Comment on “The Church Age”

[NetChaplain]

I do not hesitate to admit that there is much to learn for all (self included) who desire to know the division of the Church and Israel. I want to share a brief reply to the article “The Church Age” because many still have not understood the implications of Galatians 3:14. The blessing of redemption (v 3) through Abraham does not come to the generality of Israel, but to believing Israel, first (remnant of Israel), then the believing Gentile (Rom 1:16), making "one fold" (John 10:16).

To be included in the Church, which is the Body of Christ, faith in Christ must precede presence with Christ, and I believe Jesus addressed this in John 10:29 when He spoke to Thomas saying, "because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

​The Lord Jesus was referring to believing in His resurrection, which presupposes belief in His incarnation (1 John 4:2, 3; 2 John 1:7), thus belief in these two events supplants the believer with salvation (Rom 10:9). The generality of Israel will not believe in the Lord Jesus and I believe the living unbelieving Jew who sees and believes in Christ during the Millennium is the one who is prophesied to become a "people of God" (Jer 31:31: Eze 36:27).

The Jews who believe before Jesus returns will be included with the Gentiles who believe (Church). To my present understanding, the Church is one fold comprised from believing Jews and Gentiles, which makes them “children of God”. The Millennium Jew (the living Jew who did not believe prior to seeing Christ), by way of the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, will become the "people of God."

I will be eagerly awaiting replies and thanks ahead of time for those who do.

-NC

 

[Bambi]

Who is Israel? Are you referring to Spiritual Israel or Physical Israel? Which verse represents Spiritual and which is Physical? How do you determine which is which? Is Israel a group of people or a single person or both?

 

[NetChaplain]

Who is Israel? Are you referring to Spiritual Israel or Physical Israel? Which verse represents Spiritual and which is Physical? How do you determine which is which? Is Israel a group of people or a single person or both?

Hi Bambi and thanks for asking. Every reference I make with the name Israel or Jew, I'm referring to either a believing Jew or an unbelieving Jew, not a Gentile.

 

[Bambi]

Hi Bambi and thanks for asking. Every reference I make with the name Israel or Jew, I'm referring to either a believing Jew or an unbelieving Jew, not a Gentile.

So can a Gentile be part of Israel or be a Jew? If so, how, and if not, why not? And what scripture reference do you base your answer on?

 

[NetChaplain]

So can a Gentile be part of Israel or be a Jew?

In my opinion, no, because I always interpret by posterity or ethnicity (blood nationality). To me, Galatians 3:28 does not mean one is no longer a Jew or Gentile, but that there is no difference between them as there was before the door to the Gentiles was open. Only Jews were considered people of God, until Christ. Now, all who desire to be right with God are equal in His eyes. In this life, a Jew will always be a Jew and a Gentile will always be a Gentile--saved Jews and Gentiles representing one new man--Christian.

And what scripture reference do you base your answer on?

There are Scriptural doctrines which are not based on a specific passage but is supported by Scripture in general. Concerning the distinctions in question (Israel/Church) I find that the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31, 32 is the best support for this differentiation, e.g. if the Church was the new Israel, this prophecy would apply to the Church.

It is clear the prophecy applies solely to Jews, evidenced by "Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt."

 

[Bambi]

In my opinion, no, because I always interpret by posterity or ethnicity (blood nationality). To me, Galatians 3:28 does not mean one is no longer a Jew or Gentile, but that there is no difference between them as there was before the door to the Gentiles was open. Only Jews were considered people of God, until Christ. Now, all who desire to be right with God are equal in His eyes. In this life, a Jew will always be a Jew and a Gentile will always be a Gentile--saved Jews and Gentiles representing one new man--Christian.

You do realize that there were two non-Jews in the line of Christ. Doesn't this make Jesus a non-Jew according to your point of view?

There are Scriptural doctrines which are not based on a specific passage but is supported by Scripture in general. Concerning the distinctions in question (Israel/Church) I find that the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31, 32 is the best support for this differentiation, e.g. if the Church was the new Israel, this prophecy would apply to the Church.

It is clear the prophecy applies solely to Jews, evidenced by "Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt."

I would disagree with your interpretation of this prophecy. It is quoted in Hebrews chapter 8 and 10, clearly identifying Christ as the mediator of that new covenant. So this covenant from Jer 31 isn't just applied to the Jews but to the Gentiles as well.

 

[NetChaplain]

I would disagree with your interpretation of this prophecy. It is quoted in Hebrews chapter 8, clearly identifying Christ as the mediator of that new covenant. So this covenant from Jer 31 isn't just applied to the Jews but to the Gentiles as well.

There is much debate concerning whether or not the Jer 31:31/Eze 36:27 prophecies are in reference to the Jews or to the Gentiles also. Presently, I believe that these prophecies are separate from the prophecy of Joel, which has already started since Acts 2 and applies to “all flesh” (v 17); and the above prophecies are still yet future and applies only to the Jews. To me, one clear differentiation is evidenced by how the entire chapter of Ezekiel 36 is distinctively referenced to Israel’s history, i.e. verse 28.

The Jer 31/Eze 36 prophecies will have been realized when unbelieving Israel (unbelieving Jews alive at the time of fulfillment) will be given His Spirit and finally come to faith in the Lord Jesus, same as it already has been done presently in believing Jews and Gentiles. The significant difference is what Jesus spoke of in John 20:29, in that the Millennium Jews will not believe until the Father puts His Spirit in them and they see Jesus.

This would mean there are two new covenants; the one in the present dispensation which is in the "blood of Christ" (Luke 22:20 et al), and the one in future Israel—both are “everlasting” and Christ is the "mediator" of both (1 Tim 2:5).

Again, I want to share that I realize that my present comprehension which I have been sharing concerning the concepts relating to Israel and the Church could be speculative and may not necessarily be accurate because Scripture is not openly clear concerning this subject, which is the situation concerning many Biblical doctrines. But the doctrines which are clear, esp. those which are salvation-essential, i.e. Romans 10:9, cannot be speculative but rather must be definite in concept and acceptance.

God’s blessings to your Family!

 

[Bambi]

There is much debate concerning whether or not the Jer 31:31/Eze 36:27 prophecies are in reference to the Jews or to the Gentiles also. Presently, I believe that these prophecies are separate from the prophecy of Joel, which has already started since Acts 2 and applies to “all flesh” (v 17); and the above prophecies are still yet future and applies only to the Jews. To me, one clear differentiation is evidenced by how the entire chapter of Ezekiel 36 is distinctively referenced to Israel’s history, i.e. verse 28:

Did you read Hebrews?

The Jer 31/Eze 36 prophecies will have been realized when unbelieving Israel (unbelieving Jews alive at the time of fulfillment) will be given His Spirit and finally come to faith in the Lord Jesus, same as it already has been done presently in believing Jews and Gentiles. The significant difference is what Jesus spoke of in John 20:29, in that the Millennium Jews will not believe until the Father puts His Spirit in them and they see Jesus.

Jesus doesn't distinguish Jews and Gentiles in John 20:29. He refers to everyone both Jew and Gentile who believes without seeing the risen Christ.

This would mean there are two new covenants; the one in the present dispensation which is in the "blood of Christ" (Luke 22:20 et al), and the one in future Israel—both are “everlasting” and Christ is the "mediator" of both (1 Tim 2:5).

There is one mediator, there is one covenant. No where in the New Testament does it refer to a second new covenant.

Again, I want to share that I realize that my present comprehension which I have been sharing concerning the concepts relating to Israel and the Church could be speculative and may not necessarily be accurate because Scripture is not openly clear concerning this subject, which is the situation concerning many Biblical doctrines. But the doctrines which are clear, esp. those which are salvation-essential, i.e. Romans 10:9, cannot be speculative but rather must be definite in concept and acceptance.

Your comprehension maybe because you've been taught to believe one way and scripture is telling you something else. The scripture is not openly clear on two covenants, two body of believers, two chances for salvation is because it's not scriptural. The Bible clearly talks of one covenant, one body, one chance for salvation.

 

[NetChaplain]

Jesus doesn't distinguish Jews and Gentiles in John 20:29. He refers to everyone both Jew and Gentile who believes without seeing the risen Christ.

True, but He was communicating it that way to His Apostles because He had not yet established accountability towards belief His resurrection towards others until He ascended.

 

[Bambi]

True, but He was communicating it that way to His Apostles because He had not yet established accountability towards belief His resurrection towards others until He ascended.

He was communicating what? I'm not I understand your statement here. What do you mean?

 

[NetChaplain]

who believes without seeing the risen Christ.

I realize that there may not be anything to share that might convey sufficient understanding of the concept I'm attempting to share, but what I've replied with below is what I'm sharing with other sites that are corresponding with me on it, with a fair amount of comprehension from most.

Jesus establishing the reality of His resurrection with His Apostles and disciples through showing Himself, which were "infallible proofs" (Acts 1:3), provided the way for others to believe in Him as the Savior and in His resurrection.

I do not believe that His resurrection was something He expected them to realize until He manifested it to them, thus establishing it for others to believe, but not until He ascended (so the Spirit could be used to enable faith in Him and His resurrection). At that time, they had physical proof (which established the basis concerning His resurrection).

So now since His ascension, all believers have the Word concerning it and the witness of the Spirit in them to confirm it in them (without proof) that He is the risen Savior. Until there was proof, they could not comprehend His resurrection; which was when they saw the empty tomb (John 20:8), and after He had shown them His resurrected body (John 20:20).

What Jesus was addressing Thomas about, concerned not Him being the Savior, which was already a belief they had, but His resurrection. He was not, as I mentioned, expecting Thomas to already believe in His resurrection, which He was establishing; for none of them believed even after His mentioning it to them (Matt 17:9; Luke 24:46; Mark 9:10; John 2:22). This is what I mean by saying that the Jews who believe in Him as Savior after they see Him in the Millennium will not be included in the "blessed are they who have not seen (who have not seen Jesus or His resurrection) and yet have believed (John 20:29).

I believe Gill's comment on John 20:9 may offer some help:

"For as yet they knew not the Scripture,.... Meaning not some particular passage of Scripture, but the writings of the Old Testament in general, and the various places in it, which spoke of the resurrection of Christ, either in a way of type, or prophecy; such as Genesis 22:4.

"And though our Lord had often referred to some of them, at least as in Matthew 12:40 yet such was the dullness of the disciples, or such their prejudices in favor of the Messiah being to continue, and set up a temporal kingdom, that even John, who leaned on His breast, and Peter, who was so inquisitive and desirous of knowing our Lord's meaning in everything, did not understand the sense of His words, nor of those places of Scripture He had reference to.

"That He must rise again from the dead": so it was determined, thus it was predicted, and the justification and salvation of God's elect required it; and yet they knew not the thing, nor the necessity and importance of it."

I thought is also helpful to include some of Gill's comment on his above reference to Genesis 22:4: "The Jews take great notice of this third day, and compare the passage with Hosea 6:2; and which they interpret of the third day of the resurrection; and the deliverance of Isaac on this third day was doubtless typical of Christ's resurrection from the dead on the third day; for from the time that Abraham had the command to offer up his son, he was reckoned no other by him than as one dead, from whence he received him in a figure on this third day, Hebrews 11:19."

 

[Bambi]

I realize that there may not be anything to share that might convey sufficient understanding of the concept I'm attempting to share, but what I've replied with below is what I'm sharing with other sites that are corresponding with me on it, with a fair amount of comprehension from most.

Jesus establishing the reality of His resurrection with His Apostles and disciples through showing Himself, which were "infallible proofs" (Acts 1:3), provided the way for others to believe in Him as the Savior and in His resurrection.

I do not believe that His resurrection was something He expected them to realize until He manifested it to them, thus establishing it for others to believe, but not until He ascended (so the Spirit could be used to enable faith in Him and His resurrection). At that time, they had physical proof (which established the basis concerning His resurrection).

So now since His ascension, all believers have the Word concerning it and the witness of the Spirit in them to confirm it in them (without proof) that He is the risen Savior. Until there was proof, they could not comprehend His resurrection; which was when they saw the empty tomb (John 20:8), and after He had shown them His resurrected body (John 20:20).

What Jesus was addressing Thomas about, concerned not Him being the Savior, which was already a belief they had, but His resurrection. He was not, as I mentioned, expecting Thomas to already believe in His resurrection, which He was establishing; for none of them believed even after His mentioning it to them (Matt 17:9; Luke 24:46; Mark 9:10; John 2:22). This is what I mean by saying that the Jews who believe in Him as Savior after they see Him in the Millennium will not be included in the "blessed are they who have not seen (who have not seen Jesus or His resurrection) and yet have believed (John 20:29).

I believe Gill's comment on John 20:9 may offer some help:

"For as yet they knew not the Scripture,.... Meaning not some particular passage of Scripture, but the writings of the Old Testament in general, and the various places in it, which spoke of the resurrection of Christ, either in a way of type, or prophecy; such as Genesis 22:4.

"And though our Lord had often referred to some of them, at least as in Matthew 12:40 yet such was the dullness of the disciples, or such their prejudices in favor of the Messiah being to continue, and set up a temporal kingdom, that even John, who leaned on His breast, and Peter, who was so inquisitive and desirous of knowing our Lord's meaning in everything, did not understand the sense of His words, nor of those places of Scripture He had reference to.

"That He must rise again from the dead": so it was determined, thus it was predicted, and the justification and salvation of God's elect required it; and yet they knew not the thing, nor the necessity and importance of it."

I thought is also helpful to include some of Gill's comment on his above reference to Genesis 22:4: "The Jews take great notice of this third day, and compare the passage with Hosea 6:2; and which they interpret of the third day of the resurrection; and the deliverance of Isaac on this third day was doubtless typical of Christ's resurrection from the dead on the third day; for from the time that Abraham had the command to offer up his son, he was reckoned no other by him than as one dead, from whence he received him in a figure on this third day, Hebrews 11:19."

I'm sorry but I'll have to disagree with your interpretation of scripture. You seem to force a belief into the passage of scripture. Everything you have stated has no scripture to back it up. There is no second new covenant. There is no second body of believers in Christ. There is only one chance for salvation for all Jews and Gentiles. Do it now before the second coming.

 

[NetChaplain]

Do it now before the second coming.

I'm thankful that we can share with one another without contention, and I appreciate your concern.

God's blessings to your Family and "blessed be God !"

 

[NetChaplain]

Other than the same faith blessings (eternal life) as Abraham which goes also to the believing Gentiles, I see only Jewish posterity in Hebrews 8, same for chapters 7 and 9. Nothing Gentile. Same for the Jer/Eze prophecies, which Hebrews 8 reiterates.

 

[Bambi]

Other than the same faith blessings (eternal life) as Abraham which goes also to the believing Gentiles, I see only Jewish posterity in Hebrews 8, same for chapters 7 and 9. Nothing Gentile. Same for the Jer/Eze prophecies, which Hebrews 8 reiterates.

Within those 3 chapters, Hebrews 7, 8, & 9, is anything for the Gentiles or is it all for the Jew?

 

[NetChaplain]

Within those 3 chapters, Hebrews 7, 8, & 9, is anything for the Gentiles or is it all for the Jew?

Hi Bambi, I appreciate your sincere inquiry and your love for "the Word of truth." I believe I might be addressing your question with an article I'm just posting in this thread.

 

[NetChaplain]

Jewish prophecies speak about the Gentiles (and their blessing of eternal life), but they speak to the Jews, through whom salvation came to the Gentiles (Rom 11:11).

In my opinion, establishing the basis for the concept concerning the distinctions between Israel and the Church could be in how one defines "the new testament (covenant) in My blood" (Luke 22:20). It is my present understanding that the new covenant in Christ's blood is a covenant which is not between man and God, as the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) was with the nation Israel. It is a covenant between the Father and the Son (made in eternity, before creation), of which man is only a recipient ("everlasting covenant" - Heb 13:20, 21). I believe this covenant has been accurately summed up in the concept that the Father would raise His Son from the dead when He died to atone for sin in believers.

Thus, when the Lord Jesus was revealing it to the Jews (who are first in everything spiritual), the word "new" designed a dual intention concerning chronologically and application: chronologically "new" because it had yet to be brought forth in time, and "new", in that it was different from the old (old--conditional; new--unconditional).

To the Gentile, "new" designs a single intention concerning chronology only, because the Gentile never has and never will need to enter a covenant between them and God, but has entered the covenant between the Father and the Son (Everlasting Covenant), same now as the believing Jew.

The Millennium Jew (Jews who have yet to believe in Jesus) new covenant will also be everlasting (same as the believing Christian Jew) and will not be as the old covenant (Jer 31:32), where they could not avoid "braking" it (also v 32), because it requires God "causing" (Eze 36:27) them to keep His "statutes' and "laws"--through putting His Spirit in them (again Eze 36:27), same as Christians (Jew/Gentile) now (Gal 5:17).

This concept has other implications that I'm still researching to understand, which may be resolved as we continue to share with one another and correspond with what the Lord gives us to use. I would rather learn and accept a truth that may conflict with my present understanding concerning Scripture doctrine, than to worry about being incorrect concerning a concept or belief. One of my motives for sharing my beliefs is to, as much as possible, learn truth, because the Spirit teaches through us all.

For Christ’s Sake (Eph 4:32) <><

 

[Bambi]

The Millennium Jew (Jews who have yet to believe in Jesus) new covenant will also be everlasting (same as the believing Christian Jew) and will not be as the old covenant (Jer 31:32), where they could not avoid "braking" it (also v 32), because it requires God "causing" (Eze 36:27) them to keep His "statutes' and "laws"--through putting His Spirit in them (again Eze 36:27), same as Christians (Jew/Gentile) now (Gal 5:17).<><

You keep bringing up "Millennium Jew" where in the Bible does it talk about a millennium Jew?

 

[ocean73]

I'm not understanding why OT prophets who were Jewish, would be prophysing to Gentiles?

 

[NetChaplain]

You keep bringing up "Millennium Jew" where in the Bible does it talk about a millennium Jew?

For one reason, because I'm inferring that it will occur at that time due to my collating the Eze 36 and Jer 31 prophecies to mean living Jews at that time, unless one were to collate these prophecies to intend presently saved Jews, which would conflict with the idea that it will involve most if not all Jews (Rom 11:26), which is yet to occur.