of many who believed the lies that the Lord allowed for exceptions to what He has joined together for life. Marriage is as it was in the beginning. One and and one woman for life. Marriage is only by the grace of Christ and is one of the greatest examples of the Gospel to a world in desperate need of a Savior.

    Eph 5:31,32 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

    http://genesistwo24.blogspot.com/2015/06/an-open-letter-to-michael-brown.html

    In Christ’s love,

    Neil

  2. Dr. Brown,
    With all due respect, I can’t understand why you object to the idea of there being two Israels–physical and spiritual.

    1) Which “Israel” is it to which not all physical “Israel” belongs–but to which all who are of the same faith as Abraham belong?

    Romans 4:11He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised… 12 … to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

    Romans 9:6But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

    2) According to Paul, there are two Jerusalems (one on earth, and one in heaven); moreover, all those who hold to “the Gospel” (generally speaking) are “the Israel of God”. Are those physical Jews who disobey the Gospel part of this “Israel of God”? If they are not, doesn’t this prove the existence of an Israel apart from national Israel–the existence of two Israels?

    Galatians 4:25Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia;e she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.

    Galatians 6:14But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whichb the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. 16And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

    3) I’ve left this one for last, because it does not (in my mind) necessarily prove that there are two Israels: Jesus both affirms and denies the Pharisees are Abraham’s children. How can that be, unless He is addressing physical lineage at one point and spiritual lineage at another (with a possible allusion to both a physical and a spiritual Israel)?

    John 8:37I know that you are offspring of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me because my word finds no place in you.

    John 8:39They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did…

  3. Dr. Brown, I have to agree with Neil concerning the indissolubility of marriage except by physical death. When Jesus said let no man put asunder, He meant just that, as echoed also by Paul in Rom. 7:2-3 and 1 Cor. 7:39. How, then can you say, Dr. Brown, that either man’s divorce or adultery severs the covenant? How can one-flesh possibly be made two again? Did Israel’s repeated and unrepentant adultery sever any of His covenants? (Before you point to Jer. 3:1, allow me to point you to Jer. 3:14.)

    Neil also attempted to explain that general “sexual immorality” is a woefully, fatally inaccurate translation of the Greek “porneia”, although due to 20th century political correctness, you have to go back to the bible dictionaries and lexicons on the 1800’s and earlier to discern this. In none of a dozen or more such earlier lexicons was “porneia” (whose root word means “to sell off” translated as anything but whoredom, prostitution, unmarried harlotry. Jesus used “porneia” and “moicheia” (the true word for adultery) separately in Matt. 5:32 and Matt. 19:9 because he was saying that the Pharisees were off-base trying to dissolve a consummated marriage for any grounds. The “exception” was only good on the wedding night and no later. The reason Matthew is the only gospel with the exception is because it was written to the only culture that (a) had a legally-binding engagement period that required legal divorce to break, and (b) stoned adulteresses to death, making divorce in such circumstances moot.

    Due to your constant interruptions, Neil also didn’t get a chance to correct your error with 1 Cor. 7:15 in translating the word “bound” which is the Greek “douloo” which does not mean “marriage bond” (that word would be “deo”, as used a few verses down in 7:39 and also in Romans 7:2). There is no breaking of the marriage bond in 7:15, and no mention of sinless authority to marry another while the covenant spouse still lives. “Bound” in this instance means “free to act”, free to serve Christ. There’s no mention of desertion by a believing spouse, much less that situation creating severing the marriage covenant, and to treat 7:15 in the way you assert, then negates both 7:11 and 7:39, along with the entire context of chapter 7.

    Since we are dealing with 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and Rev. 21:8, this is no area of scripture to be politically correct or lazy in rightly dividing the word. Every pastor that presides over an adulterous remarriage (i.e. where there is an undissoluble covenant with an estranged living spouse) is actually breaking the 4th commandment by misusing the Lord’s name to do evil.

    Thank you for taking Neil’s call, and for the extent to which you heard him out today.

  4. I was reading Psalm 110:3 and noticed that this is a word of prophecy for Israel.

    Psalm 110:3
    Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.

    But is it only for Israel? I suppose we could refer to any of God’s people as being a part of Israel if we wanted to, if we are talking about Israel as being God’s people.

    I see 7 definitions of the word Israel in my dictionary, showing 7 different ways the word is used. I don’t believe my dictionary necessarily got it wrong.

  5. Dr. Brown, referring to your conversation with the caller Neil concerning the indissolubility of biblical covenant marriage, you referred to “overseas believers” grasping the truth, but you seemed to imply that U.S. believers can consider the undiluted word of God on this foundational matter “optional”.

    Don’t you know that God fiercely and jealously defends His symbols, of which marriage is clearly the foremost? These overseas believers, like John the Baptist, are the kind of folks you see in orange suits on beaches with a black-hooded devil and a sword poised behind him. As the totalitarianism of the Sexual Revolution continues to bear down on this country in these “days of Noah”, what sort of choice will the typical U.S. evangelical make whose ears have been tickled by their scripture-compromising pastor, who in turn fears man more than he (or she) fears God?

    God’s protective hand used to be solidly on this nation, but it has grown increasingly clear over the past 50 years that this is no longer the case, as the Spirit-breathed U.S. Constitution no longer functions, borders and budgets and pastors are out of control. Could all of this be the precise reason why?

  6. This was an interesting program especially at the end when Greg called thinking that Dr. Brown was not Jewish. Tuesday’s could be a new format of talk it out Tuesdays- or Two debate it Tuesday. Enjoyable program.

  7. CarolV,

    Good post and points. It has only been in the last 50 years or so that any conservative or Biblical church started to relax their stance on divorce and remarriage. Only death separates a one flesh relationship. The whole of scripture teaches this. Divorce is only allowed before the consummation of the marriage according to scripture. All divorced and remarried women are in adultery if their first real spouse is alive. Almost all remarried men are in adultery also.

    Shalom

  8. Benjamin Warkentin,
    I haven’t studied this topic in-depth, but the Truth about it seems rather obvious to me.

    1) I reject their explaining away of Galatians 6:16 (saying “there are two groups–BOTH ‘they’ AND ‘the Israel of God’–one referring to believing Gentiles and one referring to believing Jews”) on the grounds that Gentiles are “grafted in” to a “tree” whose roots are Jewish [Ro 11], and are said to have become included in “the commonwealth of Israel”, sharing in the “covenants of promise” which pertain only to “Israel” [Ep 2].
    The author(s) of that site are just grasping at straws: since we know that Paul comes from a background of reading TaNaK, and that the TaNaK uses “reiteration” (saying the same thing twice), we have every reason to believe the “they” is the “Israel of God”.

    2) I reject their explaining away of Romans 9:6 (by saying “the ‘Israel’ to which not all physical ‘Israel’ belongs is itself a spiritual ‘Israel’, BUT this also is an ‘Israel’ of Jews alone) on the grounds that Romans 9:6 is a response to the possible Jewish objection to Paul’s Gospel that goes, “If what you’re saying is true, then you are claiming that the Word of God (about Israel) has failed.”
    In other words, for whom is “the Word of God” about “Israel” effective so that “God’s Word has not failed”? There must be an “Israel” (which is not national “Israel”) to whom God’s Word applies, in order that “God’s Word (about “Israel”) has not failed”. According to Romans 9, this “Israel” is comprised of “Abraham’s children”–but only a select group of “Abraham’s children”: “the children of promise” (Isaac, not Ishmael), or “those who are of faith”. Well, isn’t Abraham called “the father of the uncircumcised who walk in the same steps of faith of Abraham” [Ro 4]? If they qualify as “Abraham’s children”, aren’t these uncircumcised/Gentile men belonging to that “Israel” to which the Word applies in order that it cannot be said to have failed (as, again, noted in Ephesians 2–where the Gentiles are sharers in Covenants pertaining only to Israel–and, possibly, in 1 Co 1:20)?

  9. Benjamin Warkentin,
    “I haven’t studied this topic in-depth, but the Truth about it seems rather obvious to me.”

    In other words, I am open to correction on it.

  10. Benjamin Warkentin,
    The “children of God” “scattered abroad”, whom Jesus will bring, are not of “the nation”; these will be unified with the sheep of “the nation”/”this fold” (i.e., the Jews) so that they will be a singular flock with a singular Shepherd: there will be one King over one people.

    John 11:52and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.

    John 10:16And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

    God has particular ways of relating with the group of people that are His [Ex 4:22; Dt 14:1, 32:5,21; Is 54:5; Hs 1:9,10; Jn 3:29]:
    i. Husband : bride
    ii. Father : children
    iii. God : people

    In other words, the same ones accounted “bride of God” are the ones accounted “children of God” and “people of God”: all of these appellations belong to one and the same group. Who was the only entity in Scripture to whom these belonged?
    Israel.
    Thus, the Gentiles must be “grafted in” / “unified” (made “one flock under one Shepherd”) with this entity in order that “those who were not a people will be called God’s people, those who were not God’s children will be called His children,” and “betrothed to God [2 Co 11:2].

    At one time, all you had to be was a “physical Jew” to be accounted all of these things (a member of God’s bride, child, and people); however, with the ending of the earthly Covenant at Mt. Sinai, and the inauguration of the heavenly Covenant at Mt. Zion [Hb 12:23], the definition of “the children / wife / people of God” changed: “faith” became the qualifier and “unbelief” the disqualifier (all who disbelieve, Jew and Gentile, are excluded from the “tree”; all who believe, Jew and Gentile, are included as “God’s bride, children, and people”).

  11. Benjamin Warkentin,
    I’m not saying that that is a definitive explanation of things (especially when it comes to defining “God’s children”: were they *really* at one time His children, and later discarded as His children [Dt 32:5] or just *nominally* His children based on Jewishness [Ro 9 might seem to contradict this assessment]?) but it is as far as I’ve come in my understanding of this issue.

    Again, I am open to correction if it is reasonable.

  12. Jesus does not abolish the Law but fulfills it, meaning that he perfects it. God had already stated in Malachi that he hates divorce, and Jesus explains that it was given for the hardness of their hearts and that it was not in the plan of God from the beginning. Even though divorce was in the Law, technically speaking, it was there so as to be a kind of permission to do something which would not normally be allowed. When the Messiah came, he fulfilled the meaning of the Law, perfecting it, elevating the status of marriage, defining it once and for all as God intended it to be–meaning no polygamy and no divorce.

  13. Daniel,

    One doctrine that is important to this discussion is the doctrine of the Remnant of Israel. The doctrine of the Remnant of Israel means that there are always some who believe within the Jewish nation as a whole, and all those who believe constitute the Remnant of Israel. Thus in scripture we have two Israels: Israel the Whole and Israel the Remnant. Ethnically, the two are the same, but spiritually they are not. The Remnant at any point of history may be large or small, but there is never a time when it is non-existent.

    There are five ramifications concerning the Remnant of Israel. First: only believers make up the Remnant. Second: not all believers are part of the Remnant, for the Remnant is a Jewish Remnant made up of Jewish believers. Third: the Remnant is always part of the nation as a whole, not detached from the nation as a separate entity: the Remnant is distinct, but distinct within the nation. Fourth: this means Jewish believers have a dual citizenship; they are part both of Israel and the Church today. And fifth: within the concept of the Remnant, there is a twofold contrast: a contrast between the miraculous and the non-miraculous and a contrast between the noise and the quiet.

    The concept of the Remnant of Israel was apparent from the very beginning of Israel’s history as they began to multiply. As a doctrine, the theology of the Remnant began with Elijah the Prophet, then was developed by the writing prophets, and confirmed through the New Testament.

    Looking at Israel’s past history, we go back to Elijah – 1 Kings 16:29-19:18

    The new religious system of chapter 16.
    Omri continued in the sin of Jeroboam (1 Kg. 12:25-33). Jeroboam’s sin was not a totally foreign religion, but a corruption of the true one: the worship of the golden calf. This was a corruption of YHVH worship in that it reduced the God of Israel to an idol.

    In verses 29-34, when Omri’s son Ahab ascended to the throne, he married Jezebel, a Phoenician princess from Sidon, and with her there is the introduction of an altogether new religion: the worship of Baal, the Canaanite storm-god. Thus the whole religious situation of Israel changed radically, and so did God’s relationship to the Northern Kingdom. Into this new environment, God called Elijah, whose life was one of paradoxes and ironies.

    Chapter 17 gives the historical event that gave rise to the doctrine of the Remnant. Because of Israel’s worship of Baal, God decreed a drought over the nation of Israel in verses 1-7. This is the first contrast between the miraculous and the non-miraculous. Food is miraculously provided for Elijah by means of ravens, but the water is provided by non-miraculous means, a brook. Eventually the drought affected the brook and it dried up. God could have miraculously provided water for Elijah as he did for the multitudes in the wilderness, but instead, in verse 8 God told Elijah to leave the country of Israel and go north to Phoenicia, a town belonging to Sidon. This is the first of many ironies of Elijah’s life. Jezebel came from Sidon to Israel; Elijah went from Israel to Sidon. Because of Jezebel, Jews are worshiping Baal, the god of Sidon; because of Elijah, by the end of this chapter Sidoneans are worshiping the God of Israel.

    Chapter 18 gives the Divine Duel. This event provides the second contrast: the contrast between the noise and the quiet. In verse 29, the prophets of Baal go first and are characterized by noise, but as noisy as they get, the heavens remain silent. When it is Elijah’s turn, he does everything quietly, building an altar and praying a simple prayer. In response to Elijah’s quietness, the heavens become noisy and a fire comes and consumes the entire sacrifice. YHVH has proven himself to be God. The prophets of Baal are slain and the drought comes to an end.

    Next comes Elijah’s flight.

    1 Kings 19:1-8

    19 And Ahab told Jezebel all that Elijah had done, and withal how he had slain all the prophets with the sword.

    2 Then Jezebel sent a messenger unto Elijah, saying, So let the gods do to me, and more also, if I make not thy life as the life of one of them by to morrow about this time.

    3 And when he saw that, he arose, and went for his life, and came to Beersheba, which belongeth to Judah, and left his servant there.

    4 But he himself went a day’s journey into the wilderness, and came and sat down under a juniper tree: and he requested for himself that he might die; and said, It is enough; now, O LORD, take away my life; for I am not better than my fathers.

    5 And as he lay and slept under a juniper tree, behold, then an angel touched him, and said unto him, Arise and eat.

    6 And he looked, and, behold, there was a cake baken on the coals, and a cruse of water at his head. And he did eat and drink, and laid him down again.

    7 And the angel of the LORD came again the second time, and touched him, and said, Arise and eat; because the journey is too great for thee.

    8 And he arose, and did eat and drink, and went in the strength of that meat forty days and forty nights unto Horeb the mount of God.

    Elijah understood Jezebel’s actions to mean that Israel would not repudiate the worship of Baal and fled Israel for Judah; he entered the Negev desert and prayed to die. This provides another irony in Elijah’s life: he is the only prophet who asked God to take his life, but to this day he has never died. Instead he was fed twice and continued his journey to Mount Sinai where he had a unique encounter with God.

    When God asked Elijah the purpose of his coming to Sinai, the place where the Mosaic covenant was made, Elijah responded in verse 10:

    10 And he said, I have been very jealous for the LORD God of hosts: for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.

    God’s response comes next:

    11 And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD. And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake:

    12 And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.

    13a And it was so, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave.

    God’s response was the send three noisy things which did not contain the presence of God and the a fourth, quiet thing, which did contain the presence of God: the still small voice. This contained God’s presence and thus Elijah covered his face in his mantle, a natural Jewish response when one believed he was in the presence of God. Next comes the interpretation of the revelation in 1 Kings 19:13b-18.

    In verses 13b-14 God asks again why Elijah came to mount Sinai and Elijah gives the same indictment against Israel. God’s answer (v15-18):

    15 And the LORD said unto him, Go, return on thy way to the wilderness of Damascus: and when thou comest, anoint Hazael to be king over Syria:

    16 And Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be king over Israel: and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abelmeholah shalt thou anoint to be prophet in thy room.

    17 And it shall come to pass, that him that escapeth the sword of Hazael shall Jehu slay: and him that escapeth from the sword of Jehu shall Elisha slay.

    18 Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.

    The parallel of these verses with verses 11-13a should not be missed. In verse 17 God will send 3 noisy things against Israel, though His presence will not be in them. The first was Hazael, the king of Syria, who corresponds with the wind. Just as the wind beat against the mountains, Hazael will beat against Israel until he has reduced Israel’s holdings considerably. The second noisy thing was Jehu, who corresponds with the earthquake. Just as the earthquake split the mountains, Jehu caused a civil war that totally destroyed the dynasty of the House of Ahab, as well as royal members of the House of Judah. The third noisy thing is Elisha, who corresponds to the fire. Just as the fire burned against the mountains, Elisha burned against Israel, for often where Elisha went, death followed. God did send all three noisy things, but God’s presence was not in them.

    In verse 18, God tells Elijah that he was not the only one left who was faithful, for God had seven thousand others. These seven thousand were the Remnant of that day, quite small when compared to the nation as a whole. The Remnant corresponds to the ‘still small voice’ of verse 12. The Remnant, in contrast to Hazael, Jehu and Elisha, is the quiet thing; so quiet, that Elijah did not know they even existed. God’s presence was in the Remnant. It was with this historical Remnant, the seven thousand of Elijah’s day, that the doctrine of the Remnant of Israel began.

    *Excerpts interwoven from ‘Footsteps of the Messiah’.*

    More about the Doctrine of the Remnant of Israel to come. Sorry for its length but its important to understand the Apostles use of the Remnant. When I can I will continue with Isaiah and Peter and more.

  14. *Continuation of #14

    The Book of Immanuel – Isaiah 7:1-12:6

    It is the Prophet Isaiah who put the Remnant concept into theological terms. It is found mostly in the unit composed of chapters 7-12 and called “The book of Immanuel.” In the Hebrew text, that name is found three times: in Isaiah 7:14, 8:8 and 10. In Isaiah 7:3-9, Isaiah told Ahaz, king of Judah, not to fear: He was to trust with quiet confidence in the God of Israel. Instead, Ahaz chose to trust in the noisy Assyrian army to save him. Building on the contrast between the noise and the quiet, Isaiah 8:5-8 points out that the non-Remnant tends to put its trust in that which is noisy such as the Assyrian army, but the Remnant has a quiet confidence in the God of Israel and the One to come, Immanuel. This is contrasted by the waters of Shiloah that flow quietly, as over against the noisy Euphrates River. Ultimately the noise will destroy the non-Remnant, but Immanuel will save the believers according to Isaiah 8:9-11. Immanuel will thus become the point of division between the Remnant and the non-Remnant. In Isaiah 8:14-15, Immanuel will prove to be a sanctuary for the Remnant, but for the non-Remnant, Immanuel will prove to be a ‘stone of stumbling’ and ‘a rock of offense’. In Isaiah’s day, what separated the Remnant from the non-Remnant was their attitude toward the Law and the Prophets. In Isaiah 8:16-17, the Remnant placed its trust in the Law and the Prophets and waited upon the Lord.

    So important was the doctrine of the Remnant to Isaiah that in Isaiah 7:3, he named one of his sons Shear-jashub, which means “a remnant shall return.” With that naming, in Isaiah 10:20-23, Isaiah was looking forward to the future, final salvation of the Remnant of Israel. Until then, it was God who protected the Remnant and guaranteed its survival, according to Isaiah 46:3-4. But in the future, Immanuel will be the new point of division between the Remnant and the non-Remnant.

    The Doctrine of the Remnant of Israel teaches that there is always a segment of the Jewish people who are believers. The teaching of the New Testament is that the Remnant of Israel today comprises the Jewish believers in the Messiaship of Jesus. In the New Testament, that doctrine is primarily found in Paul’s Israeology in Romans 9-11. There is one other passage on the Remnant of Israel relevant to Israel present, which is I Peter 2:1-10.

    In an effort to keep these posts shorter, I will stop here and pick up with Peter in the next post.
    *Excerpts from ‘Footsteps of the Messiah’

  15. Benjamin,

    As often as you quote Fruchtenbaum, I wonder if you are his disciple or Messiah’s. Be careful that you do not have an idol or that you are not following the doctrines of men.

    Shalom

  16. Benjamin Warkentin,
    You’ve said nothing new with those two posts.

    I’ve already agreed that there was a generally Jewish remnant (minus the converts?) before Messiah; that all who believe are grafted in and “made one flock under one shepherd” with them.

    I’d like a response from you on the responses I’ve already given.

  17. Benjamin Warkentin,
    Since there is only going to be one people when Jesus makes the sheep which are not from the Jewish “fold” a singular entity with the sheep from the Jewish “fold”, what is the name of that unified flock?

    Is it the Jewish sheep who are no longer “Israel”, or is it the Gentiles who are now “Israel”?

  18. clarification: Is it that the Jews are no longer “Israel” (if so, what is the name of the unified flock?), or is it that (both Jews and) Gentiles are now “Israel”?

  19. Isn’t it the case that people identify Messiah Jesus as “Israel” in Isaiah 53? If that is the case (even the Talmud says there is a precedent for calling a singular Jew “Israel”: Achan), and we are all unified with Messiah (we are “in Christ”–even sharing in His death and resurrection) how are we not to be identified as “Israel” together with Messiah?

    Without Messiah, the ethnically Jewish “remnant” would be nothing at all; the only thing that qualifies the Jewish remnant is Messiah–the very same qualifier Gentiles depend on: if any Jew wants to check Messiah at the door, they will no longer be God’s people. Without Messiah neither is anything; so what really counts (for both Jew and Gentile) is the effect Messiah has on them.

    Along these lines, Paul makes statement after statement alluding to the fact that not only can Gentiles be considered truly “Jewish” but that Jews can even be considered truly “Gentile”.

    Ro 2
    14For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires…
    17But if you call yourself a Jew…
    25For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision…
    26So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?…
    27Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law…
    28For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical.
    29But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

    What else does it mean when God says [Hs 1:9], “You are not My People”? Isn’t it a demotion to the status of any other nation, since all other nations were “Not God’s People”? Then, when God says [Hs 1:10], “Where it was said to them, ‘Not My People’ it will be said ‘Children of the Living God’,” it can legitimately have the double-application to ALL who were considered “Not My People”–i.e., Paul can be justified in using it to refer to Gentiles being unified with the flock.
    But what else can be concluded from this? That Jews who disbelieve are truly (spiritually, inwardly) Gentile–and the inverse is true of believing Gentiles who are truly (spiritually, inwardly) Jewish.

  20. clarification: “Paul can be justified in using it to refer to Gentiles being unified with the flock”

    Otherwise, anyone could object that “Not My People” had a specific referent (those to whom it was said, “Not My People”–i.e., the Jewish recipients of the prophetic message)–that Paul was contorting Scripture for his own whims.

  21. Bo,

    I do appreciate Fruchtenbaums work. And this is because he agrees with what I understand of Scripture. I also quote from Lewis Sperry Chafer, Ryrie, Tom Ice, etc. Its just like when you and I quote each other. It’s easier and less time consuming to quote something that has been said already than it is to type it out anew. Also, what you and I do when debating the issues is no different, we are two humans expounding the Scriptures, when you go to your local congregation the speaker usually reads scriptures and then gives explanations and applications, showing connections between books, chapters and verses. Quoting an author or expositor is no different than what you and I do all the time. Philip expounded the Scriptures to the Eunuch, Jesus to the disciples on the road.

    Instead of attacking Fruchtenbaum, why not attack the doctrines? Who cares if I quote from an author if that author is accurate? If the comments are inaccurate, talk about it.

    Daniel, I’ll respond soon. I had been putting together the post on Peter.

  22. Benjamin Warkentin,
    When you do respond, please do not just quote some book and think that that is somehow responding to me. I’m actually present in this conversation, so please acknowledge and address the points being raised if you are going to respond at all.

    E.G.:
    “Daniel, you said:
    ‘”Not My People” was a demotion of the Jews to the level of “Gentiles” so Paul was justified in applying the passage to “Gentiles” even though ‘Not My People’ was first directed to a Jewish audience..’
    I agree/disagree, based on _______.”

  23. Neil, thanks for your blog post and your call. I’ve studied this issue intensely over the years, reading carefully the books that espouse your position, which I take seriously and which, I noted, I find common among believers in some other countries (as well as here in America, but not as much).

    You can be assured that I take the scriptural witness very seriously and continue to weigh the questions before the Lord despite the position I hold. God bless!

  24. Dr. Brown,

    What percentage of married people in your church consist of one or both of the spouses in a subsequent marriage? I would think that it should be quite a low percentage (less than 5%) if it is really being taken seriously. What percentage of remarried couples that want to join your church have been counseled to separate for the kingdom of heaven’s sake? How many have been turned away from assembling with you because they were in remarriages that were adulterous?

    Shalom

  25. Daniel,

    I encourage you to keep a mind of brotherly love. This is an in-house discussion. What fault is there in quoting a brother in the Lord? I can’t think of any. But if you do not agree with the quotes, then explain why. Now with what I have posted above you said that you have no disagreement. Which is great, and indeed with the conclusion of my explanation of the doctrine of the Remnant, your questions would be answered as my comments were going to discuss Peter, Paul and the New Testaments usage of the doctrine of the Remnant in such statements as “and the Israel of God”, “not all Israel are of Israel” etc. So your points were being addressed before I was cut short. There indeed are two Israels in the statement “not all Israel are of Israel”. There is Israel the Whole (nation), and there is Israel the faithful Remnant within the Whole. It is the faithful Remnant within the Whole that is the Israel of God. Nowhere in scripture is the Church called Israel (or Israel of God) or visa versa. Neither are Gentiles ever called Jews. But I will cut to the chase and address your questions without the back information.

    You asked me to respond to:

    “Daniel, you said:
    ‘”Not My People” was a demotion of the Jews to the level of “Gentiles” so Paul was justified in applying the passage to “Gentiles” even though ‘Not My People’ was first directed to a Jewish audience..’
    I agree/disagree, based on _______.”

    My first inclination is to disagree, but that is determined by how you are using the term ‘Gentile’. If you mean that they became Gentiles, then I disagree. But I agree if what you mean, is that the Jews experientially for that time were in the same state or experience, as the Gentiles, being ‘not His people’ though still Israel and not Gentiles.

    In Romans 9, Paul points out that vessels of mercy are to also be found among the Gentiles. He does so by quoting two segments from Hosea 2:23 and 1:10. This was not a fulfillment of Hosea, but an application of Hosea due to a similar situation. Hosea’s direct context was that of Israel in declaring that Israel was God’s people, but due to their sin they would be expelled from the Land. And during that time they would become ‘not my people’. Positionally Israel is always the people of God and experientially they only receive the benefits of being the people of God when they believe. But Hosea says that later Israel will repent and experientially become the people of God again. Hosea was speaking about Israel moving from a state of not my people, back to my back. In Paul’s day a similar situation was happening with the Gentiles who came to faith. The Gentiles in a state of unbelief were ‘not my people’, and now that they were being made vessels of mercy and become fit for salvation, they have become ‘my people’. Because of this similarity, Paul applies Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 to the Gentiles. The calling of the Gentiles is what Paul deals with here, while Hosea dealt with Israel. So as many Gentiles have been made into Vessels of mercy, a large portion of Israel has been made into vessels of wrath (Rom. 27-29), as only a Remnant of Israel will come to faith.

    Paul’s emphasis through this passage has been that even though Israel the whole has failed, the Word of God has not failed. A Remnant of Israel has survived and it is through them that God will fulfill His program. The reason all attempts to annihilate the Jews have failed is because there has always been a Remnant of believing, faithful Jews.

    One comment you made is a large point of divergence between our views. You said:

    “Along these lines, Paul makes statement after statement alluding to the fact that not only can Gentiles be considered truly “Jewish” but that Jews can even be considered truly “Gentile.”

    You gave various verses from Romans 2 to support this which I will make a second post to discuss.

    Thanks.

  26. Romans 2

    14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;

    – They are given a title in this verse, “for when Gentiles”, there is no mention of them becoming Jewish.

    17 But if thou bearest the name of a Jew, and restest upon the law, and gloriest in God,

    – Paul is not lightly saying “If you call yourself a Jew”, it’s a declaration of reality, of birth and privilege. Verses 17 and 18 spell out the privileges that the Jewish people have. Privileges carry responsibility though. But because of these privileges, they claimed a position of superiority to the Gentiles and instead of being a light to the Gentiles as was their calling, they failed because of this attitude of superiority.

    Verse 25-29 Paul contrasts between mere outward conformity and inward conformity. The Pharisaic concept was that all who were circumcised would make it into God’s kingdom. Paul cited privileges that came with circumcision, but circumcision did not establish the covenant. Circumcision was a sign of the covenant which was already established. Circumcision only brought blessings which were dependent upon obedience. Circumcision only avails if the law is kept. The morality of the uncircumcised Gentile can judge the immorality of the circumcised Jew (v27). Continuing, mere physical birth cannot save (v28-29), circumcision does not save either, it is only outward, whereas God demands a circumcision which is of the heart. Then Paul says “whose praise is not of men but of God”, which is a play on words. Again the word Jew has the root meaning of “praise.” Verse 29 can be paraphrased, “Whose Jewishness is not of men but of God.” Therefore, a true Jew is a Jew who is one both outwardly and inwardly and not outwardly only.

    The passage does not teach that Gentiles can become spiritual Jews. Paul discussed the Gentiles earlier (1:18-2:16) and was finished with that topic. In 2:17-3:20 he is discussing the Jewish question. He does here the same that he does in Romans 9-11, distinguish between Jews who believe and Jews who do not believe.

  27. Benjamin Warkentin,
    1. “I encourage you to keep a mind of brotherly love. This is an in-house discussion. What fault is there in quoting a brother in the Lord? I can’t think of any.”

    I never said I had a problem with you quoting someone, only with quoting someone and failing to address particular points made.

    2. “But if you do not agree with the quotes, then explain why.”
    I’ve already done so.

    3. “Now with what I have posted above you said that you have no disagreement. Which is great, and indeed with the conclusion of my explanation of the doctrine of the Remnant, your questions would be answered”
    I said I agreed with the first part, and gave reasons why I disagreed with the latter.

    4. “as my comments were going to discuss Peter, Paul and the New Testaments usage of the doctrine of the Remnant in such statements as “and the Israel of God”, “not all Israel are of Israel” etc. So your points were being addressed before I was cut short. There indeed are two Israels in the statement “not all Israel are of Israel”. There is Israel the Whole (nation), and there is Israel the faithful Remnant within the Whole. It is the faithful Remnant within the Whole that is the Israel of God. Nowhere in scripture is the Church called Israel (or Israel of God) or visa versa. Neither are Gentiles ever called Jews. But I will cut to the chase and address your questions without the back information.”

    I’ve already addressed this.

    5. You asked me to respond to:
    “Daniel, you said:
    ‘”Not My People” was a demotion of the Jews to the level of “Gentiles” so Paul was justified in applying the passage to “Gentiles” even though ‘Not My People’ was first directed to a Jewish audience..’
    I agree/disagree, based on _______.”

    You have to be kidding. I wasn’t asking you to respond to a particular objection; I was asking you to respond in that format–i.e., in specifics, as opposed to a quote from a book which gives does not address things specifically.

    6. “My first inclination is to disagree, but that is determined by how you are using the term ‘Gentile’. If you mean that they became Gentiles, then I disagree. But I agree if what you mean, is that the Jews experientially for that time were in the same state or experience, as the Gentiles, being ‘not His people’ though still Israel and not Gentiles.”

    I’m not saying Jews are physically Gentiles, or that Gentiles are physically Jews; I’m saying that “Not His People” is exactly what any “Gentile” could have been called at that time; that, therefore, whoever this statement is being said to is being placed on the same level as that which is called a “Gentile” (those who have no connection to or knowledge of God). In other words, irrespective their outward/physical Jewishness, they are “inwardly Gentile” (if they do not qualify as “inwardly Jewish” [Ro 2:29], what other option than “inwardly Gentile” are we left with?). Again, the statement “Not My People” was clearly directed at none but physical Jews, yet Paul uses the same exact verse to speak of Gentiles becoming children of God [Ro 9:26]. Why? Because, though Gentiles were not explicitly being addressed, Gentiles were ALSO “Not My People”. Therefore, this was a declaration placing Jews on the same level as the rest of the nations (i.e., “Gentiles”)–“will not your circumcision be counted as uncircumcision?”
    I’ve already explained this.

    What makes someone truly “Jewish”–or, “God’s People”–today?
    i. The presence of God [Ex 33:16]
    ii. Not merely knowing but actually doing God’s Law [Ro 2:12-15]
    iii. Being inwardly Jewish [Ro 2:29]
    iv. Being circumcised in the heart by the Spirit [Ro 2:29]
    v. Being a person who seeks and obtains God’s not man’s praise [Ro 2:29]

    Then it makes sense that Paul also says, “Your circumcision is counted as uncircumcision”–i.e., that physical Jews can be counted as inward/spiritual “Gentiles”, irrespective their outward markers of Jewishness (outward/physical genetic heritage [Ro 2:17], knowledge of the Written Code [Ro 2:17,27], circumcision by the letter [Ro 2:25-29])!

    What makes someone a “Jew”? Indicators of Jewishness are ascribed to believing Gentiles, and indicators of Gentileness are ascribed to Jews who disobey the Gospel and have confidence in the flesh [Ro 2; Pp 3:2-4].

    7. “In Romans 9, Paul points out that vessels of mercy are to also be found among the Gentiles. He does so by quoting two segments from Hosea 2:23 and 1:10. This was not a fulfillment of Hosea, but an application of Hosea due to a similar situation. Hosea’s direct context was that of Israel in declaring that Israel was God’s people, but due to their sin they would be expelled from the Land. And during that time they would become ‘not my people’.
    Positionally Israel is always the people of God and experientially they only receive the benefits of being the people of God when they believe. But Hosea says that later Israel will repent and experientially become the people of God again. Hosea was speaking about Israel moving from a state of not my people, back to my back. In Paul’s day a similar situation was happening with the Gentiles who came to faith. The Gentiles in a state of unbelief were ‘not my people’, and now that they were being made vessels of mercy and become fit for salvation, they have become ‘my people’. Because of this similarity, Paul applies Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 to the Gentiles. The calling of the Gentiles is what Paul deals with here, while Hosea dealt with Israel. So as many Gentiles have been made into Vessels of mercy, a large portion of Israel has been made into vessels of wrath (Rom. 27-29), as only a Remnant of Israel will come to faith.”
    i. “Positionally Israel is always God’s People”? In that case, you are rejecting God’s Word (on this matter) for some misconceived hyper-philo-Semitism. Jews who disbelieve God’s Good News are (sadly) utterly lost, and cannot be God’s People–or else they would also be God’s bride and God’s children. They do not have God’s presence, they don’t obey God’s Laws, they are not inwardly Jewish, they are not circumcised in the heart by the Spirit, and do not have praise from God but seek praise from men [Jn 5:44].
    ii. I partially agree with what you’re saying, but I think you’re totally missing the point (on purpose?).

    I honestly don’t have time to go around and around in circles on this. There are far more important things. If you respond to the points being made, I plan on responding again; if not, this is my “goodbye” for now.

  28. Benjamin Warkentin,
    Let’s just drop the discussion. I have no confidence it is going to get anywhere any time soon. It’s going nowhere, and fast.

    Thanks

  29. Benjamin Warkentin,
    I’m sorry: sometimes I get myself involved in conversations that are going to take more of an investment than I am willing to make. It’s my fault.

    Have a good weekend.

  30. Daniel,

    Yes it does seem we are going in circles.

    “I never said I had a problem with you quoting someone, only with quoting someone and failing to address particular points made.”

    -And I responded that I was addressing your points but was cut short. I even in the first posts stated, “Sorry for its length but its important to understand the Apostles use of the Remnant” letting you know that I was building up to the explanations. I never claimed that those posts were “the answer”, but that I was building up to the answer.

    “2. “But if you do not agree with the quotes, then explain why.”
    I’ve already done so.”

    -I was referencing my quotes from Fruchtenbaum in posts 14 and 15 which you did not give interaction with except to say you affirm the remnant. Though I hadn’t finished the foundation there was more to come, tying it all together.

    4. “I’ve already addressed this.”

    -Daniel, I do appreciate your interaction, I responded to show why the Church is not Israel, nor Gentiles, Jews. Scripture never once claims this. If so, we just need one verse.

    “I wasn’t asking you to respond to a particular objection; I was asking you to respond in that format”

    -Indeed Daniel, wasn’t this an objection you had? As you read on, I did address more than just this one objection in the same post, so I did not address it to the others exclusion. I continued on to address more objections from separate posts. I ask for fairness. I could have said that you failed to respond to the first article I linked two where Dr. S Lewis Johnson dug into the Greek of contested passages. All you said was that you couldn’t accept it. You only said they were ‘explaining away’ the passages with no refutation of the Greek exegesis, but I didn’t hurl that your way. If you wanted to, all you had to do was show that the Greek doesn’t indicate two groups being in view. By the way, both groups are members of the Body of Messiah, there is no argument there. The Remnant, the Israel of God are members of the Body of Messiah, just as the believing Gentiles are as well. But Gentiles are never called Israel.

    I need to address a point you made later in the response which may help in the rest of the post.

    “i. “Positionally Israel is always God’s People”? In that case, you are rejecting God’s Word (on this matter) for some misconceived hyper-philo-Semitism. Jews who disbelieve God’s Good News are (sadly) utterly lost, and cannot be God’s People–or else they would also be God’s bride and God’s children.”

    You are misunderstanding what I mean by people of God. When speaking about this we are dealing with election. And it entails a distinction between individual election and national election. The former is soteriolgical and results in salvation of that individual. This type extends to both Jews and Gentiles that have ever lived. But Israel ‘always being God’s people’ is under the latter, a national election. Which does not guarantee salvation since only individual election can do that. What national elections does mean is that God’s purposes for choosing the nation will be accomplished and the elect nation will always survive as a distinct entity. It guarantees the physical salvation (note – physical) of the nation and is the basis of Israel’s status as God’s chosen people. A good example of what I meant is found in Deuteronomy 7:6-8

    6 For thou art a holy people unto Jehovah thy God: Jehovah thy God hath chosen thee to be a people for his own possession, above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth.

    7 Jehovah did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all peoples:

    8 but because Jehovah loveth you, and because he would keep the oath which he sware unto your fathers, hath Jehovah brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

    That is what I meant, Israel will always be God’s people nationally, and those within the nation may opt to be God’s people salvationally through faith (i.e. the Remnant). I hope that helps.

    “In other words, irrespective their outward/physical Jewishness, they are “inwardly Gentile””

    -In so far as their experience, I want to make sure we’re clear on that. As far as their experience goes they are not receiving the blessings of the covenants while in disobedience, but are being disciplined and out of fellowship until one day when they will be restored. They are not said to be Gentiles, nowhere are they said to be Gentiles, which you seems to agree with, as I read above. They are still chosen of God as a nation as I pointed out above because of the promises to the fathers.

    “Because, though Gentiles were not explicitly being addressed, Gentiles were ALSO “Not My People”. Therefore, this was a declaration placing Jews on the same level as the rest of the nations (i.e., “Gentiles”)–”will not your circumcision be counted as uncircumcision?”
    I’ve already explained this.”

    -Yes, we see that the original promise was directed to Israel, that is clear. So yes, the same situation arose among the Gentiles, they were coming to faith, and Paul gave application of Hosea to the Gentiles because of it’s similarity, even though the fulfillment will not be accomplished until Israel receives the promise (Rom. 11:26).

    “iii. Being inwardly Jewish [Ro 2:29]
    v. Being a person who seeks and obtains God’s not man’s praise [Ro 2:29]”

    – These passages are speaking of national Jews, not Gentiles. As I stated above, Paul had already dealt with the Gentiles in 1:18-2:16. He then moved on to the Jewish question in 2:17-3:20 where he deals specifically with national Israelites.

    Jews and Gentiles today are connected to salvation in the exact same way. Faith in Yeshua. But there is not one passage that says that Gentiles are spiritual Jews, etc.

    “ii. I partially agree with what you’re saying, but I think you’re totally missing the point (on purpose?).”

    -I hope when I gave more in depth explanation of what it means to be God’s people that clarified that I am not missing the point on purpose.

    I completely hear you about circles, Ive been along for the ride in many previous debates.

    I pray you have a wonderful weekend. I will be heading home soon to enjoy it myself. See you next week where maybe we can contribute in a topic were we can fellowship in agreement.

    Grace and peace,

  31. Daniel,

    I wrote the above before I saw your last two posts. I do not mean to draw you back in. I agree that these take more time that I usually like as well.

    Have a blessed weekend.

  32. Benjamin Warkentin,
    1. “I was referencing my quotes from Fruchtenbaum in posts 14 and 15 which you did not give interaction with except to say you affirm the remnant.”

    I stand by my statement: I’d already addressed his assertions that the Gentiles were not made part of Israel (btw, where can the name for that “separate and distinct entity” be found in Scripture), in Post #9, by showing:
    i. The “tree” into which the Gentiles were grafted (the entity with which they were unified [Jn 10:16, 11:52]) had physical Jews for roots (the believing Gentiles did not become a second tree sitting near the first; but became integrated into, and made one with, the previously-existing entity: “Israel”),
    ii. The Gentiles were sharing in the Promises belonging only to Israel [ep 2].

    2. “I responded to show why the Church is not Israel, nor Gentiles, Jews. Scripture never once claims this. If so, we just need one verse.”

    What does “church” mean? From what I understand, it just means “an assembly” or “congregation”; God already had “an assembly” or “congregation” (“Israel”) in the era leading up to Messiah.
    Who were the first “members” of the “church”–to whom did the Jewish disciples of Jesus think “church” referred to [Mt 18:17]? They could not have thought He referred to anyone other than the “Jewish remnant”, or the “true Israel” (they didn’t even know Gentiles could be saved until Acts 10)–who, in faithfulness to God’s Truth (in their imperfectly justified state [Hb 11:40, 12:23]), received Messiah.
    What it seems to me is that the entity we call “the church” had its beginnings within the borders of “national Israel” (when it had the name “the Israel within national Israel–the remnant”), but that it was not intended to remain tucked away within national Israel, thus it has begun “inheriting the nations” [Ps 2].

    3. “Indeed Daniel, wasn’t this an objection you had?”

    I never said it wasn’t an objection I wanted an answer to; I was simply saying that I wanted you to respond in a detailed and orderly fashion. That was my request and my point.

    4. “I continued on to address more objections from separate posts.”

    You said:
    “You asked me to respond to…”
    As I said before, I was not, with those words, asking you to respond to that point; I was simply asking you to respond in a detailed and orderly fashion.
    That was all.

    5. “I could have said that you failed to respond to the first article I linked two where Dr. S Lewis Johnson dug into the Greek of contested passages.”
    The problem is that you can’t just post someone else’s work (you do this often), and expect me to trudge through it all; you have to show some consideration and reduce it to only the most salient points. YOU have to do the work to prove your point, not dump a load of information you did zero work on as “homework” for ME to do. Would you like me posting links to lengthy articles as my responses to you? Out of consideration, I try to keep my answers as short-and-to-the-point as possible. That being said, I’m fine with you linking to an article, but not without a detailed summary of precisely what points you thought were most relevant. I read the article, but not in full (I read a number of the “Scriptural usages of ‘Israel'”, and part of their explanation of why they would not accept that Gal 6:16 had Gentiles in mind; but I’m having a discussion with BENJAMIN WARKENTIN, and I don’t intend to offer 100% thorough objections to an endless stream of other mens’ arguments–arguments each of them took YEARS formulating).

    6. “All you said was that you couldn’t accept it. You only said they were ‘explaining away’ the passages with no refutation of the Greek exegesis, but I didn’t hurl that your way. If you wanted to, all you had to do was show that the Greek doesn’t indicate two groups being in view.”
    For the reasons I’ve given in #5, I didn’t catch the “Greek” part.
    Please include the parts you want me to respond to and I will do so.
    BTW I’ve read a little bit of it so far and it wasn’t persuasive; in fact, I already gave a response to one of his points (just because there is a “kai” there means nothing: Paul comes from a background of TaNaK, where it is common to “reiterate” ideas / state ideas twice).

    7. “By the way, both groups are members of the Body of Messiah, there is no argument there. The Remnant, the Israel of God are members of the Body of Messiah, just as the believing Gentiles are as well. But Gentiles are never called Israel.”
    i. Would you agree that Jews are called “inwardly Gentile” [Hs 1:9,10; Ro 2]? If not, what do you make of them NOT being “inwardly Jewish”? If they’re NOT “inwardly Jewish” then what are they? I asked this question before, and you didn’t give an answer. I’d like one.
    ii. What would you say the “tree” (the one featuring Jewish “roots” or “beginnings”) [Ro 11] the Gentiles were grafted in to / unified with [Jn 10:16, 11:52] was called before the Gentiles were unified with it?
    iii. Why do Gentiles share in Covenants of Promise pertaining only to Israel [Ep 2]?
    iv. Before Messiah, when a Gentile converted to Judaism, were they considered part of Israel or some separate , satellite, entity? If they became a satellite entity, what was its name?

    8. “You are misunderstanding what I mean by people of God… When speaking about this we are dealing with election.”

    In fact, it is you who are misappropriating the term “people of God”: “election” simply has nothing to do with being considered “God’s people” (as evinced by the fact that no less than God says they are “Not God’s People”, while all the time knowing they are “elect”).

    9. “And it entails a distinction between individual election and national election. The former is soteriolgical and results in salvation of that individual. This type extends to both Jews and Gentiles that have ever lived. But Israel ‘always being God’s people’ is under the latter, a national election. Which does not guarantee salvation since only individual election can do that.”
    I’m not even going to get into “election to salvation”, since I’ve never even seen that doctrine satisfactorily unraveled and explained (e.g., Ro 8 says all who believe were predestined to both faith-justification and ultimate glorification; yet Ro 11 says the “non-elect” [v7] Jews could still be saved [v13,14], and that those who have believed could just as easily fall into unbelief [then how is it that they were “predestined to glorification” Ro 8?]).

    10. “What national elections does mean is that God’s purposes for choosing the nation will be accomplished and the elect nation will always survive as a distinct entity. It guarantees the physical salvation (note – physical) of the nation and is the basis of Israel’s status as God’s chosen people.”
    i. As I said before, “election” has nothing to do with being deemed “God’s People”; you’re just misappropriating or abusing the term “God’s People”.
    ii. What does “physical salvation of the nation” mean to you? It is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to wipe the Jews, as a whole, out since every child who is born to a Jewish mother is Jewish (for this reason, there are probably far more Sephardic Jews Ashkenazic). If there was only ONE JEW left, that would count as “survival of the nation” (as evinced by the fact that God was willing to wipe everyone but Moses out and start a new nation with him).
    I’m not going to get into what, exactly, “election” means–and I don’t even have to get into it, since all I need to know is that it most certainly does not mean “God’s People”.

    11. “A good example of what I meant is found in Deuteronomy 7:6-8
    6 For thou art a holy people unto Jehovah thy God: Jehovah thy God hath chosen thee to be a people for his own possession, above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth.
    7 Jehovah did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all peoples:
    8 but because Jehovah loveth you, and because he would keep the oath which he sware unto your fathers, hath Jehovah brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
    That is what I meant, Israel will always be God’s people nationally, and those within the nation may opt to be God’s people salvationally through faith (i.e. the Remnant). I hope that helps.”

    Today, 100% of the unbelieving Jews are NOT “God’s People”, period. You can use some different term, but if you want to use an accurate term, you can’t use “God’s People”.

    12. “They are not said to be Gentiles, nowhere are they said to be Gentiles, which you seems to agree with, as I read above. They are still chosen of God as a nation as I pointed out above because of the promises to the fathers.”

    Actually, I don’t agree.
    Please get this straight once and for all: I reject the idea that physical Jews have or can become physical Gentiles, but I believe (based on, for instance, what God says in Hs 1:9,10 and Ro 2) that Jews can be inwardly Gentile and Gentiles can be inwardly Jewish. If you need to read it again, the argument I presented is still posted.

    13. “Yes, we see that the original promise was directed to Israel, that is clear. So yes, the same situation arose among the Gentiles, they were coming to faith, and Paul gave application of Hosea to the Gentiles because of it’s similarity, even though the fulfillment will not be accomplished until Israel receives the promise (Rom. 11:26).”

    No, Paul was saying that God’s INTENT was to include Gentiles in that Word; my argument is that that proves God viewed those Jews as “Gentiles”. If you need to, go back and read it again. Paul says the same thing (says that God INTENDED a word spoken to Jews for another audience–Christians) elsewhere (e.g., 1 Co 9:10–and Scripture agrees: “let this be recorded for a generation to come [Ps 102:18]).

    14. “These passages are speaking of national Jews, not Gentiles. As I stated above, Paul had already dealt with the Gentiles in 1:18-2:16. He then moved on to the Jewish question in 2:17-3:20 where he deals specifically with national Israelites.

    Wrong. The wording is SPECIFICALLY about believing Gentiles, since Paul is comparing Jews and Gentiles OVER and OVER and OVER again throughout Romans 2:
    i. 1Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.
    Who is doing the judging? The Jews at Rome.
    Who is being judged? Gentiles (Ch 1: they, unlike Jews, had to receive knowledge of God from NATURE–and traded the glory of the invisible God for idols made after the likeness of creatures–and not from Torah [Ro 2:14]).

    ii. 2We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. 3Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God?
    -He is calling this group of people who are judging others “hypocrites”–nothing other than the accusation he brings against the Jewish believers in the Roman church later on [vv17-24]: it’s the same group of people!

    iii. 6He will render to each one according to his works: 7to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8but for those who are self-seekinga and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. 9There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11For God shows no partiality. 12For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
    -Don’t bet on your physical Jewishness obtaining some special favor for you when it comes to being judged by God: Jews and Gentiles who sin will BOTH be condemned–and when Gentiles ACTUALLY keep God’s Law (not as those Jews who merely “hear” the Law), don’t you think they will be justified in the Day of Judgment (irrespective their physical Gentileness)?

    iv. 17But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God 18and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law; 19and if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? 22You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. 24For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”
    -You call yourself a Jew…
    …and are sure you yourself are a (Jewish) guide to the (Gentile) blind
    …a (Jewish) light to those (Gentiles) in darkness
    …an (Jewish) instructor of the foolish (Gentiles)
    …a (Jewish) teacher of (Gentile) children

    v. 25For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. 26So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regardedb as circumcision? 27Then he who is physicallyc uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written coded and circumcision but break the law. 28For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.”
    -A Jew’s circumcision can be counted as uncircumcision
    A Gentile’s uncircumcion can be counted as circumcision
    -Whereas you boasted you were a judge of Gentiles based solely on your knowledge (knowledge you didn’t even act on), these Gentiles (based on actually doing the Law without even knowing the Law) will be your judges.

    15. “Jews and Gentiles today are connected to salvation in the exact same way. Faith in Yeshua. But there is not one passage that says that Gentiles are spiritual Jews, etc.”

    In post #28, I said that some Jews were said to NOT be “inwardly Jewish”; I asked WHAT ELSE you thought they might be. I’d like an answer on that.

    16. “I pray you have a wonderful weekend. I will be heading home soon to enjoy it myself. See you next week where maybe we can contribute in a topic were we can fellowship in agreement.

    Grace and peace,”
    I will not lie and say that I am praying for you (even though it is probably “wrong” to not pray for you–I find I mostly pray for myself); I do wish you well (to the extent you submit to God’s Good News).

  33. #10
    Yeah, I said Jewish was matrilineal (this is what the rabbis say, and–though Dr. Brown has said that females) out? I don’t know. Perhaps someone wants to use this as part of an argument to prove Jewishness could be patrilineal?

    I don’t know.

    In any event, the main point was that “survival of the nation” (besides being a “loose term”) is irrelevant when it comes to being deemed “God’s people”.

  34. OK So apparently I hit the wrong key and didn’t notice it…

    #10
    Yeah, I said that Jewishness was matrilineal (this is what the rabbis say, and–though Dr. Brown has said that he could prove from Scripture that Jewishness could also be determined patrilineally–it seems Jesus may have agreed when He said that Samaritans were not Jews [Jn 4:12,22] even though they had Jacob as a father [unless He was saying that the RELIGION Jews and Samaritans practiced were not one and the same RELIGION]), and then said that if Moses were left a new Jewish nation could be built out of him.

    Did God mean that not a single other Jew would be left (including his wife and children–some of which children I’m sure had to be female), and that Moses would be used to build a new Israel without any Jewish females? I doubt it. Perhaps someone wants to use this as part of an argument to prove Jewishness could be patrilineal?

    I don’t know.

    In any event, the main point was that “survival of the nation” (besides being a “loose term”) is irrelevant when it comes to being deemed “God’s people”.

  35. Benjamin Warkentin,
    “In any event… ‘survival of the nation’ (besides being a ‘loose term’) is irrelevant when it comes to being deemed ‘God’s people’”.

    God’s people are marked by one thing: God’s presence.

    Exodus 33:15And he said to him, “If your presence will not go with me, do not bring us up from here. 16For how shall it be known that I have found favor in your sight, I and your people? Is IT NOT IN YOUR GOING WITH US, SO THAT WE ARE DISTINCT, I AND YOUR PEOPLE, FROM EVERY OTHER PEOPLE ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH?”

    But whose “presence” do unbelieving Jews have? It can’t be God and His Christ…

    1 John 2:22Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.

    …so it must be the evil one and the antichrist…

    Rev 2:9“‘I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich) and the slander of those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.
    Rev 3:9Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie…

    Come to think of it, aren’t Rev 2:9 and 3:9 also proofs that some Jews are not Jewish? In what way are these Jews not Jewish (something Paul also teaches and affirms is possible [Ro 2])–and, if they are not Jewish, what are they?

    John 8:37I know that YOU ARE offspring of Abraham…
    John 8:39IF YOU WERE Abraham’s children…

    Some Jews are not Jewish.

  36. Benjamin Warkentin,
    I should have added this along with 1 John 2:22…

    1 John 2:23No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.

    The reason the Jews cannot have God the Father is because they deny the reality and testimony of the Son of God.

  37. I would suggest that we do not know or can not know exactly what the redemptive process is going to be. I will strongly caution you to not be a no it all Christian who doubts what God may do to save the Jewish people. These misplaced posts are exactly what has turned the Jewish people off to accepting what you think you understand. The tail is trying to cut off the head – this can not work. Trust that God is going to save all the Jewish people weather you think otherwise or not.

  38. Jon,
    1. I would suggest that since you don’t have Scripture for the things you are asserting, you either belong to a different religion than I do or you just have a misconceived hyper-philo-Semitism.

    2. Jews generally do not frequent this site (if they did I might be a little softer in my vocalization of plain Scriptural Truth); but they would need to be proud in the first place to be offended by Truth.

    3. God is NOT going to save all of the Jewish people (He’s already–historically–not done that), so you might as well give that doctrine up.

    4. What tail and what head? Nonbelieving Jews are not even part of the same organism with believers (Jew or Gentile).

  39. The tail is the gentiles that must learn from the head. I know gentiles do not like to hear that for it refers to something inferior and that is not what I am saying. It is not our position to assert what we think we know. I will do some more research and provide some scripture basis to what I am saying. I will give you an example that relates to this website in a form of a quesion and my opinion. Do you think Michael Browns father will not be saved because he did not get a chance to communicate with his son later in life?? The tail would say from schripture this is black and white. The head would find the hints from scripture that would lead to another possibility. Matthew 20 the parable of the vineyards strongly hints at this. And in final, it does not matter what you or I think, or write… It is not going to change the ultimate truth. There is 2000 years of lost generations that you have prescribed a sentance to, however God is larger and more hidden than you may have understood. That my friend is what the head can decifer.

  40. Jon,
    “There is 2000 years of lost generations that you have prescribed a sentance to, however God is larger and more hidden than you may have understood. That my friend is what the head can decifer.”

    With the same argument, I can say there are 5,000 years of lost Gentiles who should be saved–but then I have no need of preaching the Gospel. Stop letting your emotions dictate your theology. Everything God does is right, irrespective what we think. It is what it is. You’ll never have a justification for your hyper-philo-Semitism.

    BTW My mother is descended from the Jews who fled the Iberian Peninsula, so I have no reason to be anti-Semitic; and when I say the Truth from Scripture, it has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. When I say the Gentiles are lost, is that anti-Gentilism? Get a grip on your emotions and your pc-detector. Stop inanely accusing me. The Jews who have disobeyed the Gospel are NO KIND of a “head” AT ALL to the people (Jews or Gentiles) who are in Christ. They have nothing to teach us. Jesus said the Holy Spirit teaches us, not that He would send the Jews to teach the Church. What an insane position for you to take–or Biblically-illiterate.

    At any rate, I think we’re done so I won’t be responding to you further on this thread. I can’t wait until Benjamin and I are done since this really is a distraction.

  41. Dan1el Re With the same argument, I can say there are 5,000 years of lost Gentiles who should be saved–

    This is a 6000 year process for all of us. I will allow your tirade to be the last post. Again it does not matter what we think- only God can reveal and this process is in it’s final stages. Our emotions are inert to the truth. Your position is staked out, and is what it is.

  42. Isaiah 25

    6
    On this mountain the Lord Almighty will prepare
    a feast of rich food for all peoples,
    a banquet of aged wine—
    the best of meats and the finest of wines.
    7
    On this mountain he will destroy
    the shroud that enfolds all peoples,
    the sheet that covers all nations;
    8
    he will swallow up death forever.
    The Sovereign Lord will wipe away the tears
    from all faces;
    he will remove his people’s disgrace
    from all the earth.

    The Lord has SPOKEN…..

    “Surely this is our God; (The God of who?)
    we trusted in him, and he saved us. Who saved who?
    This is the Lord, we trusted in him; (Trusting who?
    let us rejoice and be glad in his salvation.”

    Salvation for who?

  43. There is a shroud that covers and separates us from the truth. May that shroud be revealed soon.

    shroud that enfolds all peoples,
    the sheet that covers all nations;

  44. Matthew 20

    14 Take what is yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. 15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?’

  45. Thank you Lord for your gift of salvation. I will trust in you to work your ways in ways that are incomprehensible to a mere man. May the lost generations of history be in your presence, may that billion people be praising your name. Salvation is your gift, your ways are not my ways. May the lost how have suffered most recently in the holocaust be that which you have brought into your heavenly realm.

  46. BTW: Post #11 (Husband : bridge)
    One of the strongest arguments (God showed it to me while I wasn’t even expecting it–I was studying something else entirely) for the divinity of Messiah Jesus is the fact that Jesus occupies the place of “Husband of God’s People” [Jn 3:29]–a place occupied only by the “Creator” [Is 54:5]!

  47. (I had to be persuaded by an argument that didn’t depend on obscure rules of “interpretation”: I’ve been vexed by the endless pages of [seemingly] knowledgeable people arguing [each bringing their seemingly persuasive evidences] over whether “the Word was God” [Jn 1:1,2] and/or “Before Abraham was, I AM” are legitimate ways of translating the Greek; but there’s not much left to argue about after seeing that none but the “Creator” stands in the place of the “Husband of His people” [Is 54:5] and that Jesus is this “Husband” [Jn 3:29]!)

Leave Your Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*