A sincere question about the one new man and covenants made with Israel

This is an honest question. I've often heard that if the millennium exists and Israel has a place of headship among the nations that this is buidling again a wall of partition again between Jew and Gentile. How so is my question? It's said that it would not be fair for God to exalt the Jewish nation over other nations after God made Jew and Gentile one in Christ with equal access to the Father. How would this "exaltation" of Israel being over the nations perhaps be lording it over other people and nations and building dividing walls again? I believe the scriptures portray just the opposite but I'm asking for answers from those who believe it would be building dividing walls again. What is your reasoning for this?

11 Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision” by the so-called "Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands””

12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,

15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,

16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.

17 And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near;

18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father.

19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household,

20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,

21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord,

22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:14-22 - NASB)

Part of my question and thoughts are, have Gentiles forgotten that when they became believers in Christ and part of the commonwealth of Israel (true Israel within Israel) that they were then participating in promises and covenants made to the Jewish commonwealth? How would Christ returning to earth and ruling the nations from Jerusalem during a millennium nullify the one new man He created in Himself? Foreigners and strangers have always been allowed to join Israel since OT times and scripture states it will be so during what I believe will be the millennium. But the bottom line is, if Israel becomes a servant head to the nations following the example of the Messiah they will then believe in how will this be creating new walls of division and destroying the one new man? The whole earth will be able to partake of Israel's blessing in that day so how will the Gentiles be shortchanged and placed back in a position of supposed inferiority? I don't see it as so because the whole foundation is a covenant made with the Jews to begin with.

I'm not interested in if or maybe the millennium will actually exist. I believe it will. I'm not interested in the debate whether the thousand years of Revelation is symbolic or not. My question is, if the millennium will indeed exist then how would that be setting up walls of partition again and nullifying the one new man in Christ? I don't buy that it will because there is no unrighteousness in God. The restoration of the remnant of the natural branches, in Christ and within specified geographical borders, is portrayed as an event that will be life from the dead whose blessings stagger the imagination even now and was part of the orginal promises and covenants made to Israel. It's what the Gentiles signed in to when they became part of the commonwealth of true Israel by faith. How could this restoration of the natural branches in Christ be building walls again?

Comments welcome but if you want to be contentious please give it a rest and just forego. Sound, reasoned and well thought out replies are welcome. Remember we are going to spend eternity with one another. I've failed in the past but there's no need to go at each other. It's possible to talk and dialogue decently and with respect. The faith we have works by love.

Hi Docs,

I just recieved this week : "My Beloved Israel by Steve Yoder, excelent book, I would highly recomend it to everyone. It is recomended by David Bercot an expert on early church history.

'Steve Yoder. In this well-researched book, Yoder discusses the Old and New Testament prophecies about Israel. He sets forth and defends the prophetic view held by the early Christians, the Anabaptists, the Reformers, and in fact all Christians before the 19th century. He describes the persecution of the Jewish people by "Christian” governments and their inhuman treatment by Hitler. He also explains the history of the Zionist movement that led to the creation of the modern state of Israel. He argues that there is only one Israel of God””comprised of both Jews and Gentiles who are children of Abraham through their faith in Christ.'

http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/product3404.html

I will discuss this more later but got to go to work now

The Idea that the physical nation of Israel has a place of headship among the nations in the future is a view that was not held by most of the early Christians, the Anabaptists, the Reformers, and in fact most Christians before the 19th century.

Darby through Scolfield the same stream that popularized the pretrib rapture is the same stream that has popularized the idea of : "physical nation of Israel has a place of headship among the nations in the future "

Jesus said of the leaders of Nation of Israel in his day: "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.”

Whom is this nation that the Kingdom is given to ? Peter tells Us : But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people;.....

Yoder writes on p.22 : "He (Jesus) always condemned them and their system and as far as we know He never regressed on His actions in any way...."

Lets remember the Bible clearly says that God is not a respecter of persons.
The idea that the physical nation of Israel (because of the race of there flesh) has a place of headship among the nations in the future is a view that goes against the understanding that God is not a respecter of persons as well as Pauls arguement in Romans 9-11 that clearly makes the point that : 'They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed."

Who are the children of the promise ? : Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

to be continued

RE: /// but I'm asking for answers from those who believe it would be building dividing walls again. What is your reasoning for this?///

Racism is done away with in the Body of Christ :

'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.'

'Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond [nor] free: but Christ [is] all, and in all. '

'For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.'

' Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

to be continued

Amen proudpapa.

RE: ///Part of my question and thoughts are, have Gentiles forgotten that when they became believers in Christ and part of the commonwealth of Israel (true Israel within Israel) that they were then participating in promises and covenants made to the Jewish commonwealth?///

Physical Israels role as the commonwealth was done away with.

"Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.”

We have a 'better covenant, (an everlasting covenant) which was established upon better promises.'

David-

I am afraid if you can't find people here who agree with your premise, you won't get the discussion you are looking for.

The verses from Ephesians you quoted indicate that all believers comprise the holy temple and God's dwelling place, so I am wondering if you believe that temple worship will be reinstated in the literal millennium you think is forthcoming.

I can tell you that years ago when I believed in a literal millennium etc that the idea of reinstituted temple worship with animal sacrifices to boot really bugged me.

Actually I'm looking for those who may disagree with me as I'm trying to understand better the foundational reasons as to why they disagree. Particularly why if Israel became the head of the nations why this is somehow erecting a wall of partition again and disrupting the one new man. Yes the commonwealth of Israel is now the spiritual seed of Abraham who believe in Christ but believing Gentiles became part of the covenants made with this believing Israel. So why now are some of the promises made to Abraham supposedly no longer valid because there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ. These promises are part of what Gentiles signed in to.

The temple controversy, and controversial it is, is secondary to my question of why a regenerated and restored Israel becoming a priestly servant nation and washing the feet of the nations would be a disruption of the one new man.

I may be a bit getting back to you in more depth but I will try soon. I have read your comments and will again. I may get that book "My Beloved Israel" you have spoken of. I might do that soon.

Yu said Yoder has written,

"He argues that there is only one Israel of God””comprised of both Jews and Gentiles who are children of Abraham through their faith in Christ."

I believe that also. Yet if Israel, emptied of nationalistic self conceit and reliance on their own strength versus God's, and redeemed in Christ, became a servant to the nations under the headship of Christ then how is this destroying the one new man? If one member of this one new man (bless God for this man!)is honored then aren't all members honored? If one member is honored shouldn't all memebers rejoice? I spoke once to a felow Christian about what I believed would be Israel's future as a redeeemd nation and he said that can't happen because there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ. That is what I don't understand.

Thanks to the others also who have responded.

RE: ///I may be a bit getting back to you in more depth but I will try soon///

I look forward to your thoughts and getting a better understanding of your position.

David- how do you know that when God made his promise to Abraham that he (God) didn't have the Church ultimately in mind?

TMK: David- how do you know that when God made his promise to Abraham that he (God) didn't have the Church ultimately in mind?

Docs: I do believe that. The Abrahamic promises are only obtainable through Christ.

26 Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

28 You will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers; so you will be My people, and I will be your God (Ezekiel 36:26-27)

If God puts His Spirit within them then they will be part of the Church because the Church is the only entity on earth that has the Spirit dwell within each individual member. To have the Spirit within they will have had to place their faith in Christ. I believe God had this in mind when He first spoke to Abraham. If this is true why isn't the "You will live on the land that I gave to your forefathers" also true? How would living on this land, in Christ and with the Spirit within, be erecting a wall of partition again between Jew and Gentile since the blessings coming from this would fill the whole earth?

Thanks.

Docs,
Am I understanding you correctly ? are you of the understanding that verse 26 and 27 of Ezekiel chapter 36 is fulfilled through Christ in this present dispensation but believe that there is a dispensational gap between versus 27 and 28, In which verse 28 : "You will live on the land that I gave to your forefathers" will not be fulfilled untill the millennial dispensation ?

Could it be possible that there is not a Gap and that versus 26-28 where all fullfilled at the same time ?

Could that be what these versus are referring to ? :

But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels Heb 12:22

Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27For it is written, Rejoice, [thou] barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. Gal 4

add : Or are you of the impression that 26-28 is only addressing physical Israel in the millennial dispensation ?

Thanks proudpapa again for your thoughts. I just don't have much time tonight but heck, replies don't always have to come immediately. It's fun and perhaps wise to muse a bit and let things percolate you know before answering.

One short thought.

You quoted,

"Jesus said of the leaders of Nation of Israel in his day: "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."

Did that mean He was forever through with them though? He also said,

37 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!

39 For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me UNTIL you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’” (Matt 23:37-39 - NASB)

There is a strong implication of a day and time to come when they will say of Christ, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord." After the UNTIL.

What difference will it make when Christ returns to Isarel and Jersualme from whence He ascended" Where do you believe Christ will return to? It's He that promised to return to the place and nation He left. Will this have any significance for Israel and set them apart in any way? If Christ returns to Israel will this be showing respect of persons and partiality?

Blessings. I'll get back at you.

Docs, You have me searching the Scriptures.

RE: ///It's He that promised to return to the place and nation He left.///

Could you give the Scriptures that you are referring to ?

ACTS 1:6-7.
"Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, "Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”
"And He (JESUS)said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority."

I find this very interesting question and answer. The disciples who had been with Jesus every day for 3.5 years still seemed to have the understanding that the Kingdom would at some point be restored to Israel. You would have thought that if this major prophetic plan that was the foundation of the Jewish nation for years had been changed then Jesus would have made that very clear to them during those years. Even more, here was the ideal opportunity for Jesus to correct their thinking about it, but instead He just says in essence, 'It's not for you to know when this will happen'.

Clearly, if you or I were one of those Jewish disciples there on that day, we would have not taken it any other way than He meant it WOULD happen sometime in God's timing!

Where did Jesus ever state that all those many, many prophecies in the OT that speak clearly of a future earthy Kingdom of Israel were now redundant? I don't know anywhere.

It seems to me that if God spoke in times past and said that certain things would come to pass and they don't, it is a slur on God's integrity. He would be saying in effect 'I've changed my mind' or 'well, it did not quite work out as I said it would'. I don't believe this is right.

Regarding the early church, it is incorrect to say they did not believe in a millennium kingdom on earth. The early Church Fathers did believe in a millennium Kingdom. This view only changed later when the church had drifted away from it's roots. The accepted view of the pre-nicene church fathers was pre-millennial.
For example: Justin Martyr (AD 100-165) in his Dialogue With Trypho c. AD 140, made the following premillennial statement: "But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then he built, adorned, and enlarged, as the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare."

and also this.... "And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place." (Justin Martyr, Dialogue, chapter 81).

Irenaeus (AD160-230) was a disciple of Polycarp who knew the Apostle John said "John, therefore, did distinctly foresee the first 'resurrection of the just,' and the inheritance in the kingdom of the earth, and what the prophets have prophesied concerning it harmonize [with his vision]." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 5, chapter 36, paragraph 3).

ACTS 1:6-7.
"Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, "Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”
"And He (JESUS)said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority."

The question is not being asked in Acts 1.
Luke is simply recalling how the question was asked of Jesus in the past. The context is that it is part of Lukes introduction for what is fixing to take place in chapter 2

Wesley's Notes for Acts 1:6
1:6 Dost thou at this time - At the time thou now speakest of? not many days hence? restore the kingdom to Israel? - They still seemed to dream of an outward, temporal kingdom, in which the Jews should have dominion over all nations. It seems they came in a body, having before concerted the design, to ask when this kingdom would come.

People's Bible Notes for Acts 1:6
Ac 1:6 Wilt thou at this time, etc.? They still held to their old ideas of a worldly restoration of the kingdom of Israel. Their only question was, "Wilt thou restore it 'now'"? After the Holy Spirit was given, this delusion was dismissed, and they understood that Christ's kingdom is not of this world.

Add : Did any one write that there where no millennialist before the 19th century ? I do not believe I wrote that because that was not my understanding.