He is a Jew, He is not a Jew: the physical seed of promise

[robert derrick]

I will put forward this, Jesus said he was sent to the House of the Servants of God. that means the Servants of God = Israel! it's a Spiritual thing ! If one is not within the Holy Spirit then one is not of the Body of Christ. So outside of such are all Carnal religious dupes, because they are of this world.
So as Jesus Christ said, You Must be born again and that means you must have the Holy Spirit to come to know God. not to mention that you can not come to know God the Father but only through his only begotten Son. so outside of such is all totally in vane.

So outside of such are all Carnal religious dupes, because they are of this world.

Which includes the Jews religion every bit as much as that of Islam.

so outside of such is all totally in vane.

Including putting your hopes on a physical bloodline, where the flesh no longer profits anything with God.

Int he old covenant, the flesh was everything: blood birth, outward circumcision, living a long life on earth, physical prosperity and power, outward obedience toa carnal law, etc...

That is gone and done away, so that now such flesh profits nothing, because it is all about: inward faith and circumcision first, birth of the Spirit, power of an endless life, doing well with the law of the Spirit, prospering only as our soul prospers, resurrection of the body.

No one would disagree with that, but when it comes to last days prophecy, we see many learned and much-studied people purposely blinding themselves to the manner of it's final fulfillment, because you truly can't teach some old dogs new tricks.

Not that it matters toward salvation. It's just instructive. In the end, many people would rather cling to their mantras, than to honestly look at Scripture that defies their dearly beloved conclusions.

 

[robert derrick]

I disagree, as I have already shown, Paul's claim to be an Israelite (or Jew) was that he was born of the tribe of Benjamin, and thus a bloodline Israelite. Without that birth there would have been no need for his flesh circumcision. See, I never disagreed that Paul was circumcised, being a Jew of the "house of Judah", and that prior... to Christ's coming to die on the cross. So really, you're just going around in circles with this, going nowhere.

Yes, I am going around in circles trying to explain something to someone who doesn't can't seem to at least comprehend what is being said:

A bloodline Israelite in the first covenant became bound to circumcision by law on the 8th day, else he was cut off from the Israelites: bloodline became no longer sufficient to be an Israelite indeed.

Now that there is no such outward circumcision with God, then they cannot possibly fulfill that requirement to be an Israelite indeed. They are cut off as with every other uncircumcised stranger on earth by birth of the flesh.

 

[robert derrick]

What you actually have to consider is the 1 Kings 11 events of when God rent Israel from Solomon's son Rehoboam. Only the tribe of Benjamin sided with the tribe of Judah in Jerusalem/Judea, as written. When God setup Jeroboam of the tribe of Ephraim as king over Israel in the north at Samaria, two calf idols in false worship were also setup in the northern kingdom. So a small remnant of the ten northern tribes refused those idols, and instead moved south to side with Judah and Benjamin. Also, because the Levites living in the northern kingdom were prevented from doing their priest duties, they also moved south and sided with Judah and Benjamin.

Thus the southern "kingdom of Judah", i.e., JEWS, became the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, Levi, a small remnant of the northern ten tribes, and the strangers living in Judea. All those became known as 'Jews'. These events, except the Jew title event, are written in 1 Kings and 1 Chronicles.

So even though the Jewish historian Josephus said those returning... from the 70 years Babylon captivity to Jerusalem used that title 'Jew', the strangers also with them, that does not necessarily mean that is when that title first began to be used by them. Though it's not written, I have to assume the southern kingdom of Judah used that title before their Babylon captivity also.

2 Kings 16 about the Jews in Elath being driven out by the king of Syria, that was after... God had split old Israel into two separate kingdoms.

And the Book of Esther is a POST-captivity Book, i.e., AFTER the split of old Israel, and even after the return of the house of Judah to Jerusalem after their 70 years Babylon captivity.

Therefore, sorry, we cannot properly use that title of "Jew" to be about all Israelites.



It did apply to the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, Levi, a small remnant of ten northern tribes, and the strangers living in the southern lands of Judea. They became known collectively as 'Jews', and also as the "kingdom of Judah", and also "house of Judah", and as just "Judah", as also as "Jerusalem", all after God split old Israel.

Of course Lord Jesus came to those first, to Jerusalem. But the majority of Israel was not... there when He first came to Jerusalem. The ten northern tribes of Israel had already been removed out the land about long before that. So instead of dwelling on 'Jews', like the orthodox unbelieving Jews like for you to do, why not consider more the ten lost tribes of Israel, as to what happened to them, because God's Word tells us?

Afterall, Lord Jesus said He was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24). Have you ever considered why Anna of the tribe of Asher that saw Lord Jesus, thanked Him, and preached Him and redemption to the people? She's an example of one those of the northern ten tribes that left the north and sided with Judah (see Luke 2). How is it she being a prophetess was preaching Jesus and redemption while the Jews instead were seeking to kill Jesus?

How is it she being a prophetess was preaching Jesus and redemption while the Jews instead were seeking to kill Jesus?

It's probably because some believed and confessed, even as other disciples and chosen apostles, while many did not out of ignorance, as Saul of Tarsus.

Nevertheless, all Jews and children of Israel by flesh were concluded in unbelief at the cross. Not all wanted to kill Him, but none of them believed Him pertaining to His necessary death, burial, and resurrection at the cross, nor while yet in the grave:

Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value.

The lost sheep of the house of Israel included all children of Israel, including them those children that were called Jews. They were all known as Jews, and the house and children of Israel was one house and one children.

Trying to segregate between the two, in terms of the Redeemer's coming is a mangled mess: Jesus, who allowed Himself to be called a Jew, came only for them that were never called Jews?

He came unto His own, and none of His own recieved Him unto the end at the cross. None were confessing Him as the Christ at the trial nor at the cross nor in the tomb.

 

[robert derrick]

But Paul claimed both, as an Israelite born of the tribe of Benjamin, and also as a Jew. By his claiming both puts the term 'Jew' in proper perspective as also a 'region' title, like Californian. It's not unlike the usage of the term Christian today; anyone can be a Christian simply by accepting The Father and His Son Jesus Christ. Anyone can become a 'Jew' simply by accepting the Jew's religion. That... Apostle Paul had accepted before Christ converted him, and thus he also was a 'Jew'. Likewise, with all the foreigners living in the lands of Judea, they became known as Jews by following their religion. And some of those foreigners were leftovers from the nations of Canaan, and also Edom.

So your attempts to try and paint the title 'Jew' in some pure way, not really understanding what Paul meant in Romans 2:29, just does not work. Paul was not pointing to the flesh in Romans 2:29 when using the Greek word Ioudaios translated to English as "Jew". He was pointing to the idea of the 'spiritual Israelite' who's Faith was the same as Abraham's Faith, that being on God's original Promise to Abraham, which was by Faith ONLY, and NOT BY THE LAW (see Galatians 3). One paying attention in the Book of Genesis will discover that God gave Abraham the 'token' of flesh circumcision only AFTER... He gave the Promise and that Abraham believed, and Abraham's Faith was counted to him as righteousness.

Therefore, you CANNOT bring flesh circumcision into that Romans 2:29 meaning.



That idea shows a lack of understanding much Bible history and prophecy in both OT and NT. If those born of one of the tribes of Israel, i.e., flesh Israelites, has no more meaning per The New Covenant, then WHY... did Lord Jesus promise His 12 Apostles they each would sit upon a throne in His future Kingdom judging over the 12 tribes of Israel??? (Matthew 19:27-28).

Those who forget what Lord Jesus promised those 12 Israelites that He chose, reveal they are busy playing churchianity instead of staying in His Holy Word as written. Those might want to look at what God also said in Jeremiah 31 that the literal nation of Israel is forever.

Anyone can become a 'Jew' simply by accepting the Jew's religion.

Anyone can be called a Jew by being in the false religion called the Jews religion. And anyone can be called an Israelite in name only by being born of a carnal bloodline, which is no longer any different than any bloodline on earth today, because now all people are born of one blood (Acts 17), even as the days of Adam.

So your attempts to try and paint the title 'Jew' in some pure way, not really understanding what Paul meant in Romans 2:29, just does not work.

The simple and pure reading of Scripture just will not work with someone who refuses to be instructed. You finally made an effort to actually address my argument after months of my insistence, and I appreciate it, but you fell short. So, believe what you want.

'spiritual Israelite'

There is no such thing on earth at this time as a 'spiritual' Israelite, Israel, church, and body of Christ, even as Jesus was not just a 'spiritual Christ' temporarily inhabiting a human body: even as He came in the flesh, so the Israel, church, and body of Christ walks today in flesh, but not after the flesh.

The Israel of old covenant was naturally born by physical seed, and the Israel of God today is spiritually born in natural bodies.

You are trying to spiritualize away Scriptural reality in order to cling to a carnal-minded reading of Scriptural prophecy.

Therefore, you CANNOT bring flesh circumcision into that Romans 2:29 meaning.

Tell that to the Scripture:

Neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter.

Your willingness to reject Scripture at it's word, and so refuse to allow circumcision outward in the flesh to be considered, tells the whole tale here. Once someone goes down the road of refusing to change their most cherished imaginations about Scripture, in the face of opposing Scripture, they will ultimately and finally contradict Scripture, and refuse to accept it as written.

At this point therefore, you are no longer to be taken seriously. You are no longer useful in this matter.

then WHY... did Lord Jesus promise His 12 Apostles they each would sit upon a throne in His future Kingdom judging over the 12 tribes of Israel???

Which included Judas at the time. And Jesus already knew He had become a devil (John 6) and would fall in the end to his own destruction as the son of perdition (John 17); therefore, He was prophesying how the rest would be converted after His death, as well as, He would be choosing another Apostle for Himself: Paul.

And these would sit on thrones judging Israel on earth during His reign.

You reading of Scripture is dim, because your carnal-minded view of prophecy of Scripture is darkened by the flesh.

Those who forget what Lord Jesus promised those 12 Israelites that He chose, reveal they are busy playing churchianity instead of staying in His Holy Word as written.

Once again, those 12 Israelites included Judas at the time. I do not say you forget this, but rather simply overlook it in your zeal to play with prophecy of Scripture, through a carnal minded reading of His Holy Word. (Saying 'His Holy Word' doesn't make one more authoritative.)

God also said in Jeremiah 31 that the literal nation of Israel is forever.

If the reigning Lord will once again revive the old covenant with the blood of bulls and goats to be sacrificed for sins, then he will also restore for himself a physical seed of promise and naturally born national Israel to serve Him in the promised land of Abraham.

If not, then the prophecy of promise, that God gave to Jeremiah to encourage the captives of Babylon, will never be fulfilled, because as with all God's promises, they are conditioned on 'if' the ones promised to, do their part to believe and obey.

They missed their chance when the Redeemer came to them Personally to confirm that promise (Rom 15:8), but if the Lord wants to fulfill it for them anyway, then that is His right.
Tell that to Scripture: neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

 

[robert derrick]

The real fact of the matter, is that truly Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of the "house of Israel", and in that time of His 1st coming, who really were... those of the "house of Israel"? That title at that time belonged only to the ten lost tribes of Israel, not to the "house of Judah"...

Jer 3:17-18
17 At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart.
18 In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers.
KJV

Jer 5:11
11 For the house of Israel and the house of Judah have dealt very treacherously against me, saith the LORD.
KJV

Jer 31:31
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
KJV

It's not a mistake that those above Scriptures make a distinction between the "house of Israel" (ten lost tribes) and the "house of Judah" (Jews).

Nor is it a mistake that only... the "house of Israel" is mentioned in the same section as that Jeremiah 31:31 verse...

Jer 31:33
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be My people.
KJV

The New Covenant (Jesus Christ, The Gospel) would mainly be accepted by the lost sheep of the "house of Israel" (i.e., the ten scattered tribes of Israel).

That happened after... Lord Jesus was rejected by the majority of the "house of Judah" (Jews) at Jerusalem (even as it still is today).



What God did with the ten lost tribes, i.e., the "house of Israel", in The Gospel of Jesus Christ, has EVERYTHING to do with His Plan of Salvation, INCLUDING TO THE GENTILE.

And you pass that off as a little meaningless thing, which is actually what the orthodox Jews see it as. I can tell you don't have a clue about God's prophecies about how the ten scattered tribes of Israel would wind up, with the majority of them accepting The Gospel of Jesus Christ, and believing Gentiles along with them taking that Gospel to the rest of the nations. It's obvious you struggle with the Bible prophecy that Ephraim's seed was to become "a multitude of nations" (Genesis 48).

The New Covenant (Jesus Christ, The Gospel) would mainly be accepted by the lost sheep of the "house of Israel" (i.e., the ten scattered tribes of Israel). That happened after... Lord Jesus was rejected by the majority of the "house of Judah" (Jews) at Jerusalem (even as it still is today).

Ye men of Israel, hear these words...Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

The house of Israel crucified the Lord. In Jesus' day, there was no distinction between Jewish israelites and formerly northern Israelites: the house an dchildren of Israel at that time were all one, and they were also called Jews, as Jesus was, who was the God of the house of Israel in the flesh.

Jesus was rejected and had killed by the leaders of the Jews by ignorance of unbelief (Acts (Rom 11:32)(1 Cor 2:8)(1 Tim 1:13), and some did confess faith in Him, but at the cross all abandoned Him by unbelief, and were concluded as so. None stood by Him at the trial and the cross, because none believed Him about His death, burial, and resurrection, even as they did not believe His prophecy, that they would all forsake Him at the cross.

You overlook certain Scriptures, in order to hold to false interpretation of prophecy, and so give out plainly false teaching.

What God did with the ten lost tribes, i.e., the "house of Israel", in The Gospel of Jesus Christ, has EVERYTHING to do with His Plan of Salvation, INCLUDING TO THE GENTILE.

And so He cut off all them born of flesh, that He might bring in all them born of the Spirit, no mater what their flesh. The flesh profited everything in the old covenant, and now profits nothing in the New.

You cling to a profit of flesh, because you have permanently hallowed your carnal-mindedness in prophecy.

And you pass that off as a little meaningless thing,

You pass it off a little blip in the history of prophecy, that the God of Israel died on the cross, so that all is as was before: the old physical seed of promise still has promise with the risen God of Israel, whom they slew with wicked hands, and none of them believed Him at the cross.

with the majority of them accepting The Gospel of Jesus Christ, and believing Gentiles along with them taking that Gospel to the rest of the nations.

You finally said something Scripturally and plainly true. All earth was cut off from the promise of God by faith, while Jesus' body remained in the grave, but with His resurrection, whosoever can be grafted in to the Israel of God by repenting and believing the gospel of the cross, which are now in all nations.

Good job.

 

[robert derrick]

Nah, your accusation is false.

It only shows your lack of Biblical understanding, and instead doctrines of men. Your statement in bold red above, reveals that you are like the Judaites of Acts 15 that were trying to force Gentiles to get flesh circumcised or they could not be saved by Lord Jesus!

Thanks for revealing who you really are!!!

NO TRUE CHRISTIAN believes that flesh circumcision is required to be saved by Jesus Christ!

Welcome to my Ignore List!

That's certainly one way of backing out without grace. Like a real adult, clamp your hands over your ears and go nah, nah,nah...

trying to force Gentiles to get flesh circumcised or they could not be saved by Lord Jesus!

Only a peevish mind would come up with that, out of all I have said. People claiming bloodline promise of Abraham, can no longer remain so, if they are not circumcised outwardly on the 8th day, which is no longer possible with God after the cross: there is no more circumcision outwardly in the flesh.

That is the exact opposite of compelling outward circumcision for anyone pertaining to God.

NO TRUE CHRISTIAN believes that flesh circumcision is required to be saved by Jesus Christ!

And no adult reader would think I have said so.

Thanks for revealing who you really are!!!

Oh boy. What a ridiculous effort to run away with a false accusation. In the end, you have shown yourself unworthy of adult discussion in prophecy of Scripture.

And since I have already concluded you to be of no more value, you might as well ignore what you cannot possibly comprehend. And yet, it's been instructive watching you fail to grasp something, due to your carnal minded nature in this topic. And yet, I have learned more perfectly what I am talking about, in trying to show you.

Also, I have learned a good lesson in future, that when someone repeatedly shows an inability to at least properly understand someone, even if they disagree, then it is a waste of time to keep trying. It becomes obvious that they are purposely getting it wrong.

So thanks.

 

[Davy]

I will put forward this, Jesus said he was sent to the House of the Servants of God. that means the Servants of God = Israel! it's a Spiritual thing ! If one is not within the Holy Spirit then one is not of the Body of Christ. So outside of such are all Carnal religious dupes, because they are of this world.
So as Jesus Christ said, You Must be born again and that means you must have the Holy Spirit to come to know God. not to mention that you can not come to know God the Father but only through his only begotten Son. so outside of such is all totally in vane.

However, don't forget what Apostle Paul taught in Romans 11 about the unbelievers of Israel, that God blinded them, and their spiritual blindness won't be removed until the fullness of the Gentiles is complete. So they reject Christ in ignorance during this world, but at Christ's return they will then have the blinders removed, and only then... will be able to be held accountable if they still reject Him then. This world is simply not everyone's time to have ears to hear, and have eyes to see.

 

[robert derrick]

and their spiritual blindness won't be removed until the fullness of the Gentiles is complete.

And their blindness won't be removed, until they repent and abide not in unbelief, as the apostles did, especially Paul, and many many others have since then: all of mankind born into uncircumcision, that repent and believe the Gospel and are thus circumcised inwardly by God in the spirit.

and only then... will be able to be held accountable if they still reject Him then

All that abide still in unbelief, after hearing the gospel of the cross are held accountable, even unto death.

There are no exceptions based upon the profit of fleshy birth.

The flesh profiteth nothing.

Neither does a bloodline of flesh. Nor an outward circumcision, which is no circumcision with God.

 

[robert derrick]

And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed. (Gen 28)

The same promise made to his father Abraham is now made to Jacob. Their seed of promise, in which all the families of the earth shall be blessed, is that of Abraham and of Jacob.

Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. (Gal 3)

The children of Abraham by faith are now the children of God and of promise, as was Isaac, and are now counted the seed of Abraham and so also the seed of Jacob. (Rom 9:7-8)

Unless the promised seed of Jacob is not the promised seed of Abraham, and so Abraham is not the father of Jacob.

To say that the children of the flesh are still the children of promise and of Jacob, is to separate between two seeds and children, and to separate the seed and children of Jacob from that of Abraham.

Which rejects the Scripture that there is only one seed of Abraham and Jacob by promise. (Gal 3:16)

The children of Israel after the flesh are not the promised seed and children of Abraham and Jacob; therefore they cannot be the children of Israel of God.

Them after the flesh are in name only.

In Christ, who is the promised seed of Abraham and Jacob, His believers now have Abraham and Isaac for father (Gal 3:16)(Rom 4:12, 9:10), and being counted the seed and children of promise, also Jacob for father.

Them after the flesh are now counted the seed of Hagar, as Ishmael was. (Gal 4)