Jump to content
Online Baptist

The Cross And How Jews Perceive It: Sharing Messiah With The Jewish People


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The Cross and How Jews Perceive It

By Geri Ungurean

Through the years, I’ve shared by testimony of becoming a Jewish Christian. Upon telling my testimony to people in church, I have seen two reactions:

 

1. People are SO excited that a Jewish person has been born-again from above!

 

2. People give me the deer in the headlights look, nod and move on.

I have come to a conclusion based on these two distinct reactions:

The people who are happy and excited about my testimony belong to Jesus and really adore Him.

The deer in the headlights folks just might be lukewarm, and we know what Jesus says about them:

 

“So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." (Revelation 3:16)

 

I am SO blessed that the couple who shared the message of salvation did not pass me by because they knew that I am a Jew. They were OBedient to God and His Word, and shared truth with me that night. They knew that everyone must come to the Father through Jesus Christ. Praise God, I came into His family that night.

 

Everyone knows about the Holocaust. But in this article, I will be taking my brothers and sisters in Christ back in time, to give you a better understanding of why the Jewish people are so offended by the Cross of our Lord Jesus.

 

The Early Church

Here is an account of the anti-Semitic view of Replacement Theology, which surprisingly started with the early church.

 

Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165) who was a Christian apologist, defended Christianity against its enemies.In his work titled, Justin Martyr With Trypho a Jew. He said that the seed of JacOB now referred to Christians and not the Jews. So began the infamous teaching of Replacement Theology.

 

Tertullian (A.D. 160-220) a church theologian from North Africa, wrote a derogatory and very anti-Semitic book titled, An Answer to the Jews around A.D. 200. This man twisted Scripture to fit his errant theology by claiming that the statement made to Rebekah about the twins (Esau and JacOB) within her (Genesis 25:23) was actually a reference to Jews and Christians.

 

He said that the older brother, Esau, represented the Jewish people. JacOB, the younger brother represented Christians. His premise was that the Christians would overtake the Jewish people. He said that the Jews would serve the Christians.

 

Origen (A.D. 185-254) was president of the school of theology in Alexandria, Egypt. He had a profound effect upon the church, by preaching that much of what is written about Israel in the Word, should be seen as allegorical - spiritualizing his interpretations. We know that the promises made to Israel are not open to interpretation. They should be taught and understood to be literal.

 

Origen took such liberties with the Word, claiming that the word Israel can mean the church. Not seeing and preaching God’s Word correctly (rightly dividing) becomes a slippery slope into myriad of heretical teachings. He was a Christian Universalist, believing in universal salvation for all people, and for the fallen angels.

 

Cyprian (A.D. 195-258) was a bishop of Carthage. He wrote, Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews. He maintained that the Jews departed from the God who loved them, and that because they had departed from God, they lost His favor. He taught that God sought out a people who would OBey him, and all promises were taken from Israel and bestowed upon the Christians.

 

John Chrysostom (A.D. 347-407) known as the greatest preacher of the gospel in the Eastern church, preached messages titled, Against the Jews in Antioch of Syria.Many preachers followed suit, and preached anti-Semitism from their pulpits.

 

An influential bishop of Milan, Ambrose, considered the Jews to be infidels, wholly perverse, and incapable of thinking any good thought. He said that the burning of synagogues was no crime and encouraged it.

 

Augustine (A.D. 354-430) was known as the most influential person since the apostle Paul. He wrote, Tract Against the Jews and influenced the church so dramatically against Jews, that derogatory comments about Jews during the Middle Ages were usually called “Augustinian.”

 

Augustine decreed a new eschatological view called Amillennialism, which actually means no Millennium. In doing this, the prophecies in Scripture could be spiritualized, and taught that these were all referring to the church.

 

The Roman Catholic church adopted and adhered to all teachings of Augustine. [1]

 

Martin Luther in his later years turned on the Jews and wrote: “On the Jews and their Lies.” This sermon caused in one night the burning down of synagogues, and the slaughter of over 2000 Jews.

Adolph Hitler used Luther’s teachings on the Jews, to justify slaughtering Jews and finally ridding the world of them.

 

John Calvin, another father of the Great Reformation said:

“Their [the Jews] rotten and unbending stiffneckedness deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and without measure or end and that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone.” (Ad Quaelstiones et OBjecta Juaei Cuiusdam Responsio, John Calvin)

 

As you can see, Replacement Theology is NOT a new teaching in the history of the church.

 

Endnotes
[1] A historical account of anti-Semitism in the church and accounts of persecution of the Jews taken from: The Coming Apocalypse: A Study of Replacement Theology vs. God’s Faithfulness in the End-Times, Dr. Renald E. Showers

 

https://www.raptureready.com/soap2/ungurean13.html

Edited by LindaR
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.   WILL build...future tense.   The Lord

Let's set a precedent:   Gen_9:16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is

I don't know about the intention of the OP, but what actually got posted was an article, by someone called Geri Ungurean. The two messages I got from it were:   1. Any who gave Geri the 'rabbit in t

  • Advanced Member

I've read the linked article, Linda. It is very distressing that the Jews have been so mistreated by people claiming to be Christian.

 

The true church has good news for all mankind, beginning with the Jews, & no authority to persecute anyone. Those Jews who rejected their Messiah, & rejected the Apostolic Gospel did suffer the wrath of God in AD 70.

 

God's blessings are now all in & through our Lord Jesus Christ through the Gospel, & are received individually by repentance & faith. 

 

There is absolutely NO divine mandate for the Jews to suffer the wrath of church or state. Nor for today's Jews to claim a divine mandate for the occupation of the land of Israel & the expulsion of the non-Jewish population. There is a interesting series of notes on Zechariah being posted. We should all note Zec. 1:12-16 Non-one should "help" God administer his wrath. Those who do will suffer his wrath themselves. We are all under God's wrath for our sin, & saved only by his grace in Christ. 

 

No, not "replacement theology." God's covenant promises are being fulfilled to the countless Jews who believe in their Messiah, Jesus, together with believing Gentiles. Sadly, believing Jews are disowned by unbelievers (as indicated in the article) so within a generation or so, with Christian marriage, their Jewishness may be forgotten.

 

I do not think God's plans for the Jews include another great tribulation & slaughter of 2/3. I think that was past in AD 70, & I cannot predict the outcome of events & attitudes concerning the present land & state of Israel, & I don't think Scripture does either. The command to repent will stand to the end of time, as will the Gospel call of the love of God.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

Covenanter,

We reject your false doctrine of preterism.

What happened in AD 70 was not the wrath of God.  It was man's wrath.  General Titus and his invading army was not God.  Nor did God order him to attack Jerusalem. 

Peddle your false doctrine in your own threads.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Covenanter,

 

This thread is not a thread on eschatology or prophecy.  It is a thread about sharing Messiah with the Jewish people.  To the Jews, the cross has been  and still is a symbol of persecution.

 

Please keep on the topic of soul winning. 

 

Thanks.

Edited by LindaR
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Covenanter,

We reject your false doctrine of preterism.

What happened in AD 70 was not the wrath of God.  It was man's wrath.  General Titus and his invading army was not God.  Nor did God order him to attack Jerusalem. 

Peddle your false doctrine in your own threads.

While one could argue just what aspect of God's wrath was at hand in AD 70, I do believe what occurred then was indeed a matter of God's wrath.

 

As recorded many times in Scripture prior to that time, God used powerful wicked nations to administer His wrath upon disOBedient Israel. Even back in the books of Moses God warned such would happen.

 

That doesn't mean what happened in AD 70 was the end times wrath of God, or a fulfillment of all end times prophecies on the matter, but it does certainly fit with scriptural precedence and warning Words of Christ in the Gospels as God's wrath upon specific people for a specific reason.

 

I absolutely agree, that like all lost souls, Jews need to hear the Gospel and be born again in Christ, and when the Lord opens doors for such, we should be sharing Christ with lost Jews.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Okay:

 

I took the time to follow the link and read THE WHOLE article and here's my response.

 

The line from Linda's first post "As you can see, Replacement Theology is NOT a new teaching in the history of the church" WAS in the article and not an inserted comment. Whether it was a calculated move to end the copy and paste there WILL NOT be able to be determined satisfactorily.

 

The article did NOT then rip Replacement Theology but describe its negative impact on Jewish perception of Christians.

 

Perhaps Covenanter's intent was not to "peddle" preterism but to defend a perceived "attack" and "misrepresentation" of his beliefs.

 

HOWEVER:  at the risk of ascribing too much intelligence to the above parties than is warranted -- I believe that either of you could have OBtained the goal aimed at.

 

If this thread is supposed to be Jewish perception of Christianity, witnessing to Jews, hindrances to Jew/Christian interaction, etc KEEP IT THERE!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

In the London newspaper where I used to work we had a Christian Union group.  At one of our meetings, anew young lady came.  She said she was a Christian and a Jew.  One member shouted "Praise the Lord!"  She replied "I am no different from any other Christian, I heard the Gospel and responded.  

 

Today our preacher was Mike Moore from Christian Witness to Israel.  One thing he said was that there is a meeting in Israel every OctOBer with Jewish Christians who want Israel as a state and Arab Christians who want a Palestinian  state, but they all meet in Jesus' name.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

When I was saved, I did not become any less Australian.
However there are promises made to Israel which are not transferable, and there were covenants made with Israel which are not dependent upon Israel.
To remove these things means that God has not kept his promise - and that can not happen.
And the Bible is clear that these specific promises and covenants are not transferable - they are to the physical people of Israel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I don't know about the intention of the OP, but what actually got posted was an article, by someone called Geri Ungurean. The two messages I got from it were:
 
1. Any who gave Geri the 'rabbit in the headlights' look when he/she shared their testimony are not saved.
 
2. 'Replacement theology' is an idea concocted by antisemites for antisemitic reasons, the OBvious implication being that any who subscribe to replacement theology today are antisemites.
 
Whether I'm off or not on those messages, one thing for sure is that the article isn't about soulwinning, but rather it is very specifically making the point that replacement theology is antisemitic in essence and has been the bedfellow of Jewish persecution down the ages.
 

Here is an account of the anti-Semitic view of Replacement Theology...


QED

 

For what it's worth, I'll share some thoughts on this. Someone like me who's grown up an atheist in a secular environment in the 1990s will have had no exposure whatsoever to church history or end times politics or theology, and moreover they will have been taught from very early on not to treat people differently based on race. On top of that, again if they are like me, they will have heard nothing about eschatology, dispensationalism, preterism, replacement theology etc when being witnessed to. Rather they will have heard a very simple Gospel message about their state as a sinner and the call to repent and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and His work on the cross for their salvation.
 
So a new Christian, from a secular background, might get a bit 'rabbit in the headlights' when someone comes up to them with their testimony if they are emphasising their race--it's the PC generation and all that. Someone like me will be thinking "that's wonderful but it's just as wonderful, and no more, if a Mexican gets saved, or a Pakistani, or a Swanhili".
 
Is that naive of someone like me? I think so, since someone's background is bound to be part of their salvation story (and didn't I just talk about mine?). Furthermore if someone gets saved for whom the Gospel is even harder to hear because traditionally the bearers of the message have been their persecuters, then that's a wonderful story about God's victory over Satan's devices.
 
I have a friend for whom becoming a Christian has started her on a journey of reclaiming her Jewish heritage. She read about the Jews in the Bible and then she found out that her ancestors had changed the family name to something 'non-Jewish' to avoid persecution when they came to the UK. My friend has just changed her name back. That should be part of her testimony.
 
But if someone like me doesn't entirely relate to politics involving Israel, or is totally unfamiliar with eschatology and complicated theological doctrines, I would hope that someone like Geri would put that down to cultural/historical naivity and PC upbringing, rather than antisemitism (and being unsaved!). And I would hope he/she would understand that it can get a bit confusing, after hearing a very simple Gospel message and being given to understand that it is one message of salvation to all no matter what race, to suddenly start hearing things ranging from 'race does matter' and 'God has different plans for different races' all the way to extremes like 'there are different gospels for different races'.
 
Is the onus on people like me to get into the Word and understand these doctrines and moreover to learn a bit of history and stop being so naive? Yes it is, but in the meantime we've all got backgrounds that bring to bear on how much we already know.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

The difficulty, I think, in understanding the relationship the 'gentile' believer has with Israel, which has brought about replacement theology, is that we ARE, in Christ, brought in under the convenant made with Abraham, but that covenant was a covenant of promise, disticnt from the covenant made at Sinai. The covenant of Abraham has no end: it is revealed fully in Jesus Christ, and thus, those born again are born to that promise of Abraham, which Isaac, the child of promise, is a picture, as opposed to Hagar, who represented Sinai, and the law. 

 

As believers, we are not Israel, we haven't taken the place of anyone, we have just been born into the Abrahamic covenant, but that doesn't make us Israel or Jews, just a part of a promise given of which was said that all people would be blessed by it. And so we are, blessed by Jesus Christ.

 

In Christ, the wall of partition between us has been broken down-that's why the Mosaic law has been done away for the believer-because it was a wall between israel and the other nations. Once salvation came, it was longer necessary for those who are of faith. As well,it was never given to anyone BUT Israel. Babylon was not required to keep the Sinaitc laws. Nor was Nineveh, or Assyria or any other nation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

I don't know about the intention of the OP, but what actually got posted was an article, by someone called Geri Ungurean. The two messages I got from it were:

1. Any who gave Geri the 'rabbit in the headlights' look when he/she shared their testimony are not saved.

2. 'Replacement theology' is an idea concocted by antisemites for antisemitic reasons, the OBvious implication being that any who subscribe to replacement theology today are antisemites.

Whether I'm off or not on those messages, one thing for sure is that the article isn't about soulwinning, but rather it is very specifically making the point that replacement theology is antisemitic in essence and has been the bedfellow of Jewish persecution down the ages.


QED

For what it's worth, I'll share some thoughts on this. Someone like me who's grown up an atheist in a secular environment in the 1990s will have had no exposure whatsoever to church history or end times politics or theology, and moreover they will have been taught from very early on not to treat people differently based on race. On top of that, again if they are like me, they will have heard nothing about eschatology, dispensationalism, preterism, replacement theology etc when being witnessed to. Rather they will have heard a very simple Gospel message about their state as a sinner and the call to repent and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and His work on the cross for their salvation.

So a new Christian, from a secular background, might get a bit 'rabbit in the headlights' when someone comes up to them with their testimony if they are emphasising their race--it's the PC generation and all that. Someone like me will be thinking "that's wonderful but it's just as wonderful, and no more, if a Mexican gets saved, or a Pakistani, or a Swanhili".

Is that naive of someone like me? I think so, since someone's background is bound to be part of their salvation story (and didn't I just talk about mine?). Furthermore if someone gets saved for whom the Gospel is even harder to hear because traditionally the bearers of the message have been their persecuters, then that's a wonderful story about God's victory over Satan's devices.

I have a friend for whom becoming a Christian has started her on a journey of reclaiming her Jewish heritage. She read about the Jews in the Bible and then she found out that her ancestors had changed the family name to something 'non-Jewish' to avoid persecution when they came to the UK. My friend has just changed her name back. That should be part of her testimony.

But if someone like me doesn't entirely relate to politics involving Israel, or is totally unfamiliar with eschatology and complicated theological doctrines, I would hope that someone like Geri would put that down to cultural/historical naivity and PC upbringing, rather than antisemitism (and being unsaved!). And I would hope he/she would understand that it can get a bit confusing, after hearing a very simple Gospel message and being given to understand that it is one message of salvation to all no matter what race, to suddenly start hearing things ranging from 'race does matter' and 'God has different plans for different races' all the way to extremes like 'there are different gospels for different races'.

Is the onus on people like me to get into the Word and understand these doctrines and moreover to learn a bit of history and stop being so naive? Yes it is, but in the meantime we've all got backgrounds that bring to bear on how much we already know.

Thats a tough one. Abraham was the father of many nations and the nations of the earth were blessed thru him. The Jews were reconned thru Issac the father of Israel or JacOB. Of the flesh. Of course Paul longed for what they had. Clearly in this day. Something else could be going on. Read Zech. Jews are some of the more difficult to soulwin. FOR ME ANYWAY. John 4:22 Salvation is of the Jews. Jesus of course.

For me at this point. Its not about Israel or the Jews even though thats a big part of things. Its about the Kingdom of Heaven and Jerusalem. The Catholic Church said its not right to try to "convert" Jews. Well who wants the Catholic church to convert anything lol. The way they do things.

Soulwinning Jews seems to be a big deal. However we are considered as equals after the fact. Not one above or below. Before the fact they have what they have. Albeit of the flesh. I think that causes some confusion for people struggling to survive in their daily lives. So we are from above. Its hard to convince the natural mind. If we preach the Word of God. Not trying to use rational arguments or anything else but the Word of God. I will PREACH THE GOSPEL TO EVERY CREATURE ON THE EARTH. Be it Jew or otherwise. Edited by Potatochip
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

I have honestly never understood the term "Jewish Christian".

 

A Jew is a follower of the Judaic religion of Israel, not necessarily an Israelite/Israeli. Not all Israelites were Jews, not all Jews are Israelites, (Sammy Davis, Jr., Dr, Laura Schlessinger, etc-Jews but not Israelite.)  The Bible says in Christ is neither Jew nor Gentile, we are instead all the children of God. Outside of Christ, whether Jew or Gentile, all are the children of the Devil.  Jesus broke down the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile in Himself. Hence, one ceases to be a Jew when one is born again, just as one ceases to be a Gentile once born again.

 

(Interestingly, I only recently figured out that the wall of partition Christ broke down prOBably referred to, in a form, the wall at the temple that separated the Court of the gentiles from the areas where only Jews could enter. )

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I have honestly never understood the term "Jewish Christian".

 

A Jew is a follower of the Judaic religion of Israel, not necessarily an Israelite/Israeli. Not all Israelites were Jews, not all Jews are Israelites, (Sammy Davis, Jr., Dr, Laura Schlessinger, etc-Jews but not Israelite.)  The Bible says in Christ is neither Jew nor Gentile, we are instead all the children of God. Outside of Christ, whether Jew or Gentile, all are the children of the Devil.  Jesus broke down the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile in Himself. Hence, one ceases to be a Jew when one is born again, just as one ceases to be a Gentile once born again.

 

(Interestingly, I only recently figured out that the wall of partition Christ broke down prOBably referred to, in a form, the wall at the temple that separated the Court of the gentiles from the areas where only Jews could enter. )

A "Jewish Christian" is an ethnic Jew (a physical descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and JacOB) who is a born again Christian...a true believer in the Messiah Jesus.  Some Jews use the term "Hebrew Christian" instead of "Jewish Christian". 

 

Not all ethnic Jews are followers of "the Judaic religion of Israel".  Except for the ultra-Orthodox and Chasidim in Israel, most of the Israeli Jews claim to be atheists.  There are many non-practicing Jews all over the world.  Israeli Jews are those Jews who were born in the land of Israel.  My sister-in-law is a native born Israeli Jew, but she lives in the United States.  She is also a non-practicing Jew. There are Gentiles who are born in the land of Israel...these people are also Israelites/Israelis.   Since 70AD, ethnic Jews have been scattered all over the world and yet, they are a distinct group of people which God is regathering back to the land of Israel (now they are in unbelief....the "dry bones of Ezekiel 37), but one day the Jewish people will recognize Jesus as their Messiah (Zechariah 12:10).  Two thirds of them will be killed during the Tribulation (Zechariah 13:8-9), but there will be a remnant  (1/3) who will enter into the Millennium. 

 

In Galatians 3:28 where Paul says "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".  That doesn't mean that the Jew has lost his/her ethnicity, but rather there is no distinction on a spiritual level, when we are IN CHRIST.  Does Paul also mean that there are no more slaves.....no more females, etc.?  All are lost outside of Christ.  But your ethnicity remains....one is either a saved or lost Jew and a saved or lost Gentile.  I don't see the relevancy of using Sammy Davis Jr. and Dr. Laura Schlessinger  as examples of not all Jews are Israelites.  If an ethnic Jew (physical descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and JacOB) isn't born in the land of Israel, he/she is not an Israeli Jew/Israelite (Jew).  If an ethnic Gentile is not born in the land of Israel, he/she is not an Israeli Gentile/Israelite (Gentile).  I'm an American ethnic Jew and also a "Jewish/Hebrew Christian".

 

From where did you get that information about the "wall of partition"...that it was "the wall at the temple that separated the Court of the gentiles from the areas where only Jews could enter."?  I don't find that in Scripture.  In Ephesians 2:14-15 it states what "the wall of partition" was:

Ephesians 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
Ephesians 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;

 

The "wall of partition" was "the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances"....had nothing to do with the "physical" wall in the Temple that separated the Court of the Gentiles.  The "law of commandments contained in ordinances" was that "wall of partition"  that was nailed to the cross of Christ:

 

Colossians 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Edited by LindaR
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

A "Jewish Christian" is an ethnic Jew (a physical descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and JacOB) who is a born again Christian...a true believer in the Messiah Jesus.  Some Jews use the term "Hebrew Christian" instead of "Jewish Christian". 

 

Not all ethnic Jews are followers of "the Judaic religion of Israel".  Except for the ultra-Orthodox and Chasidim in Israel, most of the Israeli Jews claim to be atheists.  There are many non-practicing Jews all over the world.  Israeli Jews are those Jews who were born in the land of Israel.  My sister-in-law is a native born Israeli Jew, but she lives in the United States.  She is also a non-practicing Jew. There are Gentiles who are born in the land of Israel...these people are also Israelites/Israelis.   Since 70AD, ethnic Jews have been scattered all over the world and yet, they are a distinct group of people which God is regathering back to the land of Israel (now they are in unbelief....the "dry bones of Ezekiel 37), but one day the Jewish people will recognize Jesus as their Messiah (Zechariah 12:10).  Two thirds of them will be killed during the Tribulation (Zechariah 13:8-9), but there will be a remnant  (1/3) who will enter into the Millennium. 

 

In Galatians 3:28 where Paul says "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".  That doesn't mean that the Jew has lost his/her ethnicity, but rather there is no distinction on a spiritual level, when we are IN CHRIST.  Does Paul also mean that there are no more slaves.....no more females, etc.?  All are lost outside of Christ.  But your ethnicity remains....one is either a saved or lost Jew and a saved or lost Gentile.  I don't see the relevancy of using Sammy Davis Jr. and Dr. Laura Schlessinger  as examples of not all Jews are Israelites.  If an ethnic Jew (physical descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and JacOB) isn't born in the land of Israel, he/she is not an Israeli Jew/Israelite (Jew).  If an ethnic Gentile is not born in the land of Israel, he/she is not an Israeli Gentile/Israelite (Gentile).  I'm an American ethnic Jew and also a "Jewish/Hebrew Christian".

 

From where did you get that information about the "wall of partition"...that it was "the wall at the temple that separated the Court of the gentiles from the areas where only Jews could enter."?  I don't find that in Scripture.  In Ephesians 2:14-15 it states what "the wall of partition" was:

Ephesians 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
Ephesians 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;

 

The "wall of partition" was "the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances"....had nothing to do with the "physical" wall in the Temple that separated the Court of the Gentiles.  The "law of commandments contained in ordinances" was that "wall of partition"  that was nailed to the cross of Christ:

 

Colossians 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

I'm sorry, concerning the wall thing, that I wasn't clearer. What I meant was that it is possible that while Paul spoke of the wall, which was, indeed, the law and commandments, that the language he used, of a wall, may have been meant to stir images of that wall at the temple, not that he specifically spoke of it.  After all, there are all sorts of types in scripture that point to spiritual truths. And I agree it may not be true, but there it is: a physical wall of separation between Jew and Gentile at the temple, and a spiritual wall of separation between Jew and Gentile in the law.

 

As I understand it, the word Jew comes from Judah, the center of which was Jerusalem, where the temple, thus the religion of the Jews, was centered. Many of Israel were not Jews, not following the temple worship after the break-up of the northern and southern kingdoms. Thus a Jew was one who followed the law and temple worship. 10 of the tribes didn't, hence were not 'Jews'.  The nationality of one from Israel was an Israelite, or today, an Israeli. Before they were in the land, they were Hebrews.

Interestingly, the term "Jews" is not seen in scripture until the book of 2Kings 16, and refers pretty much exclusively to those living in Judah or Jerusalem, specifically.  And 'Jewish' is used only once, in Titus. It is a reference to religion, not nationality. Many in Israel did not follow Judaism, and in fact, the nations that didn't follow after temple worship were called "Israel", and that which did was called Judah-hence, the term Jew.

 

All that being said, I don't mean to fight and I apologize if I come across that way. It just seems to me that Jew and Christian are very particular terms that seem like a cross-over of belief systems. Which is why Paul told Titus not to give heed to Jewish fables, or, not to continue to hold to the ways of the Jews. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

I have on my PC, a video that was filmed at a Jewish Bookstore in Israel.  In this very thick book, (approximately 4 inches thich) is one word repeated 6,000,000 times.  It is the word

JEW

It was written in honor of the 6,000,000 millions killed in the holocaust.  Six million.  

They were not all Judean, they were from different tribes, different nations.  Yet, they were all considered Jews enough to be included, nameless but recognized, in that book of remembrance. 

If the people of Israel have no prOBlem recognizing those killed as being Jews, I have no prOBlem with identifying them as Jews either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

Acts 21:39 But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.

It is clear by the Apostle Paul's statement that Jewry was not strictly limited to the tribe of Judah.  Paul was from the tribe of Benjamin, yet he clearly said he was a Jew.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

As I understand it, the word Jew comes from Judah, the center of which was Jerusalem, where the temple, thus the religion of the Jews, was centered. Many of Israel were not Jews, not following the temple worship after the break-up of the northern and southern kingdoms. Thus a Jew was one who followed the law and temple worship. 10 of the tribes didn't, hence were not 'Jews'.  The nationality of one from Israel was an Israelite, or today, an Israeli. Before they were in the land, they were Hebrews.  Interestingly, the term "Jews" is not seen in scripture until the book of 2Kings 16, and refers pretty much exclusively to those living in Judah or Jerusalem, specifically.  And 'Jewish' is used only once, in Titus. It is a reference to religion, not nationality. Many in Israel did not follow Judaism, and in fact, the nations that didn't follow after temple worship were called "Israel", and that which did was called Judah-hence, the term Jew.

 

All that being said, I don't mean to fight and I apologize if I come across that way. It just seems to me that Jew and Christian are very particular terms that seem like a cross-over of belief systems. Which is why Paul told Titus not to give heed to Jewish fables, or, not to continue to hold to the ways of the Jews. 

 Here is an article written by the staff at The Berean Call which answers the question of the 10 (so-called) "lost" tribes and the term "Jew", as found in Scriptures.
 

http://www.thebereancall.org/content/august-1996-q-and-a-4

 

TBC Staff

Aug 1 1996

 

Question: In A Cup of Trembling you mention “Jew” as if Jews were “all of Israel.” But the word “Jew” only describes Judeans. When the Bible means all 12 tribes it calls them “Israel.” You also stated that Jesus was a Jew;...but the Bible doesn’t specifically say he was. You assert that the biblical land of Palestine was promised to the “Jewish people.” You are mistaken, it was promised to all 12 tribes. The Jews of Jesus’ day were not all Israelites, but Edomites, Hittites, Hivites, Canaanites, etc. None of the 10 tribes returned from the Assyrian captivity. You will have to show yourself a Berean. Enclosed is a concise list [of reference books] to get you started.

 

Response: Thank you for your letter. It is not necessary to consult the many sources you listed. The Bible is sufficient. If those recognized as Jews around the world do not represent the 12 tribes of Israel, then God is a liar. He promised that Israel would “not cease from being a nation for ever” (Jeremiah 31:35-36); that He would “bring again the captivity of JacOB, and have mercy upon the whole house of Israel (Ezekiel 39:25); and that one day the Messiah would reign over the “house of JacOB [israel]” (Isaiah 2:1-5; Luke 1:33, etc.). Christ himself promised that His disciples would reign “on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30, etc.). If those called Jews do not include all 12 tribes today, then these promises cannot be fulfilled, for there is no other people who have been preserved as a single ethnic group who could possibly be the “real Jews” or even the 10 allegedly lost tribes.

 

In 1 Chronicles 34 and 35 we have the revival under Josiah 100 years after the 10 tribes were carried into Assyria; and we find these same 10 tribes of Israel dwelling in their cities and worshiping the Lord. (Jeremiah 2:4, Micah 3:1, etc). give the word of the Lord to the “house of Israel.” Indeed, James writes his epistle “to the twelve tribes scattered abroad” (James 1:1); and Paul declares that in his day “our twelve tribes [were] serving God” (Acts 26:7). I’ll accept what the Bible says above the historians, liberal or otherwise.

 

The usage of the word “Jew” in the Bible proves that after the return from Babylon all Israelites were called Jews. Over and over we have the statement that all men are either Jews or Gentiles (Romans 2:9; 1 Corinthians 10:32; Galatians 3:28; Ephesians 2:11-18, etc.). There is no third category for the 10 “lost tribes” or for any other descendants of Israel. The Jews must be it! Jesus was called “king of the Jews” and didn’t deny it. And He was of the tribe of Judah, so of course, as the Messiah, He was a Jew even in the narrowest sense, and had to be.

 

 

"the nations that didn't follow after temple worship were called "Israel"

The "nations" were never called "Israel".  The "nations" were descriptive of the Gentiles (goy-ee  Strongs Hebrew Dictionary #1471).  We are now in "The times of the Gentiles" (Luke 21:24).
 

 

and that which did was called Judah-hence, the term Jew.

It is true that the word Jew comes from the word "Judah".  However, as the above article states, after the return of the Israelites from Babylon, they were all called "Jews".

 

The Jewish people are the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and JacOB, not just the tribe of Judah.  This group of people are called "Jews".  The word "Jewish" in Titus is descriptive of the fables.  Judaism is the religion that is practiced by Jews.  But not all Jews (and I'm speaking of Jews that do not believe in Jesus Christ and are lost) practice the religion of Judaism. I grew up in Reform Judaism, which is basically similar to liberal Christianity.  There are 3 main branches (or sects) of Judaism: Orthodox (my grandparents were Orthodox Jews from Russia), Conservative, and Reform.  There are also different groups within those three branches (or sects) of Judaism.  Modern Judaism is more Rabbinical and Talmudic than it is Biblical (Old Testament).

Edited by LindaR
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Here is an article written by the staff at The Berean Call which answers the question of the 10 (so-called) "lost" tribes and the term "Jew", as found in Scriptures.
 
http://www.thebereancall.org/content/august-1996-q-and-a-4
 
TBC Staff
Aug 1 1996
 
Question: In A Cup of Trembling you mention “Jew” as if Jews were “all of Israel.” But the word “Jew” only describes Judeans. When the Bible means all 12 tribes it calls them “Israel.” You also stated that Jesus was a Jew;...but the Bible doesn’t specifically say he was. You assert that the biblical land of Palestine was promised to the “Jewish people.” You are mistaken, it was promised to all 12 tribes. The Jews of Jesus’ day were not all Israelites, but Edomites, Hittites, Hivites, Canaanites, etc. None of the 10 tribes returned from the Assyrian captivity. You will have to show yourself a Berean. Enclosed is a concise list [of reference books] to get you started.
 
Response: Thank you for your letter. It is not necessary to consult the many sources you listed. The Bible is sufficient. If those recognized as Jews around the world do not represent the 12 tribes of Israel, then God is a liar. He promised that Israel would “not cease from being a nation for ever” (Jeremiah 31:35-36); that He would “bring again the captivity of JacOB, and have mercy upon the whole house of Israel (Ezekiel 39:25); and that one day the Messiah would reign over the “house of JacOB [israel]” (Isaiah 2:1-5; Luke 1:33, etc.). Christ himself promised that His disciples would reign “on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30, etc.). If those called Jews do not include all 12 tribes today, then these promises cannot be fulfilled, for there is no other people who have been preserved as a single ethnic group who could possibly be the “real Jews” or even the 10 allegedly lost tribes.
 
In 1 Chronicles 34 and 35 we have the revival under Josiah 100 years after the 10 tribes were carried into Assyria; and we find these same 10 tribes of Israel dwelling in their cities and worshiping the Lord. (Jeremiah 2:4, Micah 3:1, etc). give the word of the Lord to the “house of Israel.” Indeed, James writes his epistle “to the twelve tribes scattered abroad” (James 1:1); and Paul declares that in his day “our twelve tribes [were] serving God” (Acts 26:7). I’ll accept what the Bible says above the historians, liberal or otherwise.
 
The usage of the word “Jew” in the Bible proves that after the return from Babylon all Israelites were called Jews. Over and over we have the statement that all men are either Jews or Gentiles (Romans 2:9; 1 Corinthians 10:32; Galatians 3:28; Ephesians 2:11-18, etc.). There is no third category for the 10 “lost tribes” or for any other descendants of Israel. The Jews must be it! Jesus was called “king of the Jews” and didn’t deny it. And He was of the tribe of Judah, so of course, as the Messiah, He was a Jew even in the narrowest sense, and had to be.
 

The "nations" were never called "Israel".  The "nations" were descriptive of the Gentiles (goy-ee  Strongs Hebrew Dictionary #1471).  We are now in "The times of the Gentiles" (Luke 21:24).
 

It is true that the word Jew comes from the word "Judah".  However, as the above article states, after the return of the Israelites from Babylon, they were all called "Jews".
 
The Jewish people are the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and JacOB, not just the tribe of Judah.  This group of people are called "Jews".  The word "Jewish" in Titus is descriptive of the fables.  Judaism is the religion that is practiced by Jews.  But not all Jews (and I'm speaking of Jews that do not believe in Jesus Christ and are lost) practice the religion of Judaism. I grew up in Reform Judaism, which is basically similar to liberal Christianity.  There are 3 main branches (or sects) of Judaism: Orthodox (my grandparents were Orthodox Jews from Russia), Conservative, and Reform.  There are also different groups within those three branches (or sects) of Judaism.  Modern Judaism is more Rabbinical and Talmudic than it is Biblical (Old Testament).


I never said anything about 'lost tribes', though I am aware of that argument, and like you, disagree with it. And when I mentioned the nations that didn't follow the temple worship, that was a slip of the finger-I did mean the tribes, the ten tribes of the northern kingdom of Israel, as opposed to the 2-1/2 of the southern kingdom of Judah.

However, regardless of how the terms are used today, the word Jew has its beginnings in the religion, not the nationality, which is my point, and personally, if I had been of Israeli origin, and Jewish faith, I would keep the former, and reject the latter, being based, as it is, upon that which Jesus Christ brought to fulfillment in His life, death and resurrection. But I am certainly not the boss of you-terms have changed, I get it. But I look at it kind of like this: even though in many countries, Americans in general are considered Christians, doesn't make it so. Or, if we were all called Mormons as a general term to refer to all Americans, I would stuill repudiate it because of where it comes from. I think origins are important. However, we know not all think that way, which is why so many believers are comfortable with Christmas and Easter and Halloween, because roots no longer matter to most. Its all about what it means to ME today.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I find this interesting - before "Jews", or "Israel", all were gentiles. And God called a gentile named Abraham... and from his loins he picked out a people to do his blessings upon mankind... and God became man!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Dear LindaR and fellow Lovers of Israel,

 

Thank you for the fine article by Geri Ungurean, "The Cross and How Jews Preceive it." It is my hope that all of the brethren on OnLine Baptists read it and weep.

 

"Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee." Psalm 122:6

 

Brethren, we should not only pray for the salvation of the sons of Isreal, but we should love the sons of Israel.

 

God will one day, during the Tribulation Period, raise up the nation of Israel, per numerous Old Testament prophesies and Covenants. The Gentile nations of the gospel of grace are grafted into the tree of Israel. One day God will cause the 'tree' to ripen to maturity is His due time as recorded in the Book of Romans, Revelation, Zephaniah, Zechariah, Malachi, et al. When the 'fulness of the Gentiles,' Romans 11:25, are fulfilled God will once again use the sons of Abraham, Isaac and JacOB, to fill the earth with His glory.

 

'Old Fashioned Preacher' is correct. The perception of 'Replacement Theology' has caused undue harm to our Jewish friends and is one of the reasons why Jews will not listen to the gospel of Jesus Christ.  'Replacement Theology' has hurt the cause of Jesus Christ and soul winning efforts towards the Jewish race since its inception. Like Calvinism, and other false doctrines, it breeds disOBedience to soul winning efforts and twisted logic to the promises of a Covenant keeping God. 

 

AlanTaiwan

Edited by AlanTaiwan
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I would never term the phrase "replacement theology".

It is or should be properly called "inclusion theology", as we have been included into the family of those to whom Christ died and arose for.

 

Romans 9 -

 

5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Genevapreacher,

 

How can 'Replacement Theology' be properly called 'Inclusion Theology'?  The Church is not 'included' in the nation of Israel.  The nation of Israel is a totally distinct group of people....it (the nation of Israel) is NOT the Church.  This is what 'Replacement Theology' teaches....that  the Church has REPLACED the nation of Israel as God's people and that God is finished with the nation of Israel. 

 

Read Romans 9-11 in context. 

 

Here is a link to a great expository study of Romans:

 

The Epistle to the Romans (a verse by verse study)

*Romans 9

 

*Romans 10

 

*Romans 11

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Genevapreacher,

 

How can 'Replacement Theology' be properly called 'Inclusion Theology'?  The Church is not 'included' in the nation of Israel.  The nation of Israel is a totally distinct group of people....it (the nation of Israel) is NOT the Church.  This is what 'Replacement Theology' teaches....that  the Church has REPLACED the nation of Israel as God's people and that God is finished with the nation of Israel. 

 

We were graft in the body of believers (branches of the true vine). We all, as believers in God (in Spirit in the O.T.), and the Lord Jesus (God in flesh in the N.T.)

and he made of 'two', one body of believers.

 

It's not that Israel was 'something else' in the O.T., true believers were always the church, they just enlarged their 'nationality' to include us as gentile believers in Jesus as God in human form.

 

Acts 7 -

38This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

 

I don't see why that is so hard to see.

Edited by Genevanpreacher
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

We were graft in the body of believers (branches of the true vine). We all, as believers in God (in Spirit in the O.T.), and the Lord Jesus (God in flesh in the N.T.)

and he made of 'two', one body of believers.

 

It's not that Israel was 'something else' in the O.T., true believers were always the church, they just enlarged their 'nationality' to include us as gentile believers in Jesus as God in human form.

 

Acts 7 -

38This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

 

I don't see why that is so hard to see.

The nation of Israel was NEVER called the Church in the OT...and it is NEVER called the Church in the NT.  That's what Replacement Theology teaches.

 

Acts 7:38 doesn't say that nation of Israel was the Church....the Greek word for "church" in that verse is "ekklesia" and it means "called out assembly".  It does not mean that the nation of Israel was ever the Church, the Body of Christ.  You won't find the word "church" in the OT at all.

 

So the reason "why it is so hard to see" is because, like SFIC said, it isn't there.

 

The Body of Christ/the NT Church began at Pentecost (Acts 2), not in the Old Testament with the nation of Israel.  Teaching that the nation of Israel was always "the church" is teaching Replacement Theology.  Just because you don't use the term Replacement Theology and use Inclusion Theology, doesn't change the facts. 

 

There is NO Body of Christ in the OT.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The nation of Israel was NEVER called the Church in the OT...and it is NEVER called the Church in the NT.  That's what Replacement Theology teaches.

 

Acts 7:38 doesn't say that nation of Israel was the Church....the Greek word for "church" in that verse is "ekklesia" and it means "called out assembly".  It does not mean that the nation of Israel was ever the Church, the Body of Christ.  You won't find the word "church" in the OT at all.

 

So the reason "why it is so hard to see" is because, like SFIC said, it isn't there.

 

The Body of Christ/the NT Church began at Pentecost (Acts 2), not in the Old Testament with the nation of Israel.  Teaching that the nation of Israel was always "the church" is teaching Replacement Theology.  Just because you don't use the term Replacement Theology and use Inclusion Theology, doesn't change the facts. 

 

There is NO Body of Christ in the OT.

 

 

 

The Tabernacle of the congregation is never mentioned in the Old Testament?

Here is a link, in which you will find it multiple times -

 http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/search.php?q=+tabernacle+of+the+congregation&hs=1 

The Church is the Congregation of believers, and that is who were worshiping the Lord in the Old Testament is it not?

And just who was the God Israel worshiped? The Godhead, which was also Jesus, as per John 1:1.

The scriptures are clear in this, and they don't need me to defend them, as well as you to claim the 'church' didn't exist in the O.T.

This is simply ridiculous, in my humble opinion, that anyone would limit God, who is one with Jesus Christ,

and the Holy Spirit, according to 1 John 5:7, and John 1:1, as well as John 1:14, and many other scriptures that I

am sure, as a believer in the Son of the Living God, you know, that the Lord would limit his church to just the N.T.

Edited by Genevanpreacher
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The Tabernacle of the congregation is never mentioned in the Old Testament?

Here is a link, in which you will find it multiple times -

 http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/search.php?q=+tabernacle+of+the+congregation&hs=1 

The Church is the Congregation of believers, and that is who were worshiping the Lord in the Old Testament is it not?

And just who was the God Israel worshiped? The Godhead, which was also Jesus, as per John 1:1.

The scriptures are clear in this, and they don't need me to defend them, as well as you to claim the 'church' didn't exist in the O.T.

This is simply ridiculous, in my humble opinion, that anyone would limit God, who is one with Jesus Christ,

and the Holy Spirit, according to 1 John 5:7, and John 1:1, as well as John 1:14, and many other scriptures that I

am sure, as a believer in the Son of the Living God, you know, that the Lord would limit his church to just the N.T.

No, The Church is not the Congregation of believers in the Old Testament.  Using different terminology isn't going to change the facts that the Church, the BODY OF CHRIST did not begin before Pentecost.  That is NOT limiting the Church to just the NT. because there was NO Church in the OT.

 

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus said "I WILL BUILD my Church...."  future tense.  This means that Christ's building of His Body was yet future.

The Apostle Paul called the Church a  mystery, did he not? (Ephesians 3:1-11)

 

The nation of Israel was not, and has never been the Body of Christ....either in the OT or the NT.  Thay are two separate and distinct entities throughout Scriptures.

Therefore, the conclusion of the matter of the nation of Israel existing as the Church in the OT is erroneous and what you are teaching is indeed Replacement Theology.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

And just who was the God Israel worshiped? The Godhead, which was also Jesus, as per John 1:1.

 

 

Sir, that was part of the Jew's prOBlem in why they rejected the Lord Jesus Christ. They didn't worship the Godhead; they only believed in (and worshiped) one single God...

 

The Old Testament does refer to the Godhead...just as it refers to the Lord's death, burial, and resurrection; however, the Jews didn't see it...and they still don't see it today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...