• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Theological perspective, Jew & Gentile

Sonny Chancelor

Member
Male
Does the following argumentation by Tim Gallant elevate the singular-exlusive Bride of Christ as a binding model for modern day patriarchs? http://timgallant.com/blog/bible/slavery-polygamy-and-the-bible/

Here is a quote for convenience - "In other words, the salvation-historical goal was always aimed at a culmination which would entail one Bride for Yahweh, and of course that is precisely what comes so far to the forefront in Paul’s letters. The dividing wall has been broken down, and God has made both Jews and Gentiles one in the blood of Christ’s cross (see e.g. Ephesians 2:11-22)."
 
Not a direct answer, but a detail related to the question perhaps.

I see Ephesians 2 as the answer to prophecy concerning the reuniting of the house of Israel and the house of Judah. There was never any promise to bring non-Israelite gentiles "back" into fellowship under one head, Christ. There was no initial gathering to bring Israelites and gentiles back to as people. As I understand it Christ "marries" each true Israelite when they become a Christian. They are actually a bride in waiting. The Prodigal Son is also all about the house of Israel, the Prodigal, and the other son, the house of Judah. The house of Israel did not go out of existence otherwise God is a promise breaker, Hosea 1.

By the way, Gentile does not mean non-Jew. There are several instances in the NT when the term is obviously referring to Israelites. Nation is a better word letting the context decide. An example is Romans 2:14-15. These Gentiles were Israelites of the house of Israel who were divorced by God and lost the right to be called Israel, "ruling with El".

The Pharisees and Josephus knew where they were living.

Tim
 
I haven't had time to follow the link yet but I can pretty much guarantee you that the answer here will be no it does not. Neither does God describing Himself as the husband of two sisters bind you to marry s sibling group.
 
I also haven't followed the link, but a passing look at the greek for church "ekklesia" shows that it is intrinsically plural, not singular. Further the Bible does not solely refer to a one world church as a single entity like that type of argument requires. It specifically calls out separate churches (which are themselves groups of believers) in revelation and the letters to the churches.

Basically it's a weak argument. "The church is the bride of Christ" only sounds singular exclusive in modern English with a lot of assumptions. It is really more like "The various groups of believers around the world are the brides of Christ".
 
The uncircumcised are the Gentiles and the circumcised are the Jews. Jesus didn't abolish the law, He fulfilled it. By fulfilling the law Jesus grafted the Gentiles, who had no law from God, into the true vine originally established through the Jews, thereby creating the "one new man" in Him.

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.
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;
Eph 2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
Eph 2:17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
Eph 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Eph 2:21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
Eph 2:22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Compare,

Rom 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Rom 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Rom 4:7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Rom 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
Rom 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
Rom 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
Rom 4:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Rom 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Rom 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
Rom 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
Rom 4:18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.
Rom 4:19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb:
Rom 4:20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
Rom 4:21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
Rom 4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
Rom 4:23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
Rom 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Rom 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Abraham was considered righteous BEFORE he was circumcised. By faith we inherit the promises made to Abraham, and by faith in Jesus the Jews become part of the one bride-church of Jesus. Paul goes to great lengths to establish that outward circumcision is of no value, but that we must be circumcised of the heart. Acts clearly shows us that the first century church consisted of both Jew and Gentile believers in Jesus.

It is by faith that Abraham, Joseph, and many others were buried near Jerusalem. Why was it so important to be buried near Jerusalem? Why did Jesus say "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad." The Old Testament saints knew that because of their faith, not because of circumcision, they would be raised from the dead after Jesus was resurrected. Yes, the Old Testament saints believed in Jesus, they had met Him in dreams, visions, visitations, translation into heaven in spirit, etc... just as Jesus continues to do to this very day. God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Jesus visited and spoke to me 20 years ago.
Mat 27:52-53 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
Abraham, Joseph, and many many others knew that they would be resurrected at this time as they had been told about it far in advance.
 
Is it possible that his interpretation of these matters comes from his Reformed background? Not trying to cause denominational strife, but don't most Reformed believers proclaim a replacement theology (the church has replaced Israel and all promises made to it)? If that be the case, then specific promises to Israel need to be allegorized. Any Reformed or former practitioners out there?
 
Is it possible that his interpretation of these matters comes from his Reformed background? Not trying to cause denominational strife, but don't most Reformed believers proclaim a replacement theology (the church has replaced Israel and all promises made to it)? If that be the case, then specific promises to Israel need to be allegorized. Any Reformed or former practitioners out there?

I like what I see in most of the "reformed" teaching a it seems to me to match up well with what I see in scriptures. What I don't see in the scriptures is replacement theology. We were grafted in and can just as easily be removed Paul says.
 
What most miss is that God prophesied a change of name for His servants twice in Isaiah alone, one is found in 62:2
Paul makes it pretty clear in Romans 9:24-25 (where he quotes Hosea) that the gentiles he was talking about were fulfilling prophesies to and about Israel.
It is not replacement theology to say that Israel is found in the church, it is simply believing what Jesus said.
"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me"

It is far less supported in scripture, to say that those rejecting Him are His chosen, especially given His dialog to their ancestors (or predecessors) denying them, and stating plainly that they were NOT His sheep.
It is still best to judge by fruits, not titles.
 
Again, don't want to start theological fights, but can't completely agree with all of reformed theology. Like was said earlier in the thread, I too like a lot of it. But Reformed theology (replacement aspect of it) hasn't updated itself since the establishment of Israel in the land. When it was systemized, Reformers saw no way for Israel to be established again as a sovereign nation and people, so all prophecies relating to it were allegorized as "the Church". But, Israel has come back! Even though we have been grafted in, it is still a "mystery".

No, I do not believe, as some, that Israel's "chosen" status applies to universal salvation for them. Christ died for Jew and Gentile according to Gods foreknowledge, but his Promises to Israel (the People) cannot be revoked. It is for his pleasure and purpose, we cannot understand it.

It is with this understanding that I judge this minister's understanding of polygyny to be tainted. He sees ALL of the OT leading to some broader application to NT saints and the bride of Christ (replacement?). But if you take the view that both OT and NT are harmonized, you won't find contradiction...ANYWHERE!!
 
I think it is dangerous for racial gentiles to claim replacement theology. We should sit at the foot of the table and see if we're called up to the head.

I assume we're grafted in and that the first born still has the right of place, even if they don't appreciate it right now.
 
I suggest reading the Jewish Encyclopedia's entry on Edom/Edomite. It explains (to anyone familiar with the very different from Israel's future, that is prophesied for Esau's descendants) why Jesus denounced some "Jews" and stated in no uncertain terms they were NOT His sheep. (Wolves in sheep's clothing) But maybe folks aren't interested in trying to understand those verses.
There are also other scriptures which clearly indicate the modern land of Israel is not fulfilling the prophesies about Israel.

One reason people get confused, and call it replacement theology, is that in the renewed covenant age, believers (including any genetic Israelite believers ) have been called by a new name CHRISTIAN, fulfilling prophesy.

According to Jesus His sheep hear His voice, and follow Him. Jer 31:31 describes the renewed covenant, and states who it was to be with, and it is with both houses, Israel/Ephraim and Judah.
Hosea wrote about the two houses coming together and appointing themselves one head, and according to Paul in Romans 9:24-25 the people called Gentiles were fulfilling those prophesies back then.
Those verses scarecrow referenced talk about God breaking down the wall of partition, and making of TWO (two houses) one new man (like Tim pointed out above) This parallels Ezekiel's two sticks.

When Paul refers to prophesies about the grace that was to come to these "Gentiles" that too affirms that they were the cast off ten tribes.

The whole of scripture supports this, and the only people 'left out' are those who reject Christ. Given the verses in Rev that talk about "Jews" who call themselves "Jews" and are not, but are of the synagogue of satan, (and the prophesies about a new name for Israel) why would anyone just believe/assume that someone using the name Jew is an Israelite?

Judge by fruits, (like Jesus instructed) and you won't be confused or deceived by names and labels.

We are happy to provide the other scriptures which I alluded to, explain anything here in greater detail, and I/we are willing to discuss any verse someone brings that is believed to affect or change this understanding.

We love discussing scripture, and hearing the perspective of others.

This information has apparently been ignored above, where Tim tried to bring it up.
Our observation has been that this information causes as many short circuits in most believers brains, as introducing the Biblical concept of polygyny. It has a couple of other similarities with polygyny too. For one it is a large subject, that touches many areas of influence, another is the massive volume of incorrect, and unbiblical teaching out there on the subject, and finally it is politically incorrect.
We are encouraged when we see others (like recently a nationally known writer and minister) come to a more accurate understanding of the prophesies relating to Israel, the other world players, and the times we are living in, because it seems most would rather not get into it.
 
Last edited:
A father and son are driving down the road. The car crashes into a tree and the father is killed. The son is rushed to the nearest hospital where he is prepared for emergency surgery. On entering the hospital, the surgeon says, "I can't operate on this boy. He's my son."

Our natural conclusion is to become mentally paralyzed for a moment. How is this possible? Well, at least possibilities come up: The father who was killed, was actually the boy's grandfather (father to his father), or perhaps, the surgeon was the boy's MOTHER.

What I've described is a paradox. How could one be true, but on its surface seem false?

I agree with you on "true" Israel. I, and many others refer to ourselves as "spiritual" Jews. But the spiritual aspect to the true Israel doesn't necessarily discount or negate God's promises to "ethnic" Israel.

On the journey to the promised land, was everyone on the journey a "true Israelite" by faith? Based on the dissension, rebellion, and unbelief that often occurred, we would have to conclude, no. But did those non-believing "ethnic" Jews enjoy the promise made to all the house of Israel? Eventually, yes.

So here's the paradox in my view. Has the "true Israelite" always existed...yes. Are believing Gentiles able to claim the mantle of Israelite...yes.

But God did make promises to all the house of Israel (true believer and not) that he cannot revoke. I wholeheartedly believe a return to the physical land of Israel to be included in that, even though the overwhelming majority now living there are not "true" Israelites.
 
My belief in a nutshell, is that the Christian (and messianic) people of the world include racial Jews of Judah, racial Israelites from the other ten tribes, as well as people that are not descendants of Jacob/Israel at all.

Israelite means a descendant of Jacob/Israel. So to me there is no "true" Israel that is not genetic Israel.

I believe God calls His servants by a new name now in part, because of the great commission. Go into all the world, and baptize those that believe. One believing in Jesus is a part of His body, and according to Gal 4 they are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise.

As far as a return to the land goes, God said He would do better to Israel then at their beginnings, and many times that He would take them to a NEW land. That coupled with His judgment against Jerusalem, and His promise to make it desolate, like Shiloh, mean that Israel the state over there cannot be what most claim.
 
In my mind Jews can't be a race of people, they are believers in G_d. If we look at Esther 8 [17] And in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king's commandment and his decree came, the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day. And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them. A person can't change their race, but they sure can start believing in G_d.
 
Jews are a race. They are the descendants of the tribe of Judah and small portions of Benjamin and Levi. There was always a provision for non-Israelites to convert in and I'm pretty sure that's what we read about in Esther.
 
My belief in a nutshell, is that the Christian (and messianic) people of the world include racial Jews of Judah, racial Israelites from the other ten tribes, as well as people that are not descendants of Jacob/Israel at all.

Israelite means a descendant of Jacob/Israel. So to me there is no "true" Israel that is not genetic Israel.

I believe God calls His servants by a new name now in part, because of the great commission. Go into all the world, and baptize those that believe. One believing in Jesus is a part of His body, and according to Gal 4 they are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise.

As far as a return to the land goes, God said He would do better to Israel then at their beginnings, and many times that He would take them to a NEW land. That coupled with His judgment against Jerusalem, and His promise to make it desolate, like Shiloh, mean that Israel the state over there cannot be what most claim.


Joleneakamama,
It's so hard to understand someone's point on a forum thread sometimes. I apologize. In my rushed reading of one of your posts, I assumed you were making the point that there was only "believer" and "non-believer", and that there was no such thing as an ethnic Jew/Israelite left (I understand the two kingdoms history, but will use these terms interchangeably sometimes). I thought you were saying that the new covenant eliminated the ethnic Jew, and created only a "spiritual" Israelite. I find that to be somewhat troubling, since modern genetics can prove otherwise. And besides, Revelation 7 would have to be really stretched to say the tribes of Israel are now defunct.

I do want to clarify that I don't think the creation of a Jewish state in modern Israel fulfills the "New" that you are speaking of either. I guess denominational or eschatological background training taints me some here, but I see this current manifestation of Israel as only a precursor. It is a demonstrable, tangible piece of evidence that the true God of heaven does exist, and that he is ready to take care of final business and will do so from his former place of temple indwelling....soon. Revelation 21 attests to this New and better Jerusalem of which you speak.

I guess I also find it troubling, as it relates to polygyny, that two divergent movements either embrace or discount the practice on a form of "replacement" grounds. From my experience, some in the messianic movement feel that their "true Israel" status also imposes on them a need to rekindle the law and traditions as a part of "true" Christian practice. This would include polygyny. Some Reformed believers I know (and most of modern evangelicalism for that matter) totally discount polygyny on the grounds that the Church and the NT have somehow negated or "replaced" that which God spoke of in the OT. We've all heard it "that was for them back then, not for us now."

Sorry for any confusion. I really do want to listen to other's perspectives and learn their POV. I can prove that by just being here. If I wasn't willing, you wouldn't see this fundamentally raised believer on this forum!

Set me straight on what I may have misunderstood again.
 
Jews are a race. They are the descendants of the tribe of Judah and small portions of Benjamin and Levi.

This was probably true at a point in history, but the title was only applied to the remnant that returned from Babylon, and then later to converts to Judaism.

There was always a provision for non-Israelites to convert in and I'm pretty sure that's what we read about in Esther.
This is true too, but means that some who converted may not be Israelites. (Remember, an Israelite is a descendant of Jacob/Israel)
The Jewish Encyclopedia has some interesting info here.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5434-edox-idumea

They may have been twins, but according to YHWH they were two nations, and two manners of people.
He said to one nation that He would write His law on their hearts, and put His spirit in them, and would be their God. To the other Nation He has prophesied complete destruction. He says He is against them because of their perpetual hatred for the children of Israel (and when God uses the word perpetual, He knows what He's talking about!)

Jesus warned of wolves in sheep's clothing. He said to judge by fruits because these two manners of people bear different fruit! Read what he said to some called "Jews" in these verses, and then please tell me how else you explain it.
John 8:33 (All Jacob/Israel's house went to Egypt, and Israel also knew numerous other captivities) v37 v43 v47 John 10:14-26-27.

Maybe when Paul says "They are not all Israel, that are of Israel" (Romans 9:6-13 then v24-26) he means there are wolves in sheep's clothing, and maybe he means that there are a few millions. "Gentiles" who are Israelites still out there. Could be both, but Gal 3:29 says one must be Christ's to be Abraham's seed. Because the sheep hear His voice, and He KNOWS them, and they follow Him. (John 10:27 Amos 3:2)
Rev 2:9 echoes those verses in John 8 in saying some called Jews are not. Judge by fruits. Like Jesus said "He that is not against us, is on our side" (Mark 9:40)
 
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something. Are you saying that modern Jews aren't Israelites? If so then I think you're running afoul of the historicity of scripture. Christ was a modern Jew whose ancestors had returned from the captivity, as was Paul who scripture identifies as a literal descendant of Benjamin.

Also, God declared that David would always have a descendant so that if the modern Jews aren't true Israelites then there is a falsehood in scripture or at least skeptics would have an excuse to claim one.

If that's not what you're saying then I apologize. But I can't accept that the Jews aren't Israelites. They're not all of them. The rest will be found. But the Jews are who scripture says they are, the descendants of Judah, Levi and Benjamin.
 
Here is Isaiah 62:1-2
For Zion's sake I will not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth.v2 And the Gentiles shall see they righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name.
There is a footnote in our KJV sending the reader to Acts 11:26 which reads, (starting in v25)
Then departed Barnanas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul: v26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

In Walt Disney's Sleeping Beauty there is a scene in which the evil Malifacent finds out that her little minions have spent 16 years looking for a baby. This is basically what has happened to many christians. They are looking for Jews instead of searching for the people, doing the will of God (His servants) going by a NEW name.

I am not denying that Paul and thousands of others who followed Jesus were Jews. I am simply trying to point out that their descendants are probably called Christians today, but are still descendants of David, (and other patriarchs and tribes) and are genetic Jews.

This understanding makes claims of "replacement theology" meaningless nonsense, and explains why "the church" seems to have replaced Israel.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something. Are you saying that modern Jews aren't Israelites?

You are asking me here to affirm or deny a named group. Jesus said to judge by fruits. That group "modern Jews" could contain genetic Israelites, and converts to Judaism.

I believe the prophesies about end time Israel are being fulfilled by God's servants that are Christ's, who are in the renewed covenant, and called by that new name.

If that's not what you're saying then I apologize. But I can't accept that the Jews aren't Israelites.

Rephrase that to a denial of polygyny, and anyone here would be quick to point out that acceptance, or denial, in no way changes the reality or truth of the matter.
I suggest you approach this objectively, weighing the evidence and considering which position best fits the whole of scripture.
I have heard my dad say (and I'm sure he is quoting someone) one should "Accept nothing that is unreasonable. Discard nothing as unreasonable without proper examination."
 
Back
Top