RE: [NC2House] The Big Flaw

Originally from: Joe

Quote: "Your view I believe is
more
the traditional Christian pro-Israel viewpoint that brings us in
through a
spiritual adoption."

Brian,

I'd like to address the above quote. For clarification, could you mention any traditional Christian viewpoints that explicitly make the connection between gentiles and Ephraim as I do? I know that some have taught that the church is the "new Israel" but they just leave it at that...no understanding of the two houses within the church, no understanding of gentiles as Ephraim, and no belief in any future for the current state of Israel that includes the gentiles within her borders as well, in the purposes of God. All of these are definitely NOT my misunderstandings, so in your linkage of my view to "traditional" viewpoints, I'd like to see documentation for my own study purposes.

Also, no need to go into the adoption issue. I have read and entirely agree with Batya's analysis of the adoption theme in scripture. More importantly, it is not my view that gentiles are merely "adopted" any more than believing Jews are. For me to say that would be to say that Christ is adopted, which would be blasphemous. I am "one spirit with the Lord." As the bride of Christ, I am "one flesh" with Him. What is true of Him is true of me, but it is because of Him, not me! I inherit through His flesh, and His flesh definitely was not adopted, as I said. I'd like to see you at least acknowledge that I am not teaching the "adoption" thing.

One more point. You deny me the right to call my own position a "physical/spiritual" view. Why? Does not Jesus have a physical body? If so, then I have every right to call it a physical view, and not purely spiritual.

All of this revolves around whether anyone has the faith to believe in what is unseen. My union with Messiah is not open to the senses, but it is very real! Only faith can grasp it. That is why I don't expect folks without that same faith, ie like the rabbinical Jews, to acknowledge my true identity as Ephraim Israel UNTIL they themselves have been given the gift of faith to grasp who I am...who I am in Messiah, that is.

Shalom,

Joe

brian hennessy <(Address removed)> wrote:
Joe – More correctly, I would say my position is a physical/spiritual one and yours is strictly a spiritual one. You seem to place no emphasis on our own physical descendancy and 100% on our spiritual adoption through Jesus. Although I see our spiritual entrance as the first and foremost entrance into the promise to Abraham – i.e. being in Christ – I rejoice in the belief that I am ALSO a grafted-in physical descendant. Your view I believe is more the traditional Christian pro-Israel viewpoint that brings us in through a spiritual adoption. Unfortunately, the word "adopt" is never applied to us in the NT as regards our relationship to Abraham's family It just flatly declares us to be Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. (Gal 3:29) We are only described as adopted as sons of God (Rom 8:15). The lineage of Jesus – your only concession to biological connection it appears
– I believe just qualifies Him to be the promised Messiah and Son of David who will reunite and restore Israel to its promised position of glory and prominence. Your attempt to somehow get his Abrahamic genes into our physical bodies is a stretch in my opinion and unsupported by Scripture. So that's where we stand. And once again I think we will be forced to leave it there since neither of us seems able to convince the other. And that's fine. God will reveal all things shortly and then you can apologize. (Just kidding!) I love you brother. After Friday I'm off to the Outer Banks for two weeks of surf and sun., so I'll be going off the air. Have a great rest of July all!
Blessings, Brian

Brian J. Hennessy
REMAX CENTRAL
1110 N. Broad St
Lansdale, PA 19446
215–362–226 Ext 1786

From: Litkah ben Joseph

Reply-To: (Address removed)
To: (Address removed)
Subject: RE: [NC2House] The Big Flaw
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:39:31 -0700 (PDT)
Brian,
I see something in this that we can agree upon. We both reject Batya's "big
flaw" in that we feel that all of the redeemed from the beginning of
creation until the Kingdom to come are Abraham's seed and heirs according
to the promise. In both of our systems, there is no room for a 2nd
classification of those who are not seed. But, where we do differ,
obviously is how one is considered seed. Your position is that it is
physical/biological descent wheras mine is a physical/spiritual descent
that is through mystical union and one-ness with Messiah and HIS physical
descent.
Shalom,
Joe
brian hennessy wrote:
"Now, Brian....I think you mentioned a while ago that you struggled with
this part of her teaching in your desire to come to assurance that you are
a
biological descendent. You recognized that this concession on her point
completely militates against coming to such assurance. Afterall, how the
heck is one to know whether they are a "sort-of gentile" or a "true
gentile?" And, you have solved this for yourself by rejecting Batya's
concession on this point. You have come (if I am reading you correctly) to
an absolutist position that states that there really were no valid examples
in Scripture of true gentiles becoming Israel. In your view those examples
would have been only apparent, and you instead choose to believe that
somehow these folks must have Abrahamic blood in their veins (even if they
predate Abraham!)
I would say that you have made gains in the area of consistency over and
against Batya's version, but I wonder at what cost. Have you lost a certain
degree of Scriptural footing that perhaps Batya has in advantage over you,
in that she deals with the text honestly about these "true gentiles."
Joe – Your analysis is correct. I have moved beyond what Batya is saying
(or
said). She allowed for some gentiles from other families to be included,
more as a bridge of agreement to those who cannot explain every personage
in
the Bible who does not appear to have a direct link to Abraham. I began
there, too. But then I realized there was a "flaw" as you said. So for me
it
makes sense to believe ALL are physical descendants. It is more in line
with
Scripture and removes all doubt if we are or aren't. Your position goes
even
further than Batya it seems to almost negate the possibilty that the
majority of gentile believers are descendants. And are content to "adopt"
most into the family through Christ. To me that is an acceptable position
since it least places you inside Israel. I just believe it stops short of
what the Scriptures indicate and ultimaetly esults in a weak and
indefensible position when push comes to shove. It is true that believing
as
I do can be seen as indefensible becomes it is basically a step of faith.
But I am quite comfortable with it. In fact the more we discussit, the
stronger I feel about it. So this discussion has had the effect of causing
me to test the strength of the boat I am in.
One thought regarding a former post where you said that if I believed
Gentiles are really Abe's seed, doesn't that really make us fake gentiles?
Or something to that effect. I didn't address that directly. But the answer
is no.Just look at the situation of the Northern Kingdom (Ephraim). The
minute judgment was pronounced on them by God through the prophet Hosea in
which they were declared Loammi – "not My people" – they were not His
people. They became therefore, gentiles. This happened even before the
sentence of exile was executed. Like the courtroom verdict of "guilty," the
imprisonment was just a matter of time. So the Assyrian invasion that
finally swept them away and distributed them among the gentiles was just a
formality. They had lived like gentiles in the land so they were divorced
by
God and joined the rest of the gentile world as "not my people." They still
carried the bloodline with them, but it didn't do them any good. Unless God
had mercy upon them and gave them a way back into the family (which Hosea
said would happen) – they were as separated from God and the promises to
Abraham as any other gentile. And would suffer the same eternal fate.
"Gentile" is a theological term, a definition of your spiritual
relationship
to God, as well as a geneological statement. Those "gentile israelites"
became the wild olive branches that Paul regrafts back into the cultivated
olive tree through faith in Jesus. God's way home for the lost and
scattered
seed from the Northern Kingdom. And the necessary step for those who God
allowed to stay home (Judah). The ones "who are near and the far"which Paul
spoke of in Ephesians 2. The ones Jesus typified in the parable of the
prodigal son. The prodigal was Ephraim who had gone out and lived as a
gentile. The other brother represented the Jews who stayed home and kept
the
law and tried to earn the Father's love through obedience but never
experienced His love through mercy. If ever there was a teaching that
explained the restoration of these "two blood brothers it is that teaching.
Hope that helps.
Blessing, Brian
From: Litkah ben Joseph
Reply-To: (Address removed)
To: (Address removed)
Subject: [NC2House] The Big Flaw
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:05:38 -0700 (PDT)
Shalom all,
I think it would be beneficial to narrow down one of the points in our
discussion about the Wootten's version of the two house teaching.
I give Batya credit for acknowledging that there are several legitimate
examples throughout Scripture of gentiles who though not literally and
biologically descended from Abraham are still considered Israel.
To make a place for this phenomenon in her teaching, she makes an
"addendum" to the physical doctrine by stating that though God's "primary
purpose" is to gather the literal Abrahamic descendents, He gathers a
minority as well who are not biological descendents. It gets pretty
interesting as you follow her train of thought in trying to salvage the
physical doctrine, ie that gentile believers can feel confident that they
physically descend from Abraham, while explaining the difficulty of the
"true gentiles."
She teaches that according to Torah, when a "foreigner" observes the 3
conditions of circumcision, Passover and sojourning, then they are
considered "physical" Israelites. Now, I know that she is not pretending
that somehow by observing these 3 things that a gentile would somehow
miraculously have their DNA changed on the spot so that they are truly
"physical" descendents of Israel. So, just what does she mean by saying
that doing these 3 things makes one a "physical" Israelite? I'd like to
think that she is merely saying that a person would be considered a
"legal"
Israelite with full citizenship rights, and she may very well mean that,
but to use the confusing terminology of becoming a "physical" Israelite
is
just plain confusing and that chapter in her book always threw me for a
loop. I got the sense that she was digging real deep down for a valid
explanation for the "true gentile" conundrum.
Anyway, this is a clear concession on her part that, at least in the case
of these "true gentiles" they are Ephraim in some other way besides
literal
biology! YET, she will turn around and criticize certain church
traditions
for teaching what amounts to basically the same exact thing, ie, that
gentile believers become "spiritual seed" through union with Messiah who
is
the Seed. The church becomes guilty for teaching a "non-Biological" means
of becoming Israel, yet Batya lets herself off the hook for doing the
same
thing! Isn't it obvious that she is wanting her cake on this point and
eating it too?
Now, Brian....I think you mentioned a while ago that you struggled with
this part of her teaching in your desire to come to assurance that you
are
a biological descendent. You recognized that this concession on her point
completely militates against coming to such assurance. Afterall, how the
heck is one to know whether they are a "sort-of gentile" or a "true
gentile?" And, you have solved this for yourself by rejecting Batya's
concession on this point. You have come (if I am reading you correctly)
to
an absolutist position that states that there really were no valid
examples
in Scripture of true gentiles becoming Israel. In your view those
examples
would have been only apparent, and you instead choose to believe that
somehow these folks must have Abrahamic blood in their veins (even if
they
predate Abraham!)
I would say that you have made gains in the area of consistency over and
against Batya's version, but I wonder at what cost. Have you lost a
certain
degree of Scriptural footing that perhaps Batya has in advantage over
you,
in that she deals with the text honestly about these "true gentiles."
I think this is the "Big Flaw" of Batya's teaching...this inconsistency.
This inconsistency disappears when we make the physical seed status of
Messiah the factor that makes one Israel or not...for in that schema, it
does not matter about your biology...it matters about HIS biology.
Neither
does this view have to deny that there is any gentiles who do actual
descend biologically. It can affirm this, but since it is not the
"ticket"
that gets one in, it does not have the problem of explaining how "true
gentiles" have gotten into Israel. The Messiah calls both Jew and Gentile
(gentile period! No distinctions between a true gentile or a faux one) to
be Israel, and they both are seed not in themselves but IN HIM, since
Galatians states unequivocally that the seed promise was to a Seed
(Messiah) and not to seeds. Only He has the power and authority to confer
seed status and the title of Israel to anyone!
Shalom,
Joe
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail – 100MB free storage!

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/NC2House
To leave the Group, email: (Address removed)
______________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

—If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/NC2House

To leave the Group, email: (Address removed)

Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail – Send 10MB messages!

                                        Attachment:.
                                        message.html (text/html)