Gentiles

[just-me]

See Galatians 4:23-26 describing an allegory concerning the flesh first, and the spirit second.

"But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." (Galatians 4:23-26)

An allegory is a hidden meaning. Certain elements, such as people, things, and happenings in the story, point to corresponding elements in another realm or level of meaning. The closer the resemblances between the two realms, the more detailed is the allegory. Paul introduces his own understanding by using Sinai, Hagar and Sarah (the free woman) that represent the order of God's plan. These are 2 covenants that are represented in Paul's letter to the Galatians and both are represented as the seed of Abraham. The allegory that Paul is describing is a constant pattern of events that God uses throughout the entire history recorded in scripture.

How do the Gentiles fit into this allegory?

God chooses the second over the first, but the first continues to have there place unless like Esau, the promise is consciously rejected.

God chooses Isaac over Ishmael the first born. Yet Ishmaelites have their place in God's promises. “And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed.” (Gen. 21:13)

God chooses Jacob over over Esau the firstborn of twins, even though Isaac loved Esau. And because Esau rejected (sold out) his birthright He lost favor with God.

“And Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthright. And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me?” (Genesis 25:31-32)

“I have loved you, saith the Lord. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.” (Malachi 1:2-3)

 

[just-me]

Continuing with the “allegory.”
“Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.” (Hebrews 12:15-16)

In almost every case, God chose the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] over the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] to set a precedence, being the “allegory” for the New Testament by offering salvation, and an open gate through Christ Jesus in order for us to enter into His Kingdom. Nevertheless both the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] and the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] of those who believe are counted as one people in His everlasting kingdom.

1[SUP]st[/SUP] Cain 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Abel
1[SUP]st[/SUP] Hagar 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Sarah
1[SUP]st[/SUP] Ishmael 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Isaac
1[SUP]st[/SUP] Esau 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Jacob
1[SUP]st[/SUP] Leah 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Rachel
1[SUP]st[/SUP] Levi 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Judah
1[SUP]st[/SUP] Manasseh 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Ephraim
1[SUP]st [/SUP]Nadab and Abihu 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Eleazar and Ithamar
1[SUP]st[/SUP]Chilion 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Boaz
1[SUP]st[/SUP] Saul 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] David
1[SUP]st[/SUP] Aaron 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Messiah Jesus
1[SUP]st[/SUP] flesh 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Spirit
1[SUP]st[/SUP] Jew 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Gentile i.e. Greek

In every case we see a pattern. Even Esau is mentioned for our edification, even though his actions were hated. So all have a purpose in God's divine sequence of events.

There is however one big difference, when seeing the order of events coming back to the first, and that the New Testament Priesthood is from the first of Salem after the order of Melchizedek. Jebus became the name of Salem after the Canaanites settled the promised land before Israel came to possess it. It was only until King David conquered the city that it was named “the city of David” called Jerusalem.

“But he who was of *the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the free woman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.” (Galatians 4:23-26)

Paul isn't saying to throw away God's word delivered to Israel at Sinai. If that were true (which it isn't) he wouldn't have said that he worshipped “the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:” (Acts 24:14), nor would Paul claim the law as “spiritual” and then instruct the Galatians to *cast it out instead of the fleshly carnal mind. (Romans 7:14) Hagar lived and died long before God's Covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai.

The allegory is that we are to *cast out the flesh in relation to the bond woman, and instead live in freedom and peace according to the free woman by the promise that Jerusalem represents.

“Nevertheless what saith the scripture? *Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” (Galatians 4:30)

So The “holy city,” the “place of peace” was first Salem, then Jebus, and lastly Jerusalem. So with the New Covenant, all things included, reverts back to the original, and incorporates every thing in-between to make the fulfillment of Jesus Christ complete. “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last:” (Revelation 1:1a)

For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. (Romans 10:12)

For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. (Malachi 3:6)

For Israel hath not been forsaken, nor Judah of his God, of the Lord of hosts; though their land was filled with sin against the Holy One of Israel. (Jeremiah 51:5)

 

[just-me]

Romans 11:17-24
[SUP]17 [/SUP]And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
[SUP]18 [/SUP]Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
[SUP]19 [/SUP]Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.
[SUP]20 [/SUP]Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
[SUP]21 [/SUP]For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
[SUP]22 [/SUP]Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
[SUP]23 [/SUP]And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.
[SUP]24 [/SUP]For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

Therefore, the Jews are not grafted into the Gentile Church, but the Gentiles are grafted into Christ via the Jews. Many have this backwards, but the Bible says what it says, and I'm sure I will get flack over this one and accused of promoting the HRM which I certainly am not a part of. I'm just promoting the Bible documentation, and the history from my KJV.

Not really. I was graphed in by Christ, not by the Jews. And HE is the tree, not the Jews. I think you're stretching past solid hermeneutics.

From the opening post. http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/118674-gentiles.html#post2195006

When I use the word "via" it is to define the route God designed to arrive at the proper destination. The Jews are not the means by which the Gentiles receive the power to do so. That's Christ and Christ alone.

I know that there has been a lot of confusion brought on by harassment on this thread until 3 days ago, so I thought that I would go back and explain better what seemed to be misunderstood, or just address in the best way the refutations that were unceasing for over a week.

 

[just-me]

referring to post 43

OT documentation was quoted by many NT writers.
There is nothing through the entire word of God that says the Jews are considered to be more important than someone or something else; priority in importance, order, or rank. This was never endorsed by what I presented. I present Biblical truth that God's order of events are for our edification. Jesus presents the same analogy when He spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well when He said; “give me to drink.”

“There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink.”
John 4:7
“Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.”
John 4:22

This was God's predetermined avenue for the purpose of grafting the Gentiles into His Kingdom. It's the perfect way even if we don't understand the finite details as to why it as necessary. Thank God for the Jews.

 

[just-me]

I think it boils down to “why did God plan to have 2 separate groups of people to be “one” in His kingdom, and how is it supposed to come to pass?” The Jew first and also to the gentile as Paul said. (Romans 2:9-10)

Some really don't know now that the house of Ephraim is related to Gentiles. There is a dispute over how Paul received revelation before the Jews, classifying him as a Gentile.
post 44

Reframe that to: In the fullness of time, God separated a people to himself from the world to bring forth the Messiah.

It's not about two separate groups of people, it's about God preparing a people to receive the Messiah, which they rejected.
So he took the gospel to the world, which was the reason he had prepared in the first place a people to receive the Messiah which they rejected.

As I said “why did God plan to have 2 separate groups of people to be “one” in His kingdom, and how is it supposed to come to pass?”

 

[just-me]

post 49

This thread is about how God's plan reveals to us how we, as Gentiles, are grafted into he Kingdom of God according to the chronology and choices that are made in Biblical history.

Acts 26:7 Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come.
James 1:1James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

The discrepancy is cleared by understanding that Ephraim and Judah (both remnants of believers in Christ) will be brought together as “One” according to Ezekiel 37:15-22

“And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all.” (Ezekiel 37:22)

 

[just-me]

Baptism began with the descendants of Levi who were elected by God to be the governing priests of the Old Covenant. This duty began with Aaron and His sons who were “baptized” into that elected position. “And this is the thing that thou shalt do unto them to hallow them, to minister unto me in the priest's office: Take one young bullock, and two rams without blemish, And Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shalt wash them with water.” (Exodus 29:1 and 4)

So the order of baptism for “consecration” (ordained as sacred) began at mount Sinai as Moses received priestly instructions. Aaron and his sons were declared as dedicated and sacred in the eyes of God by this action of immersion in water. This confirms the necessity why Jesus had to be “baptized” by John because the priesthood of the Levities would be transferred to Judah through Christ. “Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.” (Matthew 3:13-15)

referring to post 74

Among the several contra-NT notions proposed in your post, is the above.
The Levitical prieshood was not transferred to Christ or to Judah.

Christ was made a priest in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron, and he is the new eternal High Priest of that priesthood.
There is no Levitical priesthood.

You are very confused. . .because you do not understand that the former incomplete revelation of the OT is to be understood in the light of the latter complete revelation of the NT, where we learn that the Levitical priesthood has been changed to the priesthood of Melchizedek.

There is no hint of refuting of the New Testament teachings of the apostles in my quote above. The priesthood was transferred according to New Testament scripture. Jesus was transformed more beautiful and elevated above the Levitical priesthood. Moses and Elijah were present representing the law and the prophets. This responsibility was transferred to Christ Jesus on what we call “the mount of transfiguration.”

“And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.” “And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.” (Mark 9:2 and Matthew 17:3)

I was explaining the washing of water for the priesthood that is written in the Old Testament and how that is related to the baptism of John who was a descendant of a Levite priest. This is the reason Jesus asked John to baptize Him. It was necessary in order to fulfill His mission. As the OT priests were washed with water to be consecrated unto God so they could do the duties of the priest, so Jesus needed to follow suit with His Father's will for the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek.

this is my original post

 

[just-me]

“Yet the Lord testified against Israel, and against Judah, by all the prophets, and by all the seers, saying, Turn ye from your evil ways, and keep my commandments and my statutes, according to all the law which I commanded your fathers, and which I sent to you by my servants the prophets. Notwithstanding they would not hear, but hardened their necks, like to the neck of their fathers, that did not believe in the Lord their God.” (2 Kings 17:13)

“Hearken unto me, my people; and give ear unto me, O my nation: for a law shall proceed from me, and I will make my judgment to rest for a light of the people.” (Isa. 51:4)

“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 21:43)

God reacted toward Israel, either rejecting, or accepting their actions in light of His unchanging righteous judgments according to His instructions. God being unchanged, and Jesus being His Son who reacted solely according to His Father's will, why do those who say they have been added to the Kingdom of God (Gentiles) declare that Jesus judges the New Testament church differently than His own Father did Israel?

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever” and He, “The same was in the beginning with God” taking into consideration that “there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.” (Hebrews 13:8, John 1:2 and Romans 10:12)

They have been added to those OT believers who did not reject their Messiah, most of whom did.
Baloney. . .all who reject Jesus Christ are condemned, Jew and Gentile alike.

Ya that's the conclusion of what I presented. Both God and Jesus are unchanging because they are perfect, perfectly united as ONE. The judgment of God is the same to Gentiles as it was/is to the Jews. (Israel)

"Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:" Romans 2:9-10