Download as mp3 (right click to “save as”)
Revelation Series #37: True Wealth, Celebrity, and Power
Previous post: Revelation Series #36: The Anonymous Fame of Paul Cole
-
________________________
Visit Martinzender.com for books, audios, videos, and articles that share the message of the grace of God. Sign up on the homepage to receive emails of this show plus weekly newsletters.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
Hi David,
Since it’s clear that we are not going to see eye-to-eye anytime soon – and as I don’t see our discussion as really going anywhere – I’m going to respectfully bow out of this discussion after this final post (besides, I’m not sure that this particular webpage is the most appropriate forum for an exchange such as this, and I regret entering into it for that reason). While there is obviously much, much more that I’m sure could be said by both of us, I just don’t think any further discussion would prove to be very fruitful at this time. I do thank you for taking the time to respond to me, and for helping me think through what I believe. Please feel free to respond to anything I write below, but again, this will be my last response to you. 🙂
Now, you wrote: “You fail to mention that James was quoting Amos 9: 9-11.”
When Amos says that God will shake or sift “the house of Israel among all the nations,” a clear distinction is being made between the house of Israel and the nations among whom the house of Israel would be sifted or shaken. So when we come to verse 12 and read of “all the nations called by my name,” we know from the context that this a group *distinct from* the “house of Israel” referred to previously (which we were told would be shaken or sifted *among the nations*, meaning that the house of Israel is an entity distinct from the nations). Amos has already made the distinction, and so should we. The “nations called by my name” are not Jews/Israelites (members of the “house of Israel”), but non-Israelites (Gentiles) who would be “turning back to God” – i.e., believing in and worshipping the one true God, as their Gentile ancestors did before they eventually turned to false gods/idols.
You said: Have you looked at the “Young’s Literal Old Testament Translation” of this verse?
“…Sing ye nations [with] his people, For the blood of his servants he avengeth…”
Once you remove the added word “WITH” the context is in agreement with Moses, and Jesus and Paul.”
“With” is implied here and supported by Paul’s quote of the verse in Romans 15:10. So even if one is unsure about whether “with” belongs here based on this verse alone, Paul’s quotation of it confirms it. Again, see Paul’s quotation in Rom 15:10 in any English translation of the Greek text. In my view, this verse strongly undermines your position. “Your people” are clearly Israelites. The “nations” here are clearly distinct from Israelites. They’re Gentiles, in other words. Consider also Romans 15:9, where Paul quotes David: “For this I will praise you, O Yahweh, among the nations” (2 Sam. 22:50). Who were the “nations” among whom David praised God when he sang this song of deliverance? They were non-Israelites – i.e., the same kind of uncircumcised, idol-worshipping people that we read of Israel being at war with in the previous chapter (2 Samuel 21).
You said: “…He who is sowing the ideal [sperma, progeny] seed is the Son of Mankind. Now the field is the [kosmos] world Now the ideal [sperma, progeny]seed, these are the sons of the kingdom. Now the [zizanion] darnel are “THE SONS” of the [poneros] wicked. Now the enemy who sows “THEM” is the Adversary. See Genesis 3: 15. There is only two races on the earth, “wheat” or “tares,” the good seed are the children of the kingdom, but the tares are the children of the [poneros] wicked. [Adversary]”
“Sperma” in this parable denotes literal seeds which grows into wheat (just as “sperma” denotes a literal seed from which a plant grows in Paul’s illustration, found in 1 Cor. 15:37-38). If you want to say that the seed that grows into wheat in the parable represents a certain “race,” and the weeds represent another “race,” then go right ahead (although Christ doesn’t say this). But you can’t argue that it does based on the word “sperma,” since in the parable sperma denotes literal seeds being sown in a field (which grow into wheat), not human offspring. So the question is, what does the seed sown in the field (and which grows into wheat) represent in this parable? Christ says, “the sons of the kingdom.” And the weeds of the parable represent the “sons of the wicked one.”
Are these two different “races” of human beings, as you say? No; nowhere does Christ say that two different races of human beings are in view. It has nothing to do with people with certain genetic differences (e.g., the color of one’s skin), or anything like that. He’s talking about two types of Jews/Israelites: those who will believe the evangel of the circumcision (and who consequently will inherit the kingdom during the coming eon), and those who will profess to believe it (and thus will look like a true believer), but will actually be hypocrites/false teachers/etc. Those Jews/Israelites who believe in Christ are the remnant, chosen by grace (referred to by Paul in Romans 11). Those who are said to be “weeds” sown by Satan are unbelieving Jews/Israelites, who, while “growing” alongside the “wheat” (and being easily mistaken for wheat, or believing Israelites), will be hypocrites (like Judas was). It’s not about two different races, but rather believing, faithful Israelites vs. unbelieving, hypocritical Israelites.
You said: “Have you really read 1 Corinthians 10: 1-4
Paul told the Corinthians their fathers all went through the sea with Moses. In fact he said;
“…For I do not want you to be”IGNORANT”, [Greek adelphos, same uterus]brethren…”
If Paul was addressing JEWS rather than the non-Israelites present in the churches.” as you suggest, why did he say I would not have “YOU” [JEWS] IGNORANT” that “OUR” fathers all were under the cloud and all passed through the sea with Moses…””
Thanks for getting me to reflect on this more, David; I now see that my understanding of Paul’s words in v. 1 does lead to an inconsistency. Paul’s use of the word “our” in v. 1 was throwing me off, since I assumed (invalidly, I now believe) that it meant he was including everyone he was addressing. But upon further reflection, I realize that this need not be the case (and, I believe, isn’t the case). When Paul says “our fathers,” he’s simply referring to himself and those like him (i.e., those with a Jewish/Israelite background). That is, when Paul says, “our fathers” he simply means, “the fathers of us who are Jews/Israelites.” While some of the brethren in Corinth could include themselves in Paul’s “our,” many of the brethren wouldn’t have, since they were Gentiles rather than Jews/Israelites. So, assuming that when Paul says “I do not want you to be ignorant” he is not simply admonishing his circumcised readers to be especially mindful of something they already knew, then we can understand him to be speaking to those believers in Corinth who weren’t Jews/Israelites.
Now, a few comments are in order about the word adelphos. You seem to think that those whom Paul is addressing whenever he uses this word in his letters can be none other than Jews/Israelites. But if we are to understand this word completely literally, it would mean Paul was addressing his own biological siblings, who shared the same mother. But that’s obviously not the case. Adelphos has a much wider range of meaning than that. If you want to say that it necessarily means that the people being addressed share a common maternal ancestor, then one could respond, “Well, all human beings on earth today share a common maternal ancestor: Eve, as well as Noah’s wife.” So if you want to emphasize the literal meaning of the word (“same uterus”), why stop at the uterus of Sarah? We could keep going back to Noah’s wife, or Eve, if you think that “adelphos” refers to those who share a common maternal ancestor, rather than just the same mother. But I think Paul used the word here to express the intimate spiritual bond/relationship that all who are members of the body of Christ share, regardless of how closely related (biologically or “racially”) they may be. So just because Paul uses the word adelphos when addressing the saints in his letters doesn’t mean they’re necessarily Israelites and his “relatives according to the flesh” (Rom 9:3-4) – although, depending on the ecclesia, some of them certainly were.
You said: “Gentiles here is from the word “Hellen” the name of the land we know as Greece. The Judeans and the Pharisees of Christ’s time knew THERE WERE ISRAELITES IN GREECE [HELLEN} IN THAT DAY, YET MODERN “UNIVERSALIST” MINISTERS” DENY IT.”
I don’t know any believer who denies, or would deny, that there were Jews/Israelites living in Greece in that day. Luke, for example, tells us that there were Jews dwelling in Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost who were “from every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5), and we are given a sampling of all the different nations these Jews were from (Parthia, Media, Persia, Mesopotamia, Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, Libya and Rome). And of course there was a Jewish synagogue in Thessalonica (Acts 17:1), where we read that Paul spent three Sabbath days reasoning with them from the Scriptures. We read that some of them were persuaded and followed Paul and Silas (along with “a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women”). But it seems that many of the Jews were quite antagonistic towards Paul and his message, and even followed him to Berea (where Luke says the Jews were “more noble than those in Thessalonica”), and harassed him there as well. So yes, it’s clear that “there were Israelites in Greece,” and again, I don’t know of any “universalist” ministers who deny it.
Btw, you keep using the term, “universalist.” At first I thought you were referring to the doctrine of universal salvation/reconciliation, but it seems you’re referring to those who teach that the body of Christ is comprised of both Jews/Israelites and Gentiles (i.e., those who were never Israelites). Is that correct? And if so, do you believe that all Israelites AND non-Israelites (i.e., all humanity) will ultimately be reconciled to God through Christ? I ask this because there seems to be some (perhaps many?) who hold to a “Christian Identity” position similar to yours who believe only the “chosen race” will be finally saved.
You’ve asked me to share my thoughts on Martin Zender’s series on the 10 tribes. Well, I think that if any Jew/Israelite – regardless of whether they are of the “lost tribes” or not, and regardless of where they happen to be in the world – believes the “evangel of the circumcision” (or, as your preferred translation has it, the “good message of the circumcised”) and is faithful to the end, then they will enjoy eonian life on the earth during the coming two eons. And all the nations of the earth will be blessed through them. And if any Jew/Israelite – regardless of whether they are of the “lost tribes” or not, and regardless of where they happen to be in the world – believes Paul’s “evangel of the uncircumcision” (or, as your preferred translation has it, the “good message of the uncircumcised”), then they become members of the body of Christ and will enjoy eonian life among the celestials during the coming two eons.
Well, it’s been nice talking to you, David. I admire your zeal, and I wish you all the best in your life journey and pursuit of the truth.
Aaron
David,
Just FYI: When you say things like, “Before you made a fool of yourself,” and, “You should read Matthew 15: 24 and learn a great truth” (as if one wasn’t already familiar with this verse), your tone comes across as somewhat condescending. Just saying. 🙂
Now, you wrote: “It was “NOT” two “GOSPELS” it was two “APOSTLESHIPS.”
Actually, it was both. Peter was the Apostle to the circumcision (Jews/Israelites) and Paul was the Apostle to the uncircumcision (the nations/Gentiles). And each apostle was entrusted with a distinct gospel that was for the people of whom they were made Apostles. In your quotation of Galatians 2:7, you turned the noun “evangel” into the verb “evangelizing,” thereby changing the meaning of Paul’s words to suit your position. You can’t do that. Paul is clearly speaking of two distinct evangels, or gospels, here. Even your own preferred NT translation (which you call a “good Greek translation”) supports this:
“But on the contrary, having seen that I have been entrusted with the good message of the uncircumcised, just as Petros of the circumcised, (He who has been operating within Petros for a message of the circumcised, has also operated within me for the Nations,)”
You wrote: “Paul’s apostleship was to take the knowledge of the Remption of the “TEN TRIBES” and those of the house of Judah placed into the dispersion by Sennacherib 678 B.C. who were the scattered and dispersed Israelites in Asia Minor and Europe.”
You then proceed to attempt to support this claim as follows, writing: “See Ephesians 2: 17, 18. “Those afar and those near.” Ephesians 2: 11-18 describes Paul’s ministry to the nations scattered in Asia Minor and Europe who were termed Uncircumcism by the Circumcism, “not by God.” See verse 11. They were alienated, not “ALIENS.”
The nations/Gentiles of whom Paul was made an Apostle were termed “uncircumcision” by Jews/Israelites (the “circumcision”) for a good reason – they weren’t circumcised. They didn’t bear the mark, or sign, of the covenant God had made with Israel. Nowhere does Paul say that this was an inaccurate term for those he was commissioned to minister to (even if it was, by certain Jews/Israelites, used derisively and self-righteously). Paul on several occassions referred to the nations he was commissioned to minister to as uncircumcised (Rom 3:30; Gal 2:7). Why didn’t the nations Paul addressed bear this covenant sign of Israel? Because they weren’t Israelites. The uncircumcised people (Gentiles) to whom Paul ministered – and to whom he had preached the “evangel of the uncircumcision” – belonged to a different category of human beings than Jews/Israelites. Paul speaks of them in Romans 15:9-12. In these verses, the Gentiles or “nations” in view are all non-Israelites/non-Jews. This category of humanity Paul had in view has the same non-Israelite/non-Jewish status as (for example) Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah and his sons, Melchizedek, Pharaoh, Esau, Job and the Assyrian king Sennacherib [By the way, I use the terms “Jew” and “Israelite” interchangeably. Paul did as well (Rom 3:9; 11:1; 2 Cor. 11:22; Gal 2:15). After the captivity of the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Babylonian captivity of the Southern Kingdom of Judah, all twelve tribes – whether living outside of the homeland or within the homeland – were referred to as both Jews and Israel. Both the book of Ezra and the book of Nehemiah use the terms Jews and Israel to refer to the same people (e.g., Ezra 2:26; 4:12; Neh. 1:6; 4:1-2)].
Now, you emphasized the fact that these uncircumcised believers were said to have been formerly “alienated, not ALIENS.” That’s correct, and I believe that all righteous, God-fearing non-Israelites (who don’t become members of the body of Christ) will have a share in the “commonwealth of Israel,” and will enjoy eonian life on the new earth. Peter learned that “God shows no partiality,” and that “in EVERY nation, ANYONE who fears God and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34-35). All such people (i.e., Gentiles, members of the nations) will enjoy life on the new earth, will walk by the light of the new Jerusalem, and the kings of the earth will bring the glory and honor of the nations into this city (Rev 21:22-26). These Gentiles (non-Israelites) will have access to the city and will eat from the trees of life, and will enjoy healing from its leaves (Rev 22:1-2). In Hebrews we read that God prepared this city for those non-Israelites who walked by faith (Heb 11:13-16). But in Ephesians, Paul is speaking to Gentiles who had lost this eonian hope. They had become “separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise.” Why? Because, formerly, they had walked “in the futility of their minds” (Eph 4:17). They had become “darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that [was] in them, due to their hardness of heart” (v. 18). In Col 1:21, Paul says that those to whom he wrote were “once alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds.” It was because of this that they became “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel,” and forfeited the eonian blessing (on the new earth) that would’ve been theirs had they lived a life of faith (like other non-Israelites, such as Abel, Noah, etc.).
You said: “Paul reminded his [adelphos,same uterus] brethren that their forefather was Abraham. See Romans 4: 1. The Corinthians were Israelites. 1 Corinthians 10: 1-4. The Galatians were Israelites. See Galatians 3: 23, 24 and 4: 28, 29. The Ephesians were Israelites. See Ephesians 1: 7.”
As far as Romans 4:1 and 1 Corinthians 10:1-4, the body of Christ was (as I’ve said before) comprised of both those who were Jewish/Israelite in background, and those who weren’t (both had believed Paul’s gospel of the uncircumcision, however). In these verses, Paul is specifically addressing those who were Jewish/Israelite in background, rather than the non-Israelites present in the churches.
Regarding Ephesians 1:7, to be “forgiven of an offense” need not mean that one was an Israelite, and violated the Mosaic law. Adam was guilty of an “offense” (Rom 5:17), and he of course was no Jew/Israelite. And Paul writes that death (the “ration” of sin) “reigned from Adam unto Moses, over those also who do not sin in the likeness of the transgression of Adam…” (Rom 5:12-14). So offenses existed before Israel came into existence; the law came “that the offense should be increasing” (v. 20). So Eph 1:7 has nothing to do with Jews/Israelites being forgiven for violating the law of Moses. Non-Jews/Israelites were in need of “forgiveness of offenses” as well, and they received this “forgiveness” when they believed Paul’s gospel of the uncircumcision.
You wrote: “You believe the “LOST SHEEP” were lost? Not so. The Greek word for “LOST” [lose] is a compound word “APO” put away, and” LUMI” punished. It is a reference to the put away and divorced House of Israel scattered among the nations of Asia Minor and Europe.”
Christ’s declaration that he “was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24) has nothing directly to do with those Israelites who were scattered among Asia Minor and Europe. It refers to all the Jews/Israelites (i.e., those of whom Peter was made the Apostle) who were “lost” (apolōlota) in sin, and “perishing” (apollumetha). The words translated “lost” and “perish” are from apollumi, to destroy. The meaning of this word has nothing to do with a spouse being “put away,” even though it shares the same primary particle “apo” (“off” or “away”) as the word translated “put away” when divorce is in view (apoluō). And even that word, in itself, has nothing inherently to do with divorce, but is used in reference to a lot of different things.
Now, earlier in Matthew’s account, we read the following: “Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 10:5-6). The disciples did not need to search for the people to whom they were sent to proclaim the gospel of the kingdom of heaven “among the nations of Asia Minor and Europe.” No; these “lost sheep” were Jews/Israelites who could be found all throughout the land of Judea. It is these who were “lost” and who would “perish” apart from believing the gospel of the kingdom. Moreover, Christ makes a clear distinction here between the Gentiles/nations (i.e., non-Israelites, who weren’t – and never were – in covenant with God) and “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Jews/Israelites – the circumcision). The Gentiles/nations (the uncircumcision) to whom Jesus and his disciples were not sent is, I believe, the same category of human beings of whom Paul was made an Apostle, and to whom he was commissioned by Christ to preach the evangel of the uncircumcision (non-Jews/non-Israelites).
You asked: “When did Paul write to the Circumcism? [JEWS] All Paul’s epistle were written to the “NATIONS.”
I believe that Paul wrote to Jews/Israelites (i.e., the circumcision) once, and that this letter is commonly referred to as “Hebrews.” So it is this letter written to Jews/Israelites that I believe Peter was alluding to in 2 Pet 3:15. You’ve repeatedly made it sound like Peter was saying that Paul wrote to exclusively Jews/Israelites (those whom Peter addressed) in “all his letters,” but that’s not what Peter says. What Peter says that Paul did in “all his letters” was write “according to the wisdom given him.” With the exception of the letter to the Hebrews, all of Paul’s letters are addressed to the body of Christ, which was composed of both those who were Jewish/Israelite in background (as Paul was), and those who weren’t.
You wrote: “And, coming, He brings the evangel of peace to you, [The dispersed [apolumi] Israelites] “the” those afar [scattered among the nations of Asia Minor and Europe] and “the” those near [the Judeans in Judea] near, for through Him “WE” [Israel and Judah] both have had access, in one spirit, to the Father…”
I agree with everything above except for what you’ve written in brackets. Nowhere in Scripture are the nations to whom Paul wrote said to be “dispersed Israelites.” They’re uncircumcised, (former) idol-worshipping non-Israelite heathen who (unlike the Jews/Israelites to whom Peter wrote) were never in covenant with God, and are always distinguished from Jews/Israelites.
As far as what Martin Zender says in the series on the lost tribes, I was already familiar with it (having listened to pretty much all of his “shows”). So, no surprise there. Sorry to disappoint you! And everything Martin says in this series is perfectly consistent with everything else he believes and teaches (which is not at all harmonious with much of the stuff you’ve been promoting on this “Zender on Revelation” website, which makes me wonder why you’re even here and making comments, except to promote your own particular “Christian Identity” position).
Aaron
Hi David,
It’s not my position that the only members of the ecclesia in Rome were uncircumcised, non-Israelites (i.e., Gentiles). I believe the church in Rome was a mixed group of believers, all of whom had believed (or professed to believe) Paul’s “gospel of the uncircumcision,” which Christ had commissioned him to preach. And the same goes for the churches in Corinth, Galatia, etc. These churches consisted of both circumcised believers (Jews) and uncircumcised believers (Gentiles). In Rom 4:1 Paul is directly referring to those members of the body of Christ who, like himself, were circumcised and ethnically Jewish in their background (however, in Rom 9:1-5, those whom Paul has in view are both believing AND unbelieving Israelites). Paul’s use of “our” in Rom 4:1 doesn’t mean there weren’t uncircumcised people (i.e., non-Israelites) in the church in Rome as well, and that he wasn’t addressing them in this epistle. The very reason Paul brings up Abraham is to support his argument that justification – and thus membership in the body of Christ – was not for circumcised people only (i.e., Israelites, who were in covenant with God), but also for uncircumcised people who were outside of God’s covenant with Israel (i.e., Gentiles). The point Paul is trying to make is applicable both to the saints in Rome who were circumcised and those who weren’t. Because Abraham was justified before he was circumcised, he is not merely the father of Israelites according to the flesh, but in a more important sense, he is the father of all who believe without being circumcised (Rom 4:11) and of all who are not only circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of faith that Abraham had before he was circumcised (v. 12).
As far as Rufus and his mother, it’s my position that Paul refers to Rufus’ mother as his mother as well not because he and Rufus were biologically brothers, but because Rufus’ mother had acted as a mother to Paul in the past. Paul was simply expressing appreciation of her maternal care for him at some point. It in no way implies that she was literally his biological mother (see Mark 10:29-30). But really, this is beside the point. Like I said, there were both circumcised believers and uncircumcised believers in the body of Christ at this time, and apparently Rufus was one of the former.
As far as 2 Pet 3:16, Peter does not, in fact, say that Paul “wrote all his letters to them” (i.e., the Israelites that Peter addressed in his two epistles). What Peter says that Paul does in “all of his letters” is not write exclusively to Jewish churches (those of the circumcision). Rather, what Paul does in “all of his letters” is he writes according to the wisdom given him (v. 15).
Aaron
Hi David I agree with you
I remember Paul Tillich writing something like this: Israel is the last nation on earth but will be the frist again in the next eon.
Wonderful isn’t it? And it is our Father who will be doing this (glorifying us). Our eyes have not seen, our ears have not heard what Father has in store for us. Mind boggling!!! Thanks Martin.
I have learnt that the first will be the last has to do with the relation between Israel and the ecclesia. I think it was Paul Tillich?
You must log in to post a comment.