The 12 tribes of Israel: They be us.

[Stumpmaster]

And so the ekkesia church of God is also referred to as the oikodomo building of God, neither changing nor replacing the other, since the ekklesia is still written as the church all the way to Rev 22: 16. It is an added and complimentary description by God of His church and building.

Hi robert derrick.

Some points for your attention and edification:

• The Greek word "ekklesia" has not been correctly translated in the English word "church".
• The word “church” actually comes from a different Greek word “kuriakon".
  
• Kuriakon actually means “pertaining to the lord.” It is used twice in scripture: 1 Cor 11:20 The “ Lord’s [ kuriakon]supper;” and Rev 1:10, the “ Lord’s [ kuriakon] day.” In those passages it is the supper belonging to the Lord and the day belonging to the Lord respectively.
  
  
• Kuriakon, kirche, and church, all meant simply a religious building originally used by pagans and later used by Christians following pagan customs. Christians originally didn’t use buildings, which distinguished them from the pagans whose focus was on building, statues, ritual and physical objects. [Copied from The Origin Of The Word Church at scribd.com]
• Back in the 1st century the use of kuriakos was for items or property belonging to a lord or master. The pagan temples were said to belong to whatever pagan god was worshipped there, and that god was the lord or master so the temple was the kuriakos or lord's house/property.
  
  You can see how the word would also be adopted for buildings specifically dedicated for use by professing Christians.
  

• Wycliff refused to translate EKKLESIA as CHURCH because under Roman Catholicism it implied CLERGY instead of CONGREGATION.

 

[Curtis]

The church of Jesus does not replace Israel (Replacement theology?), i.e. the church of Jesus is not nor does not become the house of Israel. (Correct?)

Let's look at the house of God:
In the Old Covenant it was His temple (1 Kings 6:17) (2 Kings 24:13).
In the New Covenant it is His temple and the church and body of Christ (1 Cor 3:16, 12:27) (Col 1:18)

The house of Israel was not the House and Temple of the Lord made with hands in the Old Covenant.
The church of Christ is the house and temple of the Lord, the body of Christ, born by the spirit (1 Peter 2:5) in the New Covenant.

If the church of Christ is not (replaced) the house of Israel, and the church of Christ is the house of God, then the house of God is not the house of Israel in the New Covenant. (Scripture of God is very analytic: if A is not B, and A is C, then C is not A.)

If the New Covenant is with the house of Israel, then the New Covenant is not with the house of God, since the house of God is not the house of Israel, because the house of God is the church of Christ, which is not (replacing) the house of Israel. (if D is with B, then D is not with C, because C is A, and A is not B)

But, since the New Covenant is with the house of God, then the house of Israel must be the house of God and the Church of Christ, if the New Covenant is with the house of Israel. I.e. either the house of Israel is the house of God and church of Jesus Christ, or the New Covenant in Jeremiah is not with the house of Israel, which is contrary to Scripture.

Scriptural logic always breaks down with false interpretation of Scripture.

Absolutely wrong.

The church is grafted onto the new covenant that is with the house of Israel.

That’s clear in Romans ch 11.

The church is the church, Israel is Israel, and scripture is crystal clear that the new covenant is with the HOUSE of Israel, which means national Israel, as proven by Jesus’ own words, that He first came ONLY for the HOUSE of Israel, and ordered His apostles to avoid going to the gentiles.

 

[robert derrick]

Absolutely wrong.

The church is grafted onto the new covenant that is with the house of Israel.

That’s clear in Romans ch 11.

The church is the church, Israel is Israel, and scripture is crystal clear that the new covenant is with the HOUSE of Israel, which means national Israel, as proven by Jesus’ own words, that He first came ONLY for the HOUSE of Israel, and ordered His apostles to avoid going to the gentiles.

"The new covenant is with the HOUSE of Israel, which means national Israel, ...and He first came ONLY for the HOUSE of Israel, and ordered His apostles to avoid going to the gentiles."

There is no dispute here, except perhaps that the New Covenant was prophesied for the house and nation of Israel first, and then upon rejection by that nation, it would include the Gentiles. Which was likewise prophesied in Isaiah and confirmed with Romans 10:20.

If you are saying the New Covenant is only with the house of Israel, then you prove my point. All believers in Jesus are grafted into the house of God in the New Covenant, and so are with the house of Israel (Jews and Gentiles alike).

So far as me being declared absolutely wrong, which would include my exercise of logic concerning the house of Israel and the house of God, you have refuted nothing. Not even addressed it. You only proceeded to repeat in another way, what you already said. While I have repeatedly addressed your points in detail. Therefore, this 'dispute' is becoming lopsidedly vain. But I will try once more.

I believe our only real dispute is what I contend is the new nature and meaning of the House of Israel to God, that has been brought in with the New Covenant.

Proposition: The commonwealth of Israel, the house of Israel, and the nation of Israel are one and the same by definition of terms.

Conclusion: There are now in corruptible flesh 2 distinct nations of Israel:

1. that of the flesh only and unbelieving, broken off permanently from God's covenant and promises made to the fathers, which were and are now confirmed by Jesus (Rom 15:8).

2. that of the Spirit (whether of the flesh or not) and believing, inheritors and partakers of God's covenant and promises to the fathers in Christ Jesus.

If you choose to respond again whether to agree or not, I would greatly appreciate it.

 

[robert derrick]

Thank y

Hi robert derrick.

Some points for your attention and edification:

• The Greek word "ekklesia" has not been correctly translated in the English word "church".
• The word “church” actually comes from a different Greek word “kuriakon".
  
• Kuriakon actually means “pertaining to the lord.” It is used twice in scripture: 1 Cor 11:20 The “ Lord’s [ kuriakon]supper;” and Rev 1:10, the “ Lord’s [ kuriakon] day.” In those passages it is the supper belonging to the Lord and the day belonging to the Lord respectively.
  
  
• Kuriakon, kirche, and church, all meant simply a religious building originally used by pagans and later used by Christians following pagan customs. Christians originally didn’t use buildings, which distinguished them from the pagans whose focus was on building, statues, ritual and physical objects. [Copied from The Origin Of The Word Church at scribd.com]
• Back in the 1st century the use of kuriakos was for items or property belonging to a lord or master. The pagan temples were said to belong to whatever pagan god was worshipped there, and that god was the lord or master so the temple was the kuriakos or lord's house/property.
  
  You can see how the word would also be adopted for buildings specifically dedicated for use by professing Christians.

• Wycliff refused to translate EKKLESIA as CHURCH because under Roman Catholicism it implied CLERGY instead of CONGREGATION.

Thank you much.

Very interesting. English church from Greek lordship, authority, and power: kuros. We are called out ecclesia of sin by the Lord Kurios to have and witness His Lordship and authority kuros.

So, the church is the called out ones, but the called out ones are not the church?

And so some would say the church is built by Jesus of the called out ones, but the called out ones are the building of the church, and not the church itself?

In context then of my response to the other, I can see more clearly his point. He should be addressing proper translation of Scripture, not adding to the Scriptures. They are definitely 2 different topics. One by man, the other by God.

Thanks again.

 

[robert derrick]

You continue to flounder around in your confusion. But the Bible is crystal clear.

1. The New Covenant has replaced the Old Covenant.
2. The New Covenant applies to BOTH the Church and redeemed and restored Israel in the future (after the Second Coming of Christ).
3. Israel is presently judicially blind because the Jews have largely rejected their true Messiah (Jesus of Nazareth).
4. God has a distinct eternal plan and purpose for the Church (the Body of Christ, which includes both Jews and Gentiles).
5. God also has a distinct eternal plan and purpose for redeemed and restored Israel (the twelve tribes) ON EARTH for eternity.
6. God's plan for Israel will go into effect only after the Second Coming of Christ. See the prophecy of Ezekiel (and many others).
7. During the Church Age, God makes no distinction between Jews and Gentile, and all are commanded to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Thanks, now we see a crystal clear division of thought, I floundering, you traditional.

Naturally genetic and nationally bred Israel after the flesh (not floundering here, just enhancing the term) will be reinstated to the prietshood of God by Lord Jesus in a newly rebuilt temple under Old Covenant offerings? (Ezekiel 40-48)

Then To disagree with this traditional teaching would mean Ezek 40-48 is either:
1. False
2. A Traditional Teaching and interpretation that is either false or erroneous in part
3. Is Permanently Unfulfilled

No Scripture is ever 'false' nor 'contradictory' with another Scripture.

Traditional teachings aren't as destructive as traditions and commandments of men, but are always suspect by me, until Scripture proves it. I am Berean to the soul. Therefore:

1. Reinstating burnt offerings and sacrifices by the Lord for national Israel (Ezek 40,43-45) is contrary to (Heb 10:5-9). When Jesus came into the world, God said He would not have sacrifice and offerings by the Law, because he had not pleasure in them before. Paul confirms He is speaking of taking away the 1st Covenant, that He may establish the 2nd.

2. These burnt offerings will not be for remembrance of Jesus' sacrifice but for sins at the time. (Ezek 44:11, 45:15-17) This 'remembrance theology' is constructed without Scripture slip around (Heb 10). The remembrance of Jesus' death will be the eternal prints in His hands, and spear mark in His side. (John 20:27, Rev 5:6)

3. Ezek 44:9 declares that no stranger, nor uncircumcised of heart...shall enter into this visionary temple of the Lord's reign on earth. While God called upon His old Israel to circumcise their hearts, such circumcision now and in future can only be accomplished for God by His Spirit in the New Covenant of Jesus. I.e. No more need for the above sacrifices for sin.

Therefore, the visionary temple God showed to Ezekiel CANNOT be after the New Covenant. Not with sacrifices by the Law, which only was of Moses, nor with circumcision of the heart, which only is by the Spirit in the New Covenant. (Circumcision of heart by man's own will of purpose, without the blood of Jesus is now called will worship (Col 2:23))

4) 4) Ezekiel 40:4 and 43:9 was a visionary hope for nature's Israel in captivity, if they would put away their abominations. (Ezek 44:7,13) Jesus was sent by God expressly to confirm that hope, along with all the promises of God to the fathers (Rom 10:20). If Israel had as a nation received Him, instead of having Him crucified, then Jesus as Messiah would have fulfilled the vision as shown. They did not. (I John)

The prophetic vision of Ezek 40-48 to fleshy natural Israel was a promise made, if they did not fail to believe. They did fail. No fulfillment as envisioned by God.

5) God has done away with and annulled His First everlasting priesthood (Ex 40:15), statute (Lev 16:34), and Covenant (1 Chron 16:17), which was made solely with carnal Israel. That which God declared to be everlasting, was conditioned always on the big IF. And so, that which God showed to be in future (to that same carnal and rebellious people) will not be fulfilled, due to their unbelief in His Son, not by God's breaking of His own Word.

Now, will there be a Temple of God on earth, wherein Jesus reigns over the earth? Sure. But not made with hands serving in a priesthood and covenant that no longer exists, because it is no longer necessary. (And I really don't think the Lord would do it just for old time's sake.) I would say the Temple of God, which is in heaven, and one day will be seen in heaven, could be a good contender. It has the ark and everything. (Rev 11:19).

 

[robert derrick]

Since the word of God is unbreakable and not one word can be changed, another word can only be added. The word church means, "a building of the Lord." It "replaced" the word congregation, Greek ekklesia. In other words, it was added. Go to Revelation:22:18. Now you tell me if it matters.

By another's instruction, I now see you are talking about a change of translation, not adding to the Scriptures. The two are much different. Mankind can change translations all they want, but we cannot add nor take away from them. However, if our translation changes the doctrine of Scripture, then we are false translating teachers...

 

[n2thelight]

Gentiles are not a member of any tribe of Israel. The new covenant is specifically to the houses of Israel and Judah. The church is under the blood covenant.

What is a Gentile? Let me help you out, it's simply anyone who is not in Christ including those in that nation state of Israel whom don't believe upon Christ .

God divorced Israel , and the only way back is in Christ ,in that all that do, are Israel.

The Church is Israel

 

[n2thelight]

What happened to the ten tribes of Israel? It has been a matter of deep research for centuries. You can imagine that modern Jews have a vested interest in this.

Around 722 B.C., the Assyrians invaded and destroyed the northern kingdom of Israel. In 568 B.C., the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem and destroyed the first temple.

The custom of these people was to kill the male captives or enslave them. The male captives were not allowed to breed. It was a matter of procedure not to allow their enemies to breed. Then they took their women and effectively breed them out of existence. The research shows even at the DNA level, this is exactly what happened.

So depending how you look at it, the descendance of the ten tribes were carried forward through the women, but their children were fathered by Pagans and raised Pagan.

And this was actually God's policy too...Mosaic rules of war...kill all that breaths accept the virgins and breed your enemy out of existence. No males alive to pick up a sword and avenge their people.

Yet God said He would always have a remnant , correct ?

 

[n2thelight]

The problem is that there is no biblical or historical evidence of this and that is why they are still called lost in the New Testament. Is there wishful thinking? Yes.

The Jews were really big on keeping track of the bloodlines and if some tribes survived it would be a really big deal. And they could trace their lineage back to their tribes. There would be no reason for them to hide from the other tribes.

How can you say there is no evidence? All you gotta do is look at the promises God made to Abraham ,also only two tribes were Jewish

 

[n2thelight]

Please understand the 3 Heaven and Earth ages
Here's a link below

3 Earth Ages

 

[n2thelight]

Sorry, but the church has not replaced Israel.

First of all, the new covenant is still with the HOUSE of Israel, which is national. genetic Israel.

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:

Jer 31:32 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; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

Jer 31:33 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.

Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Jer 31:35 Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:

Jer 31:36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

Jer 31:37 Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.

Paul made it clear God has not cast off Israel:

Rom 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

Rom 11:2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,

And in the above chapter, Paul makes it clear that we gentiles are grafted onto Israel’s tree/covenant, by faith.

Also try reading Romans 11 and substitute Church when it says Israel, and you find that the church is ungodly, that there is only a remnant of the church that believes, but when the deliverer comes out of Zion, all the church will believe and be saved - which is obviously not so.

The church is the church, and not the nation of Israel.

Shalom.

Not replaced, has always been

 

[Curtis]

What is a Gentile? Let me help you out, it's simply anyone who is not in Christ including those in that nation state of Israel whom don't believe upon Christ .

God divorced Israel , and the only way back is in Christ ,in that all that do, are Israel.

The Church is Israel

God the Father divorced Israel for spiritual adultery in Jeremiah 3:8, which is what ended the first marriage covenant- but Jesus marries the Houses of Israel and Judah, in Jeremiah 31.

The meaning of gentile was originally anyone who was outside of the covenant Israel had with Yahweh.

The way gentile is used in the New Testament does not include unbelieving Jews.

In Acts Paul preached that Jesus is the Messiah in the synagogues of the Jews - which also included some gentile proselytes - if your definition of gentiles was correct, the synagogues had both gentiles and gentiles in them.

And Paul also told unbelieving Jews in a synagogue that since they rejected the gospel he was turning to the gentiles, which means - according to you - that Paul turned from the gentiles, to the gentiles:

Act 13:45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.

Act 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

 

[Curtis]

Not replaced, has always been

Absolutely not.

 

[n2thelight]

One belongs to one or the other ,Tree of Life , or the tree of good and evil Period!

 

[Ziggy]

It's kind of cool.
I traced my heritage back to northern Europe. English/Irish..
And if you trace those people back you come all the way to Japheth, who was the first son of Noah.
The Bible says that by these 3 sons came all the Gentile nations.
Abraham was a Gentile.
It wasn't until Isaac that the Lord called out a peculiar people.
They carried the weight of the world on their shoulders.
They were the Banner of the Lord, his army, to bring truth to the world, and God's law.
I wonder which son of Noah was included in Abrahams lineage.
Was he from Japheth or Ham or Shem.
Noah found Grace in the eyes of the Lord.
We are the offspring and inheritors of that Grace.
We are in the Age of Grace.
Jacob came from Gentiles.
God chose Jacob.
Gentiles and Jews
Their is neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ Jesus.
We are the children of Abraham.

Jews (Judah) was one of twelve.
The son of perdition, the lost sheep. Judas.
Other sheep have I that are not of this fold.
We are all under Grace.
And Noah found Grace in the eyes of the Lord.

Just thinking
Hugs

 

[Enoch111]

Abraham was a Gentile.

Abraham was a Hebrew, descended from Eber, who was descended from Shem (thus Semites). As to the title of this thread, that is pure fantasy. Gentiles are not assigned to the 12 tribes of Israel.

 

[Enoch111]

Jacob came from Gentiles.

Where did you come up with this? He was Abraham's grandson. Furthermore God changed his name to "Israel".

 

[Ziggy]

Where did you come up with this? He was Abraham's grandson. Furthermore God changed his name to "Israel".

Where did Abraham come from?

Hugs

 

[Ziggy]

Hebrew = "one from beyond"

Hebrew is a Northwest Semitic language of the Afroasiatic language family. Historically, it is regarded as the language of the Israelites, Judeans and their ancestors. It is the only Canaanite language still spoken and the only truly successful example of a revived dead language, and one of only two Northwest Semitic languages still spoken, the other being Aramaic

I find the geneologies both fascinating and tiring.
Took me the longest time to get through all the begats.
Nut then I started checking out the meanings of the names.
Like from Adam to Noah.
so cool.
I did from Noah to Abraham but I don't remember now.

The twelve tribes, Judah is 1 of the 12..
there are ten (lost)

And yet we all came from Adam.
What was Adam a Jew or a Gentile?
Seeing every person came from him, then that is all of our lineage,
same as Eve is the mother of all living.

We are all God's children.

I guess that's the point I'm trying to make

Hugs

 

[n2thelight]

Where did you come up with this? He was Abraham's grandson. Furthermore God changed his name to "Israel".

Abraham was not a Jew

The origin of the Jews was well after the time of Abraham. When and how did the Jews become Jews? Jews did not exist until many years after Abraham. Abraham's two sons, Ishmael and Isaac were not Jewish since neither Abraham nor their mothers were "Jewish." Esau became the father of the Edomites, a group distinct from the Jews and he had the same father - Isaac - that Jacob did.

Isaac's son Jacob is the one to whom the term Israel was first used, and he got this designation by a mere change of name, not by racial descent. It wasn't long before the term was applied to Jacob's children and then to all of his descendents.

Jacob (Israel) had twelve sons, one of whom was named Judah. When the Israelites entered the Promised Land, the territory was divided among the twelve tribes. The tribe of Judah, being the largest, received the largest portion of land. It was also the tribe from whom the Messiah would later come.

The word "Judean" (later shortened to "Jew) refers to those who lived in this area. The term "Jew" is from the Greek word "ioudaios" (Strong's no. 2453). It is actually short for the word Judean or, more accurately, Ioudas, pronounced ee-oo-dah-yos. A person is termed Jewish:

1. if they belong to the Jewish nation
2. with respect to their birth, origin or religion

So the word "Jew" is short for the word "Judean," meaning a resident of Judea, the area also now called Palestine. The word "Jew" did not mean an ethnic background.

The On-line Bible says: "There are three names used in the New Testament to designate this people:

1. Jews, as regards their nationality, to distinguish them from Gentiles.
2. Hebrews, with regard to their language and education, to distinguish them from Hellenists, i.e., Jews who spoke the Greek language.
3. Israelites, as respects their sacred privileges as the chosen people of God. ..."

Jacob and his sons moved to Egypt, then their descendents came out in the Exodus to wander in the wilderness and finally settle in Canaan 40 years later. But there was no genetic change from their Chaldean ancestry to a Jewish race along the way. Also, there was a mixed multitude who were not descendents of Jacob that came out with them.

"And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle." (Exo 12:38)
Later, the Israelites intermarried with pagans of various nationalities. It is evident that "Jewishness" is not a matter of genetics. There actually is no distinct Jewish race; rather, there is a Jewish culture. The origin of the Jews / Israelites is not a matter of race.

The Origin of the Jews - What is it? Was Abraham a Jew?