Reply to MF Blume

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Chris Foster wrote:
 
> > Rom 11:2  God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew...
> >
> > This is talking about the Israelites.  Jews.  They are God's people -
> > present tense in Paul's day.  That was after they rejected Christ.
> >
> > > So who is Antichrist.  All those that deny that Jesus is the Christ.  Are
> > > the Jews Antichrist.
> >
> > No.  God blinded HIS PEOPLE, Israel.  John was not talking about Jews,
> > but gnostics.
> 
> My question would be then, Is it antichrist for a gnostic to deny that
> Jesus is the Christ and not antichrist for a Jew to deny that Jesus is
> the Christ? I am looking forward to your response.

When God has blinded them specifically, the Jew should not be considered
an antichrist.  The Jews, let's face it, are far different than the rest 
of the world, and are in a class all by themselves.

Rom 3:1  What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there 
of circumcision?
Rom 3:2  Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed 
the oracles of God.

> > They are God's people, blinded for a season so that the Gentiles might
> > come in.  You see, God saved us by mercy.
> >
> > Rom 11:30  For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have
> > now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
> >
> > Through their unbelief, we obtained mercy.  God blinded them so they
> > could not believe.  And now, for Him to later turn back to them,
> > it will be God's mercy that saves them also.

> I agree that we (gentiles) obtained mercy through thier unbelief for the
> promises were unto them.  They were blinded to those promises, yes.  I do
> not agree that it was *God* that *directly* blinded them so that they
> could not see.  

Paul speaks and the prophets speak as though God did directly blind them.

> Just as I do not believe that it was God that *directly*
> hardened Pharos heart.  It was God’s goodness toward Pharo in that He
> sent the plagues, for they caused Pharo to repent and the scriptures tell
> us that it is the goodness of God that leads us to repentance.  God
> always acted towards Pharo through Goodness and Mercy.  But Pharo
> rejected the goodness of God just as the Jew rejected his goodness
> through Jesus Christ.

But Pharaoh's hardness cannot be compared to Israel's since, again, Israel
is in a unique class.  God looked at their situation in the scheme of things
far greater than He did Pharaoh's.

> Please allow me to clarify my position.  Verse 1 of Romans 10 Paul says,
> I say hath God cast away His people?  God forbid.  For I also am an
> Israelite.
> 
> I think Paul is qualifying the remarks he made in Chapter 9 making
> certain that one could not draw the conclusion that Israel was rejected,
> presenting himself as proof, that they were not.  

Then why say the Jews "were among us" and left, as you cited John in order
to prove they are antichrist, when they never were among us?

> Paul’s appeal to his
> own salvation when he was so adamantly opposed to the gospel (Galations
> 1:13-14) exemplifies that God’s mercy had not forsaken Israel! The
> invincible truth is that salvation is of the Jews.  (John 4:22)  And so
> Romans 9:16 “not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but God
> that sheweth mercy”  Israel was not rejected.
> 
> Verse two Paul is in reference to those who realized the promise.  Paul
> reefers to Elijahs day to illustrate the preserving power of a faithful
> remnant.  There was a great defection among the Jews that seemed total,
> yet when Elijah prayed about the situation God told him there were 7000
> who had not defected.  Israel who would have been altogether cut off, was
> preserved through the remnant, and so the whole of Israel was delivered
> and the defectors were destroyed.  The significance is that the remnant
> had for the nation of Israel as a whole.  The remnant stands for the
> Jewish Christians who are ONE with the Gentile Believers and stands in
> contrast to hardened Israel!
> 
> This is the basis for my accretion that when John writes and answers who
> is antichrist, but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ, those
> rejecting Jesus as the Christ were part of the whole of that antichrist
> system.  And it would then seem to me that you cannot call those
> rejecting Christ the elect nor the remnant because of Paul’s argument.

The remnant are indeed the few Jews who believed, and not the whole nation.
But yet, in another sense, the whole nation is "elected" to one day
return to Him and weep for the nail prints they shall see in His hands!!

> Paul is writing to the Gentiles instructing them concerning racial Israel
> in chapters 9-11 of Romans.  It seems to have been written with the
> design of checking a growing Gentile movement toward serperatism.  Paul
> an apostle to the Gentiles, had on the one hand Judaism touting it's
> claim to the promises of God through natural descendancy, and on the
> other hand, some of the Gentiles who misunderstood Israel's *blindness*
> to mean that God had *rejected* Israel in favor of them.  I believe that
> Paul would have none of it, for the gospel to the Gentiles was anchored
> in God's promise and faithfulness to *Israel* (Romans 15:8).
> 
> Gentiles need to understand that they are an *extention* of God's promise
> to Israel and not Israel's displacement (Rom 11:18 the root bears you and
> not you bear the root).  

Good way of saying it!!!  Thanks.

> The hope of the Gentiles and the validity of the
> gospel does not lie in the rejection, but the receiving of Israel (Romans
> 11:12-15).  *Would you reread that Mark?*  

Yes, I agree we should reread that part you wrote.  I think some have 
"jumped the gun" by presuming your intentions.  But I still think
it a bit harsh and mistaken to call them "antichrist" when God planned for 
them to be blinded for our salvation's sake.

> IMHO the correct sentiment is
> to keep the Gentiles tied to Israel without being brought under the old
> covenant order (temple worship, law keeping, circumcision, etc.).
> 
> The root cause of Israel’s rejection of the gospel, was, unbelief in the
> promise and faithfulness of God.  

Yet God desired that to occur in order to save gentiles.  That is why Paul 
stopped, considering the fact that in no other way could this perfect
end result be brought about than by the manner in which it presently is,
considering the blinding of Israel and all.

And Paul implies GOD PLANNED it that way. There is a hairline difference
between hyper-predeistinationalism and the truth of the matter.  But careful
viewing of the issue reveals a bit of both Israel's choice and God's planning.

[...]
 
> The answer lies in that Isaac's natural descendants were *bearers of* the
> promise but not counted *as* the promise.  Israel was the depositary of
> the promise not the promise itself.  Galations 3:16 Now to Abraham and
> his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many;
> but as of one, And to thy seed, *which is Christ*.   The NT opens with
> John the baptist saying they could not rely upon progenitry for God could
> raise stones up as children unto Abraham if he so chose.
> 
> After Christ came, there was no longer a need to have a bearer
> (depositary) of the promise of a coming messiah, for Christ is the seed!

Good explanation!!

>  The position that Israel enjoyed as the bearer of the promise was
> fulfilled in the coming of the seed.  And so thier special relationship
> is no longer needed to bring about the promise for the promise has
> arrived in the person Jesus Christ.  The vessles of the promise are now
> those filled with His spirit and baptized in His name!

But they are still held in "reserve" until the times of the Gentiles be 
over.  That makes them unique.  That could not be said about Pharaoh.

> It is my understanding that the interim from the cross to the parousia
> should be viewed as 'two dimensions of the one age changing escaton'.
> (Maxx King, The Cross and the Parousia of Christ).  He writes and I
> agree, ''... to show that Christ's cross and parousia (i.e. His presence
> or arrival commonly called the second coming) are the two foci of one
> complete, indivisable eschaton (end time) that pertain to the fulfillment
> of all redemptive history and prophecy within the closing period (the
> last days) of the Old Testament aeon (age).''

I agree that the whole church age is the "last days", to get a plug in
there against so-called "ENDTIME" interpretation.  ;-)  

Heb 1:2  Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,

The LAST DAYS began in Acts 2.  And we are no more of an ENDTIME
than were Peter and the rest.  That is not say Jesus is not coming 
in our lifetimes, though.

> Your concept of the end days may not be totally in harmony with that
> presented in the scriptures.  If you understand Matthew 24:3 to be a
> question that pertains to our future, then you and I have our differences
> as to what the end of the *world* means.  I believe your view of the end
> time is yet future.  Yet Paul repeatedly referenced the end time to *his*
> day.  

Agreed.

> Phil 4:5 The Lord is at hand. Rom 13:12 The night is far spent, the
> day is at hand:.  The end time then would mean the end of the Old
> Testament time.

Rev 1:1  The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to 
show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass;

One could say God looks at 1,000 years as one day, but that itself is a 
misinterpretation of ...

2 Pet 3:8  But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one 
day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as 
one day.

Take note, Mark, if you're reading this.  Peter was not saying God counts
1,000 years as one day here.  But is showing that God's word can so be 
relied upon that it does not matter if it takes 1,000 years for it to 
come to pass, or 1 day!  His Word WILL come to pass. Peter is stressing 
the surety of God's Word.  Like saying:  He did not say WHEN he would answer,
but He did say HE WOULD!  That is a far cry from saying God views time
as a flash, and so the reason for the mention of "Must shortly come to pass".
 
> Your future concept of end time would account for the idea of a
> protracted blindness of Israel.  Such a view would then require the
> rebuilding of the Temple with a reinstitution of sacrificial worship and
> some sort of 'special relationship' afforded to natural Israel on the
> basis of descent.

Which I do not believe in.  I do not look for a rebuilt temple to fulfill
ANY prophecy whatsoever.  

The only Temple God recognizes is the CHURCH.  Nothing else.  For God to 
call the so-called rebuilt-temple-to-come a "temple" would be to disregard
anything about the Church He began!

God would not even refer to the rebuilt temple as a "TEMPLE".  It would
be another "building" is all.

> It is impossible not to avoid the conclusion that the New Testament
> applies the Old Testament prophecies concerning Israel to the church.

I agree.  We are the Israel of God (Gal 6:16).

> A good example is found in Romans 9:24-26.  'Even *us*, whom he hath
> called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?'  Paul is
> addressing the church in Rome which included Jews and Gentile, Paul an
> Israelite and the Gentile Romans are the *us*.  To prove God called such
> a people into being he quotes Hosea.  Read carefully the passages he
> qoutes from Hosea and you will find they refer to the literal national
> Israel, not to gentiles!  Both prophecies, 1) Hosea 1:10 and 2) Hosea
> 2:23 concern national Israel yet Paul deliberately takes these two
> prophecies of salvation for national *Israel* and applies them to the
> *Christian Church*.  So we see the prophecies that concern Israel are
> actually fulfilled in the Church!  

THANK YOU BROTHER!  What a great thought!

Same with Acts 2.  Peter said what was fulfilled in his day was the
prophecy of JOEL regarding the sun turning black and the moon to blood.
How?  Since CHRIST is the sun of righteousness whose light dimmed
in the middle of the day on the cross, the LAW, whose righteousness
could not be fulfilled (the MOON of man's day - since the evening and
the morning are the consecutive "day-components"- law came in the evening
of man's DAY first - night - before the sunlight of Christ) until it was
given LIFE - blood.  The moon was filled with BLOOD.  The Law was given
LIFE when Christ died so we could fulfill its righteousness (Ro. 8:4).
All such endtie "errors" miss the spiritual application to the
Church due to a literalistic interpretation when the apostles
interpreted such things spiritually.

> Not two distinct peoples but one
> Israel.  Those that were the depsoitary of the promise of God by faith,
> and those that are the vessels of the promise.

Agreed. One Olive tree.

> As to Israel's blindness.  Israel's failed to see that natural birth did
> not qualify them of God's promise to Abraham.  The preaching of the New
> Testament opens with John the Baptist saying, 'And think not to say
> within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you,
> that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.'  God
> could have deposited his promise in stones!  In other words you who think
> that your descent qualifies you are blind for God is able to use whatever
> means He chose to accomplish His will.

Actually this refers to something else, I feel, but it still drives home
your point.  The STONES Jesus referred to were Gentiles.  We are lively
stones comprising the spiritual TEMPLE (1 Peter 2).  But this shows that
God "progressed" His plan with the inception of the Church as the true
Israel with the true temple - items which were only foreshadowed by the 
literal and natural Israel and temple.

> God finalized His promise to *Israel* through Christ and the demise of
> the temple gave voice to the exclaimation point of God's *faithfulness*
> to Israel of bringing in a New Covenant making the Old obsolete (Jer.
> 31:31).  

Exactly.  You have a great handle on this.

> Those Israelists who refused God's provision (the cross,
> pentecost, etc.) suffered the consequences of holding to that which had
> become obsolete.  

Yet, and this is where we stray from one another, it was ordained to occur
like that.  I still maintain that we must distinguish between Spiritual Israel
and natural since Paul did in Romans 9.  The ISRAEL Paul spoke
of in Romans 9 and 10 are natural and not spiritual.  And that makes them
outside the class of antichrist.

> God was faithful to Israel all along and still
> is......If they continue not in unbelief, but to grant them special
> priviledge based upon descent is to nullify the gospel message entirely!

What about...

Zec 12:10  And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon 
the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: 
and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall 
mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in 
bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

> Gal 3:27-29  For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have
> put on Christ.  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.

Agreed  wholeheartedly, but in another sense, Israel natural is still
"different".

> If I understand Galations 3 concerning the seed and the need, then Paul
> is acerting that if ye be Christ's, *THEN AND ONLY THEN* are you Abrahams
> seed and hiers according to the promise.

Agreed.  The natural was only foreshadow of the spiritual.  But Paul is 
saying that the natural Israel shall become part of the spiritual all in 
one day soon.

Zec 12:11  In that day...

> I agree the believing Jew/Gentile *have* a role to play concerning Israel
> Romans 11:12-15

This is a wonderful chat, brother!!

-- 
In Christ,
Mike Blume
mfblume@ns.sympatico.ca
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mfblume/mblume.htm