Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Ekklesia · (This post was last modified: 06-27-2011 11:03 PM by Ekklesia.)

(06-27-2011 08:03 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: His mission,until His death , as I mentioned elsewhere in this thread was primarily to the House of Israel since they were heirs of the promises made to the patriarchs.
Jeremiah 31 31 was addressed to the House of Israel and Judah since they had been two separate kingdoms at the time the prophecy was given.Just because the Gentiles are not mentioned in those particular verses doesn't mean that they dont partake in that new Covenant too.
There are many other verses in the OT which do show that Gentiles/non Israelites will also be included.

So when Jesus says (in [Matt 15:24] "He answered, 'I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.'" we're not to believe him?

[Jer 31:31] is the OT prophecy that promises the new covenant, and it goes on to say (in [Jer 31:33]) "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it ton their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.". In [Jer 31:36]
God says "If this fixed order departs from before me, declares the LORD, then shall the offspring of Israel cease from being a nation before me forever.".

Is not a "nation" a "kingdom" (as in the Kingdom of God)?

(06-27-2011 08:03 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: I am sorry if I now have to also mince my words when we talk of gentiles and nations.Gentiles..nations..goyim are those which are generally not Israelites.Or are you meaning that all nations are made up of Israelites.Surely not right?
When I referred to the case of the syrophoenician woman being a non Israelite that Jesus ministered to you said

Rose, you're not mincing words so don't be sorry. Biblical words are important, especially when trying to discern the author's intent. I don't mind clarifying.

The bible does not call the Syrophenician woman a 'gentile'. It calls her a Greek, as your version apparently translates it. Well done. However, you use the word 'gentile' frequently in making your points which makes it a part of your theological thinking.

I'm either asserting that 'gentile' is not a word the NT writers used, or meant, OR I'm asking you to show me a Greek word that actually means 'gentile' and not something else. (The Greek word ἔθνος (ethnos G1484) means "nations" in Greek, not "gentiles", at least to non-theologian Greek translators, while the Greek word Ἕλλην (Hellēn G1672) which also gets translated "gentile" really means "Greek")

So if we were reading the NT in Greek there'd be no theology of 'gentiles'.

(06-27-2011 08:03 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: So what is your point there, that the Syrophoenician woman was an Israelite?

No. My point was not that she was an Israelite.

Your use of this verse does not prove that Jesus was sent to anyone other than 'the lost sheep of the house of Israel' as He claimed. Jesus' act of kindness cannot be mistaken for forging a covenant with this woman or the Syrophoenician people.

(06-27-2011 08:03 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: When I said that It makes total sense that Christ's ministry was to have been primarily to Israel and that one of Christ's missions was to regather Israel and save the people lost in their sins and incurring all the curses that were a result of them breaking the Covenant of Sinai , you said ... <cut> ... Now I am even more confused as to why you disagree with that.I would appreciate it f indeed you would show me.

I'm not sure how I'm confusing you.

Did God 'divorce' Israel? [Isa 50:1] and [Jer 3:8] says yes (the mother in [Isa 50:1] is from [Hos 2:2]). Was it permanent? [Eze 11:16] says "No". But look what [Lev 26:44-45] says "Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not spurn them, neither will I abhor them so as to destroy them utterly and break my covenant with them, for I am the LORD their God. But I will for their sake remember the covenant with their forefathers, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God: I am the LORD."

You decide what the result was of Israel breaking their covenant with God was. Personally, I believe God is and was faithful regardless of what Israel did.

(06-27-2011 08:03 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: My answer is that no, that is not what I was referring to.From where do you get about a veil that separated the House of Israel from the House of Judah?

Did not the House of Israel rebel against the House of Judah [1 Kings 12:16-17]? Were not the Jews (under King Ahaz) at war with the Israelites (under King Pekah) from [2 Kings 16:6] onwards, and everafter (and therefore divided)? Were they not both separated from God? If there was no veil separating the House of Judah from the House of Israel, from God, why would God specifically give Ezekiel a messianic vision [Eze 27:17] that rejoined them and breathed life into them?

I've already shown you how speak of 'gentiles' is imaginary theology based upon mis-translated words, but look at [Eph 2:12] which says "remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world."

You cannot be separated from something you were never a part of, nor can you be alienated from something you have never known. (There were ancient Isrealites who had known Christ) Only the House of Israel was separated from the covenant, and alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, prophesied to become strangers [Jer 14:8][Isa 17:10].

(06-27-2011 08:03 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: Heb 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

Hebrews was written to Hebrews. Indeed, the tearing of Christ's flesh (his work as a Holy, perfect, High Priest), united the congregations of Israel and Judah to their God.

(06-27-2011 08:03 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

Ephesians WAS written to Israelites. The inheritance spoken of in [Eph 1:11] is the promises spoken of in [Rom 9:4]. You've already seen that the Ephesians were once separated from the Commonwealth of Israel [Eph 2:12] which only applies to the House of Israel.

(06-27-2011 08:03 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: In that last Ephesians passage, it is very clearly talking about a distinction between israelite and non israelite since Paul had said

Eph 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. [/b]

We cannot conclude from the use of uncircumcision that they were not not Israelites. Israelites of the House of Israel WERE uncircumcised ... Habakuk said so [Hab 2:16]. In saying this, I'm crediting you with understanding that God doesn't care about the state of one's *****, but about the state of one's heart [Jer 4:14].