-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
L
This rather long but an interesting read regarding Jesus' lineage:
From James Tabor - Dr. James Tabor is Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte where he is professor of Christian origins and ancient Judaism:
So one obvious question is how was Jesus a “son of David”? What do we know of his lineage that might support this claim that he was a part of the royal family of David?
Luke and Matthew give Jesus no human father yet they give different genealogical accounts of his ancestry. Genealogies, or what many Bible readers remember as the lists of “begats,” do not usually make gripping reading, but Jesus’ genealogies are full of surprises.
Matthew begins his book with this genealogy: “Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Joseph,” and so forth. Since Matthew is the first book of the New Testament, more than a few eager Bible readers have had good intentions dampened by this technical beginning. But let’s look again. Matthew lists forty names, all the way from Abraham, who lived a thousand years before David, through David, and down to Joseph, husband of Mary. But there are two surprises.
Any standard Jewish genealogy at the time was based solely on the male lineage, which was of primary importance. One’s father was the significant factor in the cultural world in which Jesus was born. Yet in Matthew we find four women mentioned, connected to four of the forty male names listed. This is completely irregular and unexpected. Luke records:
Judah fathered Perez and Zerah from Tamar (v.3)
Salmon fathered Boaz from Rahab (v. 5)
Boaz fathered Obed from Ruth (v. 5)
David fathered Solomon from Uriah’s wife (v. 5)
These are all women’s names, or in the case of Uriah’s wife, an unnamed woman.....
At the end of the list, the very last name in the very last line, the other shoe drops. Matthew surely intends to startle, catching the reader unawares. He writes:
Jacob fathered Joseph, the husband of Mary;
from her was fathered Jesus called Christ.
What one would expect in any standard male genealogy would be:
Jacob fathered Joseph;
Joseph fathered Jesus, called the Christ.
Matthew uses the verb “fathered” or “begot” (Greek gennao) thirty-nine times in the active voice with a masculine subject. But when he comes to Joseph he makes an important shift. He uses the same verb in the passive voice with a feminine object: from her was fathered Jesus. So a fifth woman unexpectedly slips into the list: Mary herself….
But there is yet another remarkable feature of this lineage of Joseph that is vital to the story and should not be missed. Joseph’s branch of David’s family, even though it had supplied all the ancient kings of Judah, had been put under a ban or curse by the prophet Jeremiah. In those last dark days just before the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem in 586 BC, Jeremiah had made a shocking declaration about Jechoniah, the final reigning king of David’s line: “Write this man down as stripped . . . for none of his seed shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David and ruling in Judah again” (Jeremiah 22:30).[iv] Joseph was a direct descendant of this ill-reputed Jechoniah (Matt 1:11-12).[v]
In effect, it was as if Jeremiah was declaring the covenant that God made with David null and void. At least it might appear that way. Psalm 89, written in the aftermath of these developments, laments: “You have renounced the covenant with your servant; you have defiled his crown in the dust” (Psalm 89:39). Or so it seemed. After all Jechoniah was the last Jewish king of the royal family of David to occupy the throne in the land of Israel. Joseph was of this same line, but as the legal father of Jesus, rather than the biological father, Joseph’s ancestry did not disqualify Jesus’ potential claim to the throne if Jesus could claim descent from David through another branch of the Davidic lineage. But how many “branches” of the Davidic family were there?
Luke’s genealogy provides us with the missing key to understand how Jesus could claim Davidic descent with no biological connection to his adoptive father Joseph. Luke records his genealogy of Jesus in his third chapter. Jesus was 30 years old and had just been baptized by John. Whereas Matthew begins with Abraham and follows the line down to Joseph, Jesus’ adoptive father, Luke begins with Jesus and works backward—all the way back to Adam! Rather than forty names, as in Matthew, we have seventy-six. There are three striking features in this genealogy.
First, it begins with a surprising qualification. Literally translated it says: “And Jesus was about thirty years [old] when he began, being a son as was supposed of Joseph, of Heli (Luke 3:23).” The Greek is quite terse, but what jumps off the page is the phrase “as was supposed.”[vi] Luke is telling his readers two things: that Joseph was only the “supposed” or “legal” father of Jesus and that Jesus had a grandfather named Heli. According to Matthew Joseph’s father was named Jacob. So who was Heli? The most obvious solution is that he was Mary’s father.[vii] One seldom hears anything about the grandparents of Jesus, but Jesus had two grandfathers, one from Joseph and the other from Mary. Two grandfathers mean two separate family trees. What we have in Luke 3:23-38 is the other side of Jesus’ family, traced through his actual bloodline from his mother Mary. The reason Mary is not named is that Luke abides by convention and includes only males in his list. Since Luke acknowledges no biological father for Jesus he begins with Joseph as a “stand-in” but qualifies things with the phrase “as was supposed.” A freely paraphrased translation would go like this: “And Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work, supposedly being a son of Joseph but actually being of the line of Heli.” If Mary’s parents were indeed named Joachim and Anna, as early Christian tradition holds, it is possible that Heli is short for the name Eliakim, which in turn is a form of the traditional name Joachim.
It is unlikely that Luke simply concocted such a detailed record. Jewish families were quite zealous about genealogical records—all the more so if one was descended from the line of David. Josephus, the Jewish historian of that period, traces his own priestly genealogy with obvious pride and mentions archival records that he had consulted.[viii] Julius Africanus, an early 3nd century Jewish-Christian writer who lived in Palestine reports that leading Jewish families kept private genealogical records, since Herod and his successors had sought to destroy those that were public. Africanus specifically notes the practice of keeping clandestine family genealogies as characteristic of Jesus’ descendants.[ix] Since the Davidic lineage of Jesus was so important to the early Christians it is likely that Luke had one of these records available to him.
Luke’s genealogy also reveals another important bit of information. Mary, like her husband Joseph, was of the lineage of King David—but with a vital difference. Her connection to David was not through the cursed lineage running back through Jechoniah to David’s son Solomon. Rather she could trace herself back through another of David’s sons, namely Nathan, the brother of Solomon (Luke 3:31). Nathan, like Solomon, was a son of David’s favored wife Bathsheba, but Nathan never occupied the throne and his genealogy accordingly became obscure. He is listed in the biblical record but no descendants are mentioned, in contrast to his brother Solomon (2 Chronicles 3:5). So, according to Luke, Jesus could claim a direct ancestry back to King David through his mother Mary as well. He did not have the “adoptive” claim through his legal father Joseph alone, but also that of David’s actual bloodline.
The name Nazareth, the town where Mary lived, comes from the Hebrew word netzer meaning “branch” or “shoot.”[x] One could loosely translate Nazareth as “Branch Town.” But why would a town have such a strange name? As we have seen, in the time of Jesus it was a tiny village. Its claim to fame was not size or economic prominence but something potentially even more significant. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, written before Jesus’ lifetime, we regularly find the future Messiah or King of Israel described as the “branch of David.”[xi] The term is taken from Isaiah 11 where the Messiah of David’s lineage is called a “Branch.” The term stuck. The later followers of Jesus were called Nazarenes or “Branchites.”[xii] The little village of Nazareth very likely got its name, or perhaps its nickname, because it was known as the place that members of the royal family had settled and were concentrated. It is no surprise that both Mary and Joseph lived there, as each represented different “branches” of the “Branch of David.” The gospels mention other “relatives” of the family that lived there (Mark 6:4). It is entirely possible that most of the inhabitants of “Branch Town” were members of the same extended “Branch” family. The family’s affinity for this area of Galilee continued for centuries. North of Sepphoris, about twelve miles from Nazareth, was a town called Kokhaba or “Star Town.” The term “Star,” like “Branch” is a coded term for the Messiah that is also found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.[xiii] Both Nazareth and Kokhaba were noted well into the 2nd century AD as towns in which families related to Jesus, and thus part of the “royal family,” were concentrated.[xiv]
Finally, the names in Luke that run from King David down to Heli, Mary’s father, offer us some very interesting clues that further explain why this particular Davidic line was uniquely important. There are listed no fewer than six instances of the name we know as Matthew: Matthat, Mattathias (twice), Maath, Matthat, and Mattatha. What is striking is that the name Matthew was one invariably associated with a priestly not a kingly or royal lineage. One of Jesus’ twelve apostles was named Matthew, but he was also called Levi.[xv] Two of the six “Matthews” in Jesus’ lineage were sons of fathers named “Levi.” Josephus, the 1st century Jewish historian, records that his own father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and brother were all named Matthias, and they were all priests of the tribe of Levi from the distinguished priestly family of the Hashmoneans or Maccabees. Ancient Israel was divided into twelve tribes, descendents of the twelve sons of Jacob the grandson of Abraham. The priests of Israel had to be descendents of Aaron, brother of Moses, who was from the tribe of Levi. The kings had to be of the royal lineage of King David, who was of the tribe of Judah. These positions, King and Priest, gave the tribes of Judah and Levi special prominence. But why would there be so many priestly names in a Davidic dynasty?
Remember, when Mary became pregnant and left Nazareth to stay with Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptizer, Luke notes that they were relatives, though he does not say how (Luke 1:36). But he also records that Elizabeth and her husband Zechariah were of the priestly lineage (Luke 1:5). This is further confirmation of the link between Mary’s Davidic family and the priestly tribe of Levi.
It is inconceivable that such a heavy prevalence of Levite or priestly names would be part of Mary’s genealogy unless there was a significant influence from the tribe of Levi merging into this particular royal line of the tribe of Judah. What appears likely is that Mary was of mixed lineage. Luke only names the male line from David down to Mary. But the large number of priestly names indicates that there were likely important Levite women marrying into this Davidic line along the way. It is a pattern that goes all the way back to Aaron, brother of Moses, the very first Israelite priest. Aaron of the tribe of Levi married a princess of the tribe of Judah named Elisheva or Elizabeth (Exodus 6:23).
From James Tabor - Dr. James Tabor is Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte where he is professor of Christian origins and ancient Judaism:
So one obvious question is how was Jesus a “son of David”? What do we know of his lineage that might support this claim that he was a part of the royal family of David?
Luke and Matthew give Jesus no human father yet they give different genealogical accounts of his ancestry. Genealogies, or what many Bible readers remember as the lists of “begats,” do not usually make gripping reading, but Jesus’ genealogies are full of surprises.
Matthew begins his book with this genealogy: “Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Joseph,” and so forth. Since Matthew is the first book of the New Testament, more than a few eager Bible readers have had good intentions dampened by this technical beginning. But let’s look again. Matthew lists forty names, all the way from Abraham, who lived a thousand years before David, through David, and down to Joseph, husband of Mary. But there are two surprises.
Any standard Jewish genealogy at the time was based solely on the male lineage, which was of primary importance. One’s father was the significant factor in the cultural world in which Jesus was born. Yet in Matthew we find four women mentioned, connected to four of the forty male names listed. This is completely irregular and unexpected. Luke records:
Judah fathered Perez and Zerah from Tamar (v.3)
Salmon fathered Boaz from Rahab (v. 5)
Boaz fathered Obed from Ruth (v. 5)
David fathered Solomon from Uriah’s wife (v. 5)
These are all women’s names, or in the case of Uriah’s wife, an unnamed woman.....
At the end of the list, the very last name in the very last line, the other shoe drops. Matthew surely intends to startle, catching the reader unawares. He writes:
Jacob fathered Joseph, the husband of Mary;
from her was fathered Jesus called Christ.
What one would expect in any standard male genealogy would be:
Jacob fathered Joseph;
Joseph fathered Jesus, called the Christ.
Matthew uses the verb “fathered” or “begot” (Greek gennao) thirty-nine times in the active voice with a masculine subject. But when he comes to Joseph he makes an important shift. He uses the same verb in the passive voice with a feminine object: from her was fathered Jesus. So a fifth woman unexpectedly slips into the list: Mary herself….
But there is yet another remarkable feature of this lineage of Joseph that is vital to the story and should not be missed. Joseph’s branch of David’s family, even though it had supplied all the ancient kings of Judah, had been put under a ban or curse by the prophet Jeremiah. In those last dark days just before the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem in 586 BC, Jeremiah had made a shocking declaration about Jechoniah, the final reigning king of David’s line: “Write this man down as stripped . . . for none of his seed shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David and ruling in Judah again” (Jeremiah 22:30).[iv] Joseph was a direct descendant of this ill-reputed Jechoniah (Matt 1:11-12).[v]
In effect, it was as if Jeremiah was declaring the covenant that God made with David null and void. At least it might appear that way. Psalm 89, written in the aftermath of these developments, laments: “You have renounced the covenant with your servant; you have defiled his crown in the dust” (Psalm 89:39). Or so it seemed. After all Jechoniah was the last Jewish king of the royal family of David to occupy the throne in the land of Israel. Joseph was of this same line, but as the legal father of Jesus, rather than the biological father, Joseph’s ancestry did not disqualify Jesus’ potential claim to the throne if Jesus could claim descent from David through another branch of the Davidic lineage. But how many “branches” of the Davidic family were there?
Luke’s genealogy provides us with the missing key to understand how Jesus could claim Davidic descent with no biological connection to his adoptive father Joseph. Luke records his genealogy of Jesus in his third chapter. Jesus was 30 years old and had just been baptized by John. Whereas Matthew begins with Abraham and follows the line down to Joseph, Jesus’ adoptive father, Luke begins with Jesus and works backward—all the way back to Adam! Rather than forty names, as in Matthew, we have seventy-six. There are three striking features in this genealogy.
First, it begins with a surprising qualification. Literally translated it says: “And Jesus was about thirty years [old] when he began, being a son as was supposed of Joseph, of Heli (Luke 3:23).” The Greek is quite terse, but what jumps off the page is the phrase “as was supposed.”[vi] Luke is telling his readers two things: that Joseph was only the “supposed” or “legal” father of Jesus and that Jesus had a grandfather named Heli. According to Matthew Joseph’s father was named Jacob. So who was Heli? The most obvious solution is that he was Mary’s father.[vii] One seldom hears anything about the grandparents of Jesus, but Jesus had two grandfathers, one from Joseph and the other from Mary. Two grandfathers mean two separate family trees. What we have in Luke 3:23-38 is the other side of Jesus’ family, traced through his actual bloodline from his mother Mary. The reason Mary is not named is that Luke abides by convention and includes only males in his list. Since Luke acknowledges no biological father for Jesus he begins with Joseph as a “stand-in” but qualifies things with the phrase “as was supposed.” A freely paraphrased translation would go like this: “And Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work, supposedly being a son of Joseph but actually being of the line of Heli.” If Mary’s parents were indeed named Joachim and Anna, as early Christian tradition holds, it is possible that Heli is short for the name Eliakim, which in turn is a form of the traditional name Joachim.
It is unlikely that Luke simply concocted such a detailed record. Jewish families were quite zealous about genealogical records—all the more so if one was descended from the line of David. Josephus, the Jewish historian of that period, traces his own priestly genealogy with obvious pride and mentions archival records that he had consulted.[viii] Julius Africanus, an early 3nd century Jewish-Christian writer who lived in Palestine reports that leading Jewish families kept private genealogical records, since Herod and his successors had sought to destroy those that were public. Africanus specifically notes the practice of keeping clandestine family genealogies as characteristic of Jesus’ descendants.[ix] Since the Davidic lineage of Jesus was so important to the early Christians it is likely that Luke had one of these records available to him.
Luke’s genealogy also reveals another important bit of information. Mary, like her husband Joseph, was of the lineage of King David—but with a vital difference. Her connection to David was not through the cursed lineage running back through Jechoniah to David’s son Solomon. Rather she could trace herself back through another of David’s sons, namely Nathan, the brother of Solomon (Luke 3:31). Nathan, like Solomon, was a son of David’s favored wife Bathsheba, but Nathan never occupied the throne and his genealogy accordingly became obscure. He is listed in the biblical record but no descendants are mentioned, in contrast to his brother Solomon (2 Chronicles 3:5). So, according to Luke, Jesus could claim a direct ancestry back to King David through his mother Mary as well. He did not have the “adoptive” claim through his legal father Joseph alone, but also that of David’s actual bloodline.
The name Nazareth, the town where Mary lived, comes from the Hebrew word netzer meaning “branch” or “shoot.”[x] One could loosely translate Nazareth as “Branch Town.” But why would a town have such a strange name? As we have seen, in the time of Jesus it was a tiny village. Its claim to fame was not size or economic prominence but something potentially even more significant. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, written before Jesus’ lifetime, we regularly find the future Messiah or King of Israel described as the “branch of David.”[xi] The term is taken from Isaiah 11 where the Messiah of David’s lineage is called a “Branch.” The term stuck. The later followers of Jesus were called Nazarenes or “Branchites.”[xii] The little village of Nazareth very likely got its name, or perhaps its nickname, because it was known as the place that members of the royal family had settled and were concentrated. It is no surprise that both Mary and Joseph lived there, as each represented different “branches” of the “Branch of David.” The gospels mention other “relatives” of the family that lived there (Mark 6:4). It is entirely possible that most of the inhabitants of “Branch Town” were members of the same extended “Branch” family. The family’s affinity for this area of Galilee continued for centuries. North of Sepphoris, about twelve miles from Nazareth, was a town called Kokhaba or “Star Town.” The term “Star,” like “Branch” is a coded term for the Messiah that is also found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.[xiii] Both Nazareth and Kokhaba were noted well into the 2nd century AD as towns in which families related to Jesus, and thus part of the “royal family,” were concentrated.[xiv]
Finally, the names in Luke that run from King David down to Heli, Mary’s father, offer us some very interesting clues that further explain why this particular Davidic line was uniquely important. There are listed no fewer than six instances of the name we know as Matthew: Matthat, Mattathias (twice), Maath, Matthat, and Mattatha. What is striking is that the name Matthew was one invariably associated with a priestly not a kingly or royal lineage. One of Jesus’ twelve apostles was named Matthew, but he was also called Levi.[xv] Two of the six “Matthews” in Jesus’ lineage were sons of fathers named “Levi.” Josephus, the 1st century Jewish historian, records that his own father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and brother were all named Matthias, and they were all priests of the tribe of Levi from the distinguished priestly family of the Hashmoneans or Maccabees. Ancient Israel was divided into twelve tribes, descendents of the twelve sons of Jacob the grandson of Abraham. The priests of Israel had to be descendents of Aaron, brother of Moses, who was from the tribe of Levi. The kings had to be of the royal lineage of King David, who was of the tribe of Judah. These positions, King and Priest, gave the tribes of Judah and Levi special prominence. But why would there be so many priestly names in a Davidic dynasty?
Remember, when Mary became pregnant and left Nazareth to stay with Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptizer, Luke notes that they were relatives, though he does not say how (Luke 1:36). But he also records that Elizabeth and her husband Zechariah were of the priestly lineage (Luke 1:5). This is further confirmation of the link between Mary’s Davidic family and the priestly tribe of Levi.
It is inconceivable that such a heavy prevalence of Levite or priestly names would be part of Mary’s genealogy unless there was a significant influence from the tribe of Levi merging into this particular royal line of the tribe of Judah. What appears likely is that Mary was of mixed lineage. Luke only names the male line from David down to Mary. But the large number of priestly names indicates that there were likely important Levite women marrying into this Davidic line along the way. It is a pattern that goes all the way back to Aaron, brother of Moses, the very first Israelite priest. Aaron of the tribe of Levi married a princess of the tribe of Judah named Elisheva or Elizabeth (Exodus 6:23).
L
The covenant between the nation of Israel has been broken never to be recovered:
(Zec 11:10 KJV) And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people.
(Heb 8:8 KJV) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
(Heb 8:9 KJV) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
(Zec 11:10 KJV) And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people.
(Heb 8:8 KJV) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
(Heb 8:9 KJV) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Yet to rise one day as a Phoenix...
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
(Jer 31:31-34)
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
(Jer 31:31-34)
L
Matthew 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Matthew 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
Matthew 21:44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
Matthew 21:42-44 does not say the kingdom of God has been taken from Israel and given to the church (speaking of the church in a general, institutional sense). First, Jesus did not say the kingdom of God would be taken from Israel, but from the people He was addressing. He was addressing "the chief priests and elders of the people" (v. 23). Verse 45 makes this quite plain. "And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them." Thus this passage teaches the Jewish religious rulers of Jesus' day lost their position in the kingdom of God because of their rejection of Christ. The kingdom of God would be taken from them and given to others. Second, Jesus did not say the kingdom of God would be given to the church, but to "another nation." This could refer to the church, since she is called a "holy nation" (1 Peter 2:9), but it does not have to refer to the church. It could as easily refer to a future restored Israel. And to interpret this "other nation" as the church contradicts much clear Bible truth. It contradicts the context of the passage. It contradicts God's promises to Israel in the Old Testament. It contradicts consistent New Testament revelation concerning the kingdom of God. Third, the parable itself teaches that Israel and her promises shall remain intact in a future restoration.
In the parable of Matthew 21:33-44, the vineyard is Israel and the husbandmen pictures Israel's spiritual rulers. It is the husbandmen who are destroyed and replaced, not the vineyard. Fourth, the Old Testament reference (Psalms 118:22) which Jesus quoted in Matthew 21:42 upholds the truth that Israel's rulers are replaced, not Israel herself. In Psalms 118:22, it is the "builders" who are in view. The builders are the spiritual rulers of Israel who rejected Christ, God's Chief Stone. Therefore, again, Jesus is teaching that the rulers shall lose their place because of their rebellion. The builders are rejected, not the building. Fifth, Old Testament testimony upholds the truth that Israel's rulers are replaced, not Israel herself. It has already been demonstrated that God's promises to national Israel cannot be lost through disobedience because of their unconditional, eternal nature and because God has continued to reaffirm them after disobedience. The covenants promised that Israel would be chastened for sin, but not permanently cast aside. New Testament testimony promises the nation Israel a future restoration. It has been demonstrated in this study that the New Testament usage of the kingdom of God points to the same future, earthly Davidic kingdom as that foretold in the Old Testament. One relatively obscure statement in Matthew 21:43 cannot overthrow consistent and clear New Testament revelation.
(Source: Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible and Christianity: KINGDOM OF GOD)
Matthew 21:43 does not teach that the Church has replaced the nation of Israel, or the Kingdom of God would be taken from the nation of Israel and given to the church. According to Romans 11:1-5:
Romans 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Romans 11:2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
Romans 11:3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
Romans 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
Matthew 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
Matthew 21:44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
Matthew 21:42-44 does not say the kingdom of God has been taken from Israel and given to the church (speaking of the church in a general, institutional sense). First, Jesus did not say the kingdom of God would be taken from Israel, but from the people He was addressing. He was addressing "the chief priests and elders of the people" (v. 23). Verse 45 makes this quite plain. "And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them." Thus this passage teaches the Jewish religious rulers of Jesus' day lost their position in the kingdom of God because of their rejection of Christ. The kingdom of God would be taken from them and given to others. Second, Jesus did not say the kingdom of God would be given to the church, but to "another nation." This could refer to the church, since she is called a "holy nation" (1 Peter 2:9), but it does not have to refer to the church. It could as easily refer to a future restored Israel. And to interpret this "other nation" as the church contradicts much clear Bible truth. It contradicts the context of the passage. It contradicts God's promises to Israel in the Old Testament. It contradicts consistent New Testament revelation concerning the kingdom of God. Third, the parable itself teaches that Israel and her promises shall remain intact in a future restoration.
In the parable of Matthew 21:33-44, the vineyard is Israel and the husbandmen pictures Israel's spiritual rulers. It is the husbandmen who are destroyed and replaced, not the vineyard. Fourth, the Old Testament reference (Psalms 118:22) which Jesus quoted in Matthew 21:42 upholds the truth that Israel's rulers are replaced, not Israel herself. In Psalms 118:22, it is the "builders" who are in view. The builders are the spiritual rulers of Israel who rejected Christ, God's Chief Stone. Therefore, again, Jesus is teaching that the rulers shall lose their place because of their rebellion. The builders are rejected, not the building. Fifth, Old Testament testimony upholds the truth that Israel's rulers are replaced, not Israel herself. It has already been demonstrated that God's promises to national Israel cannot be lost through disobedience because of their unconditional, eternal nature and because God has continued to reaffirm them after disobedience. The covenants promised that Israel would be chastened for sin, but not permanently cast aside. New Testament testimony promises the nation Israel a future restoration. It has been demonstrated in this study that the New Testament usage of the kingdom of God points to the same future, earthly Davidic kingdom as that foretold in the Old Testament. One relatively obscure statement in Matthew 21:43 cannot overthrow consistent and clear New Testament revelation.
(Source: Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible and Christianity: KINGDOM OF GOD)
Matthew 21:43 does not teach that the Church has replaced the nation of Israel, or the Kingdom of God would be taken from the nation of Israel and given to the church. According to Romans 11:1-5:
Romans 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Romans 11:2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
Romans 11:3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
Romans 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
It seems such a shame that CC posters should be up in arms against a movement to know Christ better by examining the roots closer. It does require a change, like Luther's ideas required a change in the Catholic Church.
We know that God told Paul and the apostles to take the gospel to the gentiles. Before, many gentiles had become followers of the true God, some ritually becoming Jews to do that. The Hebrews always had simply consisted of gentiles who accepted the true God. They had never tried to gain converts until Christ, but now they were to gain converts.
We can follow in Acts this entire story, like following the newspapers of that day. The Jews said that before they even thought about following God they should be circumcised and learn the food laws. That was not God's plan. When Paul said so they were going to stone him, saying he was against the entire Torah that explains God. Paul proved that wasn't what he was about, yet today's church is still trying to say that it was, and instead of stoning Paul about it they are stoning the Torah.
This movement is bringing up the dietary laws to examine them. The church has said they are laws about what food we should eat, and for God that wasn't the point in the least. I am just making a study of the way the Jews worshipped the true God in Babylon, when they didn't have the temple and comparing it to the way we worship now when Christ is our temple. It is an example of the roots movement.
There are postings after postings here about how terrible this kind of thing is. They say it isn't learning about Christ, because all these things are labeled law it is sure, they say, that it means that they are trying to be Jews and they shouldn't teach that. They are accused of teaching to use such as diet to save. Worldly type people, blind to the spiritual meaning, have been to a church that tries to open minds to what Paul says about them. Paul says they must never be used as a work that results in grace. Paul is never against God's or Christ's words. These spiritual dead people say we must ever learn about such as feasts and diets. It is not right or Godly, what they are doing to fight this.
We know that God told Paul and the apostles to take the gospel to the gentiles. Before, many gentiles had become followers of the true God, some ritually becoming Jews to do that. The Hebrews always had simply consisted of gentiles who accepted the true God. They had never tried to gain converts until Christ, but now they were to gain converts.
We can follow in Acts this entire story, like following the newspapers of that day. The Jews said that before they even thought about following God they should be circumcised and learn the food laws. That was not God's plan. When Paul said so they were going to stone him, saying he was against the entire Torah that explains God. Paul proved that wasn't what he was about, yet today's church is still trying to say that it was, and instead of stoning Paul about it they are stoning the Torah.
This movement is bringing up the dietary laws to examine them. The church has said they are laws about what food we should eat, and for God that wasn't the point in the least. I am just making a study of the way the Jews worshipped the true God in Babylon, when they didn't have the temple and comparing it to the way we worship now when Christ is our temple. It is an example of the roots movement.
There are postings after postings here about how terrible this kind of thing is. They say it isn't learning about Christ, because all these things are labeled law it is sure, they say, that it means that they are trying to be Jews and they shouldn't teach that. They are accused of teaching to use such as diet to save. Worldly type people, blind to the spiritual meaning, have been to a church that tries to open minds to what Paul says about them. Paul says they must never be used as a work that results in grace. Paul is never against God's or Christ's words. These spiritual dead people say we must ever learn about such as feasts and diets. It is not right or Godly, what they are doing to fight this.
L
The New Covenant is not fulfilled in the Church. In Hebrews 8:8-10, it says that the New Covenant belongs to “the house of Judah and the house of Israel”. The writer of Hebrews refers to the New Covenant to show that the Mosaic system was only temporary and that even the Old Testament promised that one day it would be abolished and replaced by another covenant, and he also states that every New Testament believer partakes of the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant through Christ, but nowhere does the writer of Hebrews state that this covenant has been transferred from national Israel to the church. The Apostle Paul (whom I believe to be the writer of Hebrews) taught that the New Covenant will be literally fulfilled following the church age (Romans 11:25-27).
L
By New Testament believers I mean all members of the body of Christ/the Church....both Jew and Gentile. Although there are Jewish believers in the body of Christ/the Church, the majority of the body of Christ/the Church, is Gentile. The spiritual blessings include ALL believers...nobody is "precluded". Which "Dispy" group precludes the Gentile believers from the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant? I don't think I'm in that group.
I do believe there are true messianic christians, but I'm very wary of the fact that some try to squeeze in law into the New Covenant, making it of none effect. Knowing the truths & holy days of the OT is important to understanding the New Covenant.... but we should never cross the line with adding Judiasm, their observances, or their traditions into our worship & beliefs.
Someone stated the messianic church started right after Israel became a nation again...... I'm surprised no one has thought of the ashkenazi jews or their relationship to it, since they have infiltrated everything else in Israel.
Someone stated the messianic church started right after Israel became a nation again...... I'm surprised no one has thought of the ashkenazi jews or their relationship to it, since they have infiltrated everything else in Israel.