Israel.

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

What was to happen to Moses because of his son's uncircumcision? Was God going to kill him, or simply exile him?
Exodus 4: 24 - 26
And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.
Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.
So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

Refer also to Leviticus, where "cut off" and "put to death" are used interchangeably.

Leviticus 20:1 - 6
Then the LORD said to Moses,
“Tell the Israelites, ‘Any Israelite or foreigner living in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the land are to stone him.
And I will set My face against that man and cut him off from his people, because by giving his offspring to Molech, he has defiled My sanctuary and profaned My holy name.
And if the people of the land ever hide their eyes and fail to put to death the man who gives one of his children to Molech,
then I will set My face against that man and his family and cut off from among their people both him and all who follow him in prostituting themselves with Molech.
Whoever turns to mediums or spiritists to prostitute himself with them, I will also set My face against that person and cut him off from his people.

OK let's assume "cut off" includes putting to death. That would accomplish the same thing, ie. a soul being cut off from God's people and promises. In the covenant of circumcision God promised to be the God of those who obeyed the covenant and to give them the priviledge to live in the land. So those who didn't obey it were not his people and not inheritors of his promise in the land

 

[Charlesiii]

OK let's assume "cut off" includes putting to death. That would accomplish the same thing, ie. a soul being cut off from God's people and promises. In the covenant of circumcision God promised to be the God of those who obeyed the covenant and to give them the priviledge to live in the land. So those who didn't obey it were not his people and not inheritors of his promise in the land

What about Timothy's mom? She neglected to circumcise him even though he was part Jewish.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

What about Timothy's mom? She neglected to circumcise him.

What point are you trying to make?

 

[Charlesiii]

What point are you trying to make?

You said "so those who didn't obey [circumcision] were not his people". I think you're putting too much store on circumcision, and not enough on faith. Not that circumcision is really an issue anymore, but it can translate to false theology in other areas.

Faith comes first - obedience comes from faith. In the scheme of things, circumcision/baptism was/is probably the easiest commandment to obey, as it is only done once. But my point was that Timothy's mom didn't circumcise, but is still described as having true faith - i.e. she is one of God's people.

2 Timothy 1:1 -5
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,
To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
I thank God, whom I serve from my forefathers with pure conscience, that without ceasing I have remembrance of thee in my prayers night and day;
Greatly desiring to see thee, being mindful of thy tears, that I may be filled with joy;
When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

You said "so those who didn't obey [circumcision] were not his people". I think you're putting too much store on circumcision, and not enough on faith. Not that circumcision is really an issue anymore, but it can translate to false theology in other areas.

Faith comes first - obedience comes from faith. In the scheme of things, circumcision/baptism was/is probably the easiest commandment to obey, as it is only done once. But my point was that Timothy's mom didn't circumcise, but is still described as having true faith - i.e. she is one of God's people.

2 Timothy 1:1 -5
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,
To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
I thank God, whom I serve from my forefathers with pure conscience, that without ceasing I have remembrance of thee in my prayers night and day;
Greatly desiring to see thee, being mindful of thy tears, that I may be filled with joy;
When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also.

So we really can't have an honest discussion about circumcision being the defining characteristic of natural Israel because you're concerned it "it can translate to false theology in other areas". In other words your theological bias(es) is preventing you from acknowledging that no man could become a son of Israel apart from obeying the covenant of circumcision, and any man in the world could become a son of Israel by obeying the covenant of circumcision. Therefore, membership in Israel was determined by circumcision, and not by ethnicity, race, or genetics, which was the point that started this whole discussion. Being a son of Israel was determined by obedience to a covenant.

 

[Charlesiii]

So we really can't have an honest discussion about circumcision being the defining characteristic of natural Israel because you're concerned it "it can translate to false theology in other areas". In other words your theological bias(es) is preventing you from acknowledging that no man could become a son of Israel apart from obeying the covenant of circumcision, and any man in the world could become a son of Israel by obeying the covenant of circumcision. Therefore, membership in Israel was determined by circumcision, and not by ethnicity, race, or genetics, which was the point that started this whole discussion. Being a son of Israel was determined by obedience to a covenant.

I think your question or premise gets spiritual Israel mixed up with natural Israel, so in the end, becomes little different to a no-true Scotsman logical fallacy.

Obviously, circumcision was a defining sign for natural Israel - it differentiated Israel - the Circumcision - from many of the gentile nations - the Uncircumcision. However, it wasn't the only differentiation in Old Testament times, as a number of nations practiced circumcision (although usually not infant circumcision at 8 days). There were also a number of other laws in addition to circumcision for foreigners aligning with Israel, and exclusion for foreigners of certain nations (and the previously discussed point that foreign women could align with Israel without regard for circumcision, although other laws would still apply to these women). There were many examples of wicked men in Israel breaking laws that would (according to the law) exclude them from natural Israel just as much as uncircumcision would, but these were still seen as natural Israel.

And finally, there is a danger of putting the focus on circumcision rather than faith in the Old Testament being used to justify putting the focus on works rather than faith in the New Testament. Paul clearly outlines that Abraham was the father of faith to the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision, as his faith came before circumcision - circumcision was simply the result of the outworking of this faith and the obedience that comes with it.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

I think your question or premise gets spiritual Israel mixed up with natural Israel, so in the end, becomes little different to a no-true Scotsman logical fallacy.

Obviously, circumcision was a defining sign for natural Israel - it differentiated Israel - the Circumcision - from many of the gentile nations - the Uncircumcision. However, it wasn't the only differentiation in Old Testament times, as a number of nations practiced circumcision (although usually not infant circumcision at 8 days). There were also a number of other laws in addition to circumcision for foreigners aligning with Israel, and exclusion for foreigners of certain nations (and the previously discussed point that foreign women could align with Israel without regard for circumcision, although other laws would still apply to these women). There were many examples of wicked men in Israel breaking laws that would (according to the law) exclude them from natural Israel just as much as uncircumcision would, but these were still seen as natural Israel.

And finally, there is a danger of putting the focus on circumcision rather than faith in the Old Testament being used to justify putting the focus on works rather than faith in the New Testament. Paul clearly outlines that Abraham was the father of faith to the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision, as his faith came before circumcision - circumcision was simply the result of the outworking of this faith and the obedience that comes with it.

Like I said, you don't want an honest discussion because it triggers a theological flag in you. Instead of agreeing with the obvious - no man could become a son of Israel apart from physical circumcision - you search for every loophole you can find. There are no loopholes.

 

[Charlesiii]

Like I said, you don't want an honest discussion because it triggers a theological flag in you. Instead of agreeing with the obvious - no man could become a son of Israel apart from physical circumcision - you search for every loophole you can find. There are no loopholes.

I've no issue with an honest discussion, but first, you have to really explicitly define what "a son of Israel" is. According to whom? (Or we end up with the aforementioned no-true Scotsman logical fallacy).

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

I've no issue with an honest discussion, but first, you have to really explicitly define what "a son of Israel" is. According to whom? (Or we end up with the aforementioned no-true Scotsman logical fallacy).

A citizen of the kingdon of Israel; a member of the people of Israel; a beneficiary of the promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; a member of a tribe of Israel; not a foreigner who lived in the land; not a resident alien who lived in the land

 

[Charlesiii]

A citizen of the kingdon of Israel; a member of the people of Israel; a beneficiary of the promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; a member of a tribe of Israel; not a foreigner who lived in the land; not a resident alien who lived in the land

Okay... So, I believe you are mixing up spiritual Israel with natural Israel, given your definition about "an inheritor of the promises to Abraham [...]". God's promises are for His people, not the world. However, using your other definitions, and my example from before, we know Timothy was uncircumcised, but he would still have been considered a member of the people of Israel, hence Paul's circumcising him before taking him to witness to the Jews. Effectively, he would have been seen as a member of the people of Israel who was living in disobedience. So I don't believe your claim holds.

Acts 16: 1 - 3
Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:
Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.
Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Okay... So, I believe you are mixing up spiritual Israel with natural Israel, given your definition about "an inheritor of the promises to Abraham [...]". God's promises are for His people, not the world. However, using your other definitions, and my example from before, we know Timothy was uncircumcised, but he would still have been considered a member of the people of Israel, hence Paul's circumcising him before taking him to witness to the Jews. Effectively, he would have been seen as a member of the people of Israel who was living in disobedience. So I don't believe your claim holds.

Acts 16: 1 - 3
Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:
Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.
Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

I'm not mixing up anything. I've been talking about natural Israel, of which spiritual Israel was a subset. You brought in spiritual Israel in order to push your theological agenda.

You're confused about Timothy. He would not have been considered part of the people of Israel due to his uncircumcision. Paul circumcised him for that reason.

 

[Charlesiii]

I'm not mixing up anything. I've been talking about natural Israel, of which spiritual Israel was a subset. You brought in spiritual Israel in order to push your theological agenda.

When you talk about the promises of God, that applies to spiritual Israel, not natural Israel. Spiritual Israel includes some of natural Israel, but is not a subset of it. All who are in Christ are spiritual Israel, but not all of us in Christ are of natural Israel (hence spiritual Israel is not a subset of natural Israel).

You're confused about Timothy. He would not have been considered part of the people of Israel due to his uncircumcision. Paul circumcised him for that reason.

The issue is Timothy would have been recognised as an uncircumcised member of the people of Israel, which is why Paul circumcised him. Titus did not need to be circumcised, as he was a gentile and would have simply been recognised for what he was.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

When you talk about the promises of God, that applies to spiritual Israel, not natural Israel. Spiritual Israel includes some of natural Israel, but is not a subset of it.

Yes, but spiritual Israel was the benficiary of the promises only because they were part of natural Israel. Spiritual Israel under the old covenant was most definitely a subset of natural Israel.

The issue is Timothy would have been recognised as an uncircumcised member of the people of Israel, which is why Paul circumcised him. Titus was not circumcised, as he was a gentile.

No he would not have been. He was considered a Hellenist, ie a Greek.

 

[God-fearing]

Okay it's still the church the body of Christ.

Brightfame52 have you ever seen the root word for the church and synagogue both have the same root meaning the gathering.
God said that he scattered and now gathers his people.
Jesus says he is the good shepherd, so what does a shepherd do? He gathers the flock. How? His sheep hear his voice.

This might help you to understand. THIS is Paul talking to gentiles

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 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

Notice fellowcitizens of who?...Israel.

 

[brightfame52]

The Church, the Body of Christ has not replaced Israel, but is Israel in union with her Husband and Saviour Jesus/Israel. Yes Jesus is Israel, scripture reveals this. Who does the Prophet mean as Israel here Isa 49:3

And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.

This is none other than Jesus Christ in whom God is Glorified.

Jn 13:31

Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.

Jn 17:4

I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

Now the name Israel means:

Israel = "God prevails"

Remember when God first named Jacob Israel ? Notice the words Gen 32:28

And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.

The greek word for Israel :

Israel = "he shall be a prince of God"

The risen Christ is the Prince Israel and Saviour Acts 5:31

31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Now this word prince equates to Israel, now understand, this Prince Israel is the Head of His Body the Church, and One with His Wife, who can deny that Christ is now the Head of His Body the Church Eph 5:23


For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Herein lies the great Mystery, that Christ and His Body the Church are One Flesh Eph 5:30-32

30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

So the Church is One Flesh with Israel, the Prince of God, who has prevailed.

If Christ is Israel, the servant of God in whom God is Glorified Isa 49:3

And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.

Then His Body the Church, with whom He is One Flesh, is also Israel, this is the Mystery ! 11

 

[Charlesiii]

Yes, but spiritual Israel was the benficiary of the promises only because they were part of natural Israel. Spiritual Israel under the old covenant was most definitely a subset of natural Israel.

Again, this point is not conceded. Old Testament saints, and New Testament saints, are not necessarily part of natural Israel. So spiritual Israel is not a subset of natural Israel. Think Enoch and Noah, if Abraham does not convince.

No he would not have been. He was considered a Hellenist, ie a Greek.

If that were the case, Paul need not have circumcised him. Paul did so because the Jews they were to witness to would rightly point out that he was an uncircumcised Jew.

 

[brightfame52]

Israel and the Church are the same, Jacob spoke of this in prophesying about the gathering of the People through Christ Messiah, the Seed of the woman, Paul established the same prophesy Gen 49:9-10

9 Judah is a lion's whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up?

10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.

Shiloh is Jesus Christ, and He shall come, do a work [His Cross Work] and it shall be for the gathering of the People, the Church of God out of the jews and gentiles.

The High Priest also either wittngly or unwittinly spoke of the same John 11:52

And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

Now Paul Eph 1:10

That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

Also John again Jn 10:16

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

The word bring is another way of saying gather !

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

This is one of those pulpit slogans that is repeated throughout the world, but in itself it is a very vague statement.
It does not tell us who God considers to be His Israel or what He still intends to do with it.

The Bible answers all these questions, clearly.

Rom 11:26 actually confirms that God uses the word "Israel" in reference to all who are in Christ, because the "all Israel" that is to be saved is illustrated in the previous verses as an olive tree, again containing believers in Jesus from all nations.

Romans 11 is talking about the Jews and God restoring them.

So why do those who love the theology of Judaism call us "replacement theologians"?

This is what people are called who try to replace the Jews with the church. Has nothing to do with loving Judaism, that's a stupid comment. It has to do with believing God's Word and His promises.

Before naming anyone "replacement theologian" we should also be sure we understand exactly who is included in Abraham's promise. Abraham and his "SEED" (kjv). 'Seed" is most definitely a reference to Christ
In conclusion I wish to challenge you with the suggestion that those who wish to replace Christ in this context with the modern nation of Israel are in fact the true replacement theologians.

Jesus isn't a piece of land with borders the last time I checked. smh

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Again, this point is not conceded. Old Testament saints, and New Testament saints, are not necessarily part of natural Israel. So spiritual Israel is not a subset of natural Israel. Think Enoch and Noah, if Abraham does not convince.

Those people didn't/don't exist when Israel was an earthly kingdom. When Israel did exist, before the new covenant, being considered one of God's people was being joined to them through the covenant of circumcision. Apart from women who could not be circumcised, I don't think you can show me a scriptural exception. Quite the contrary. Paul says that the gentiles were lost and without hope.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

If that were the case, Paul need not have circumcised him. Paul did so because the Jews they were to witness to would rightly point out that he was an uncircumcised Jew.

Timothy would not have have the same acceptance in Jewish circles being a gentile that he did being a Jew. It would have been a hindrance to Paul's ministry if he had remained uncircumcised. They wanted to kill him for minimizing circumcision.