Israel.

[Beekeeper]

Duh. What goes through your mind that you would even ask such a question?

But Mr. Clay gave a great answer to MY question did he not?
Made it all look easy.
I have by now asked the same question to a good number of commenters, and not one has come up even near to the same standard of Biblical swordsmanship!
Actually the question was simple and obvious.
I asked it because it foundational to almost every thing we have discussed in this thread.

I am inclined to think that Mr. Fearing's question is of equal importance, as simple obvious questions almost always are.

Mr. F. said: "And that would include the jews wouldn't it?"

Yes Jesus said it: "salvation is of the Jews." John 4:22.
There is absolutely nothing un-Jewish about being a Christian, and there is absolutely everything pathetically un-Jewish about not being one. Rom 2:28 and 29.
In Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem about 3000 souls were added to the kingdom in that day,
These were Jewish men, but "out of every nation under heaven" Acts 2:5.
They spoke foreign languages because they were the the descendants of the outcasts of Israel who had been scattered abroad during the Babylonian captivity.
When God brought back the first remnant of the captives he brought them to faith and salvation, not just to Jerusalem.
When God "set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people" (Isaiah 11:11) on the day of Pentecost He also brought them to faith and salvation, and Christ had already risen.
The kingdom is one and the same.
God once again demonstrated His special regard for the children of the Jews as He brought them to Jerusalem in time to hear Peter, even while they were in un-belief.
His mercy led them to salvation. He made them Christians.
So what of the grandchildren of these men?
Maybe they would marry among the other nations, some continuing to be Christians and some falling away.
Surely God would continue His special regard to them on behalf of their fathers, while yet they do not identify as Jews?
Would God have a similar regard for the children of Cornelius and Lydia, even though their parents are His adopted children?
I am sure God understands who His children will be, but none of us in this time have a clue what we are talking about when we call people Jew and Gentile.

 

[God-fearing]

ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
The bible says to bless everyone, even those who curse us.


God-fearing said:
And that would include the jews wouldn't it?

ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
Duh. What goes through your mind that you would even ask such a question?

Just your responses toward Israel on this thread.

 

[Charlesiii]

The covenant of circumcision was separate and distinction form the covenant of law made at Sinai. The sole covenant requirement was circumcision. If a man wasn't circumcised he broke the covenant and was cut off from the people and promises of God. Being part of the people of God bound a man to the promises of God, and circumcision defined who was of the people of God. Nothing else mattered.

Circumcision was popular with most of the Old Testament nations, and is done for health reasons today. Most of Israel's enemies practiced circumcision - notably the philistines did not, and are therefore often described with the pejorative prefix "uncircumcised".

Circumcision itself no more made a man in covenant with God than taking a bath or a swim makes one a Christian today. What counts is the heart, and a believing heart acts with obedience - circumcision in the Old Testament, baptism in the New Testament.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Circumcision was popular with most of the Old Testament nations, and is done for health reasons today. Most of Israel's enemies practiced circumcision - notably the philistines did not, and are therefore often described with the pejorative prefix "uncircumcised".

Circumcision itself no more made a man in covenant with God than taking a bath or a swim makes one a Christian today. What counts is the heart, and a believing heart acts with obedience - circumcision in the Old Testament, baptism in the New Testament.

Circumcision was the covenant and without it a son of Jacob was not a part of Israel

And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. Genesis 17:9-10​

​

And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. Genesis 17:14​

​

​

 

[Charlesiii]

Circumcision was the covenant and without it a son of Jacob was not a part of Israel

And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. Genesis 17:9-10​

​

And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. Genesis 17:14​

Yes. So it (or rather uncircumcision) excluded, rather than included. Abraham's male descendants remained in the covenant provided they were circumcised. Refer also to Moses, who God was going to smite for uncircumcision, until his wife circumcised his son herself.​

​

But just because the Egyptians (and many others) practiced circumcision didn't mean they had any covenant with God.​

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Yes. So it excluded, rather than included. Abraham's male descendants remained in the covenant provided they were circumcised. Refer also to Moses, who God was going to smite for uncircumcision, until his wife circumcised his son herself.​

​

But just because the Egyptians (and many others) practiced circumcision didn't mean they had any covenant with God.​

Anyone in the world could have been included in the covenant and been a member of Israel if they were circumcised and kept the law. So it was inclusive, not exclusive. Birth alone wasn't sufficient, whereas circumcision sealed it

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Yes. So it (or rather uncircumcision) excluded, rather than included. Abraham's male descendants remained in the covenant provided they were circumcised. Refer also to Moses, who God was going to smite for uncircumcision, until his wife circumcised his son herself.​

​

​

Abraham's natural descendants weren't in any covenant with God before they were circumcised

 

[Charlesiii]

Anyone in the world could have been included in the covenant and been a member of Israel if they were circumcised and kept the law. So it was inclusive, not exclusive. Birth alone wasn't sufficient, whereas circumcision sealed it

You realised you've just changed positions? Before it was circumcision, now you claim its circumcision plus keeping the law. Since no one can keep the law, which is it? How about Rahab, who was neither circumcised, nor a keeper of the law, and yet worse, a prostitute? It's about faith, and always has been about faith - and from faith comes obedience.

The covenant of circumcision was separate and distinction form the covenant of law made at Sinai. The sole covenant requirement was circumcision. If a man wasn't circumcised he broke the covenant and was cut off from the people and promises of God. Being part of the people of God bound a man to the promises of God, and circumcision defined who was of the people of God. Nothing else mattered.

This is what you posted before. No mention of keeping the law here. (Also doesn't explain Rahab, let alone many other Godly women for starters).

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

You realised you've just changed positions? Before it was circumcision, now you claim its circumcision plus keeping the law. Since no one can keep the law, which is it? How about Rahab, who was neither circumcised, nor a keeper of the law, and yet worse, a prostitute? It's about faith, and always has been about faith - and from faith comes obedience.

Rahab was a woman, so irrelevant to the discussion

 

[Charlesiii]

Rahab was a woman, so irrelevant to the discussion

I think its relevant to a discussion about circumcision being the determiner of whether one was included in God's covenant or not, especially given you are arguing that circumcision was the sole determiner for inclusion (plus works now, though), rather than uncircumcision resulting in exclusion. Are you saying that women couldn't become members of Israel, or are you holding that they were born already circumcised (in which case all women would have been members of Israel?!?)

Anyone in the world could have been included in the covenant and been a member of Israel if they were circumcised and kept the law. So it was inclusive, not exclusive. Birth alone wasn't sufficient, whereas circumcision sealed it

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

You realised you've just changed positions? Before it was circumcision, now you claim its circumcision plus keeping the law. Since no one can keep the law, which is it? How about Rahab, who was neither circumcised, nor a keeper of the law, and yet worse, a prostitute? It's about faith, and always has been about faith - and from faith comes obedience.

This is what you posted before. No mention of keeping the law here. (Also doesn't explain Rahab, let alone many other Godly women for starters).

It's like this. If someone becomes a Christian and gets baptized because they want influence at the country club or wherever, then that is not being in covenant with God.

Likewise, ancient peoples who practiced circumcision for reasons other than following God were not in covenant with God.

And those who weren't circumcised, whether foreigner or son of Jacob, were not in covenant with God, or part of the people of God. An uncircumcised son of Jacob could have lived among God's people, possibly, but his soul would have been cut of from God and the promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

 

[Charlesiii]

It's like this. If someone becomes a Christian and gets baptized because they want influence at the country club or wherever, then that is not being in covenant with God.

Likewise, ancient peoples who practiced circumcision for reasons other than following God were not in covenant with God.

And those who weren't circumcised, whether foreigner or son of Jacob, were not in covenant with God, or part of the people of God. An uncircumcised son of Jacob could have lived among God's people, possibly, but his soul would have been cut of from God and the promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Perhaps we're saying the same thing, but I'm arguing semantics? I don't particularly disagree with this post. But that's why I'd say it was more uncircumcision that excluded, than circumcision that included. And uncircumcision excluded because of a lack of faith, because any uncircumcised man with faith would get circumcised. And presumably keep the rest of the law, like King David.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

I think its relevant to a discussion about circumcision being the determiner of whether one was included in God's covenant or not, especially given you are arguing that circumcision was the sole determiner for inclusion (plus works now, though), rather than uncircumcision resulting in exclusion. Are you saying that women couldn't become members of Israel, or are you holding that they were born already circumcised (in which case all women would have been members of Israel?!?)

Since women can't be circumcised in the foreskin, they are irrelevant to the discussion because God commanded men to be circumcised.

 

[Charlesiii]

Since women can't be circumcised in the foreskin, they are irrelevant to the discussion because God commanded men to be circumcised.

If you were arguing that circumcision was required for all the people of God, it would be relevant, as women can indeed be people of God (by faith - like everyone else) and without circumcision (which would contradict your claim). But from your recent post, I accept that's not really what you are arguing, and therefore accept this may not be relevant (unless you are actually arguing that, in which case, it is).

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

If you were arguing that circumcision was required for all the people of God, it would be relevant, as women can indeed be people of God (by faith - like everyone else) and without circumcision (which would contradict your claim). But from your recent post, I accept that's not really what you are arguing, and therefore accept this may not be relevant (unless you are actually arguing that, in which case, it is).

Women could obviously become Israel apart from cicumcision, like Ruth and Rahab, but no man could.

 

[Aaron56]

Circumcision was the covenant and without it a son of Jacob was not a part of Israel

And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. Genesis 17:9-10​

​

And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. Genesis 17:14​

​

​

Circumcision is a troubling covenant for those who equate natural Israel with spiritual Israel.
The practice was to show that the seed of promise would not be dependent on or corrupted by the flesh, hence the removal of the foreskin.

 

[Hallstone]

The subject of the 144,000 is a fascinating subject. It reminds me of Isaiah 56:
Isa 56:4 - For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;
Tools
Isa 56:5 - Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.

It does make sense that the Lord would resurrect His close entourage first, and evidently they are the first fruits of the resurrection who are brought forth just before the wrath is poured out.

To say that there are 12,000 eunuchs from each tribe that are alive in Israel at the end is far-fetched. It seems that they are hand picked first fruits of the resurrection would make the most sense to me.

 

[GRACE_ambassador]

To say that there are 12,000 eunuchs from each tribe that are alive in Israel at the end is far-fetched.

Maybe not as far-fetched as we think, eh?:

Please Be Very Richly Encouraged And Edified In
In The Lord Jesus Christ, and In His Word Of Truth, Rightly
Divided!:

The 144,000 video study.

Amen.

 

[john832]

You can’t just change the number from 12 to 13! Joseph’s sons are 1/2 tribes each which equals 1 tribe, hence the 12 tribes stated by God.

Well then, if that is the case why did Ephraim and Manasseh EACH receive a right to a land are from Gen 18 forward are viewed as separate tribes?

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

The tribe of Levi didn't receive an inheritance of land, so it really wasn't considered one of the 12 tribes

But the Levites shall do the service of the tabernacle of the congregation, and they shall bear their iniquity: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations, that among the children of Israel they have no inheritance. Numbers 18:23​