Jewish Christians, Pt. 2, Hebrew Roots, Hebrew Names

The second topic in the interview with the Volks that I want to bring out is:

WAS JESUS CALLED "YESHUA" IN HIS OWN DAY?
Scott Volk says [11:50] "The church of the 21st century has been duped, because we've kind of Christianized the gospel" and goes on to explain that Jesus would have been known as Yeshua son of Miriam rather than Jesus son of Mary and so on, which assumes that Hebrew was the spoken language of His time and place.

But was it? WAS His name "Yeshua?"

I've seen many different opinions on what language Jesus most commonly spoke, and Hebrew isn't the usual choice. The New Testament was written in koine Greek by various of the Lord's Jewish disciples, which makes it very clear that it was common for the Jews to speak Greek. Therefore Jesus Himself must have known Greek and that should have made Him quite familiar with His own name as said the Greek way. In fact it is likely He was fluent in Greek simply because that was the language of the whole Hellenized world since the conquest of Alexander the Great over three hundred years earlier. In fact the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek, the translation known as the Septuagint, around the second to third centuries BC because Greek had become the common language of everybody including the Jews, who were losing touch with Hebrew. It would be very odd if Jesus DIDN'T speak fluent Greek.

Did the Roman soldiers who were stationed all over Judea in those days also speak the common Greek or stick to their own Latin or what? Jesus had many encounters with the Romans, from the centurions who came to Him for healing, to Pilate. Did the Romans bother to learn the languages of the peoples they had conquered or isn't it more likely that they all shared the koine Greek?

Some claim that the people of Galilee would have spoken Aramaic which would make that Jesus' native language from childhood, and since at certain crucial moments as recorded in scripture He did speak Aramaic, this may be confirmation. At least it would imply that He was equally at home in that language as well as Greek. According to Wikipedia Aramaic has some similarities with both Hebrew and Arabic. One source I found says Aramaic is more like Arabic than like Hebrew. Jesus' name wouldn't have been Yeshua in Aramaic would it? Could it have been more like the Muslim Isa?

It is also thought by some that He would have been fluent in Hebrew because that is the language of the scriptures He would have heard in the Temple, but if the common language outside the Temple was not Hebrew then Hebrew would not likely have been spoken in any other context except the Temple or the study of scripture. He might have been well-versed in Hebrew, then, but not likely to have used it in everyday contexts. However, it's very possible that Hebrew was not even the language of the scriptures at that time, because the Greek Septuagint translation mentioned above was commonly used.

All these considerations make Hebrew the LEAST likely to have been His native language.

It's fine, I think, for Jewish believers in Christ to be interested in the Hebrew roots of the New Testament in the Old Testament, to appreciate and practice the Jewish ceremonies and holidays and so on, especially those who grew up in a religious Jewish family and studied Hebrew, and to prefer the name "Yeshua" simply because it's more Jewish and doesn't have the historical connotations of anti-Semitism they attach to the name "Jesus" -- even if it wasn't really what Jesus was called.

But too often it seems that unwarranted assumptions are made about how supposedly Hebrew Jesus and the New Testament contexts really were, and what for? Scott Volk says the Church has been "duped" and implies we've been deprived of something important if we don't think of Jesus as Yeshua. Well, now it looks to me like Jesus wasn't known as Yeshua at all. I tend to think that if He was and if it was really important, God would have made sure the New Testament was written in Hebrew. Perhaps He chose Greek partly for the very reason that the Hebrew language can easily become a sort of claim to authenticity the Jews can hold over the Gentiles, as they also tried to do with circumcision in Paul's day. For the same reason it's a good thing Latin wasn't the original language of the New Testament either, depriving the Romanists of at least one way of lording it over all the world -- with any claim to legitimacy anyway. Koine Greek had all kinds of virtues for the purposes of spreading the gospel and recording the scriptures, and the added virtue that it soon became a virtually dead language so nobody would want to fight over its claims to authenticity. All of this should make for a more level playing field for the sake of the unity of Jew and Gentile. What a wise Lord we have.

Hey, I believe that Israel is going to have a big part in the last days, I'm glad that Jews are coming into the Church in greater numbers and I look forward to their eventual inclusion in droves as scripture promises. The Lord said He'd come back to the Mount of Olives and I take that quite literally. I don't even see how it could be taken any other way.

IF there IS a significant trend of denial in the TRUE Church (not Rome) that Israel is going to play such a part in the last days, that's an extreme position that needs to be corrected. But also there is an OVER-emphasis on the role of Israel and the Jews that equally needs to be corrected. I don't see that there is really much of a "missing agenda" in the Church at all, as that radio broadcast purports to tell us. If there is, they didn't do a very good job of showing exactly where and what it involves.

Jewish Christians, Israel, Replacement Theology, Anti-Semitism, Catholic connection

Heard last weekend's radio program at Jan Markell's website, Understanding the Times, titled The Church's Missing Agenda, with the show's executive producer Larry Kutzler sitting in for Jan, and I've got to say this was one confusing -- and annoying -- theological experience. I had to listen more than once to try to figure it out.

The guests on the show were Shelly and Scott Volk, father and son, Jewish pastors of churches, Shelly's in Arizona, Scott's in North Carolina. I knew of Shelly Volk because of his earlier association with Art Katz, whose books and tapes I absorbed avidly years ago. Art Katz was an inspiring preacher and he never annoyed me, so I was surprised to have such a reaction to this interview with the Volks.

Let me see if I can sum up my annoyance: They seem to be saying that the "Church" has a "Gentile" flavor to it that denies the essential Hebrewness of the scriptures, which deprives us of a necessary perspective, especially on Israel. Much of the time their way of speaking seems to set themselves outside the Church as in "we" versus "them" although they are believers in Christ and certainly know that scripture tells us "there is no more Jew or Gentile ... but all are one in Christ Jesus." They do emphasize at times that they identify with the Church, but often their language suggests a sense of distance from it nevertheless.

For instance, they refer to the mention in the Book of Acts [Acts 11:26] of the point at which the Church started to be called "Christians" and clearly imply that they think this described a switch from a predominantly Jewish to a Gentile Church, which makes the name "Christian" pretty much synonymous in their minds with "Gentile." But the Church at Antioch was just as much Jewish in those days as all the churches were. Paul and the apostles always went to the Jews first, to the synagogues, wherever they took the gospel. The first believers were ALL "Christians", both Jew and Gentile. This kind of thinking that makes the Church Gentile simply must come from the modern Jewish mentality and not from early church history.

In fact, Matthew Henry makes the point that the name "Christian" would have been a unifier of Jew and Gentile, rather than the divisive Gentile designation the Volks are trying to make of it:

Thus those who before their conversion had been distinguished by the names of Jews and Gentiles might after their conversion be called by one and the same name, which would help them to forget their former dividing names, and prevent their bringing their former marks of distinction, and with them the seeds of contention, into the church. Let not one say, "I was a Jew;’’ nor the other, "I was a Gentile;’’ when both the one and the other must now say, "I am a Christian." [Matthew Henry commentary at Blue Letter Bible for Acts 11:26]

This quote gets at what annoyed me so much about the interview with the Volks. All this emphasis on their Jewishness and the Jewishness of the scriptures and the supposed Gentileness of the Church and so on IS divisive and does bring "seeds of contention into the church." And after you spend some time sorting it out and finding that they are wrong about most of this, wrong about this supposed denial of the relevant Hebrew context of the scriptures and the gospel, which I went on to do and report on below, it is more clearly shown that this IS merely a contentiousness that shouldn't be made so much of.

They don't quote anyone so that we might know who, or what segment of the Church, they are referring to when they speak of "Christians" having a deficient appreciation of the Hebrew background of the scriptures, or what that looks like in action. This is made all the more mystifying in the context of the use of audio clips concerning anti-Semitism, in which the speakers --both pro and con anti-Semitic positions-- are also not identified, but the implication is that "Christians" are somehow the "anti-Semites." We are left having to figure out how to connect these vague accusations with some notion that the Church is rather too "Gentile" and doesn't appreciate the Hebrew scriptures.

A host of objections floods my mind as I try to grapple with this.

First, the Reformers, as I've been most particularly learning from Chris Pinto recently, DID see a role for Israel in the last days, contrary to the accusation that the "Church" has left Israel out of their reckoning. Have contemporary Reformed churches done so? They need to be specific.

Second, I remember a discussion of the translators of the King James Version of the Bible as taking care to preserve the Hebrew forms and rhythms of its language even in the New Testament Greek -- wish I knew where to find that comment now. Certainly the newer translations haven't bothered with such niceties but I don't think this is what the Volks are objecting to.

Third, my own experience since I became a believer in the late 80s has been of a veritable inundation with the Hebrew context of the gospel. Who hasn't learned the "scarlet thread of redemption" that can be traced from Eden to Christ? Who has missed out on a study of the Book of Daniel's direct prophecy of the timing of the coming of Christ, or the prophecies of the world situation of the last days in that and other Old and New Testament books as well, prophecies we are seeing unfolding before our eyes? I had years of Bible study with Kay Arthur's materials for instance, who is strongly pro-Israel. I got this in both a Presbyterian church and a charismatic church. The same pro-Israel position is also true of John MacArthur whose books and tapes I avidly learned from. And Chuck Missler did very interesting in-depth studies of the meaning of the ceremonies and feasts of Israel as depicting Christ. I got from Kay Arthur's studies the analysis of the tabernacle as showing Christ, and that's the sort of teaching Missler also did. Jews for Jesus made the rounds of the churches too in those days with similar teachings; maybe they still do but it's been a while since I got to see them.

Perhaps my experience was not the norm? But if not, then what is needed is a clear reference to the experience of the majority of the churches about which I apparently know nothing, as I would have thought such teaching, at least of the building of the New Testament on the Old, to be essential and unavoidable.

So, I need to ask WHICH part of the "Church" is supposedly deprived of this sort of teaching?

Some of the complaint from the Volks seems to have to do with "replacement theology," which has been the subject of a few recent posts of mine, but it's not clear exactly how that fits in either. WHICH part of the Church teaches this theology anyway? And exactly WHAT IS this theology in their minds? Surely they can't deny that the Church IS the Israel of God, spiritual Zion, the inheritor of the Abrahamic covenant by faith, SCRIPTURE SAYS SO. But they DO seem to deny this and get it all confused with the notion that "therefore" there is no longer a role for national Israel. The latter does not necessarily follow from the former but they seem to put it all together as one package. I've discussed my own view of this in more detail in earlier posts.

SOME PART OF THIS HAS TO BE ROMAN CATHOLIC, AND PLEASE LET'S STOP CALLING ROMAN CATHOLICISM "CHRISTIAN."

Is it perhaps the CATHOLIC "church" that most strongly holds the "replacement theology" that is so objected to? This needs to be made clear.

One clue to this particular confusion did come up in this broadcast as an audio clip was played of a man very aggressively denouncing the Jews as "the accursed Jews" -- without identifying the speaker but implying that he somehow represents something "Christian." It wasn't hard to google "accursed Jews" and trace the clip to a video at You Tube in which a Catholic [identified as Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi] standing in front of a table full of Roman Catholic paraphernalia, a crucifix with a dead Christ pinned to it, pictures of Christ with a Catholic flavor, a picture of the face on the shroud of Turin, a statue of Mary, candles and so on, goes on ranting against the Jews. The film was made by a group called "Mary's Little Remnant" --Mary, not Christ, Mary the true god of Roman Catholicism.

From his first few minutes on the subject it's clear he's a traditionalist Catholic who rejects the council of Vatican II as apostasy, and some of his objection is that that council said Jews should not be accused of the blood of Christ. Of course his own views are apostate as well, just judging from the table behind him, although he's right that the Jews did take the curse of Jesus' death upon themselves and Vatican II is wrong.

So are the Volks who deny the special culpability of the Jews, and the rest of us who have tried to take the heat off the Jews for this, as I also used to do. Shelly Volk gives the typical defensive denial {17:06]:

I would just say this: Jews for centuries have been called Christ-killers, and you know what, in a sense we even see that written in the New Covenant [so far so good, yes we do], but the reality of it is [could "the reality of it" be something different from what the New Covenant says? Careful here.] that the Roman Centurions killed Him, the Jews killed Him, we all killed Him by sin, but the fact of the matter is, the crucifixion of the Messiah was in the heart of God. In other words ... He wasn't killed, He gave up His life voluntarily to fulfill the will of God and that's what we have to go for. The ultimate end is, What does the word of God say? {17:42]

This is what a lot of us do when we discover the role of the Jews in the Bible, try to get them off the hook. But we have to rewrite scripture to do that. The Jewish leaders brought the charges against Jesus, the Jewish people supported that action with their cheers for the release of Barabbas rather than Jesus, then they took the curse of the death of Jesus on themselves and their posterity:

Matthew 27:22-25 Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? [They] all say unto him, Let him be crucified. And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified. When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but [that] rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed [his] hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye [to it]. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood [be] on us, and on our children.

Scripture is very clear that they did this, it can't be avoided. Yes, in a sense we're all guilty of the blood of Christ, but it was the Jewish leaders who brought the charges against Him while Pilate tried to get out of prosecuting Him, and only the Jews specifically agreed to be cursed for His death.

It's sad, really, they had no idea what they were doing, as Jesus said from the cross, but the curse has followed them down the centuries nevertheless. What should our response be? Pity I think.

I do agree with the Volks about the Catholic guy's ATTITUDE, it is arrogant and boasting against the Jews and you can see how violence could come out of it. I only heard the first few minutes of his talk and it would need a lot of careful thought to sort out the true from the false and all the implications, but acknowledging that the Jews are under a curse for the blood of Christ [until they receive Him as Savior] no way justifies the Roman Church's anti-Jewish pogroms and the tortures and murders of the Inquisition. Jesus rejected all violence against His enemies and the Romanist perpetrators are going to get worse than the Inquisition at the judgment seat, PRAISE THE LORD!

One thing needs to be made clear in these last days: THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS NOT CHRISTIAN. Pre-Vatican II or post-Vatican II it's all still the Antichrist system and the Great Apostasy. This is one of the biggest errors being made by the true churches these days, to treat Romanism as just another denomination of Christianity. It is NOT CHRISTIAN AT ALL! If there IS a Rapture of the Church soon, before the last days come to their full expression of horror and evil, the main representative of "Christianity" left on earth is going to be the apostate Antichrist Roman Catholic Church, the Harlot Church, and the Great Tribulation of those days is very likely to look like the Inquisition and the Holocaust (which also had Roman Catholic roots -- go hear Chris Pinto) rolled into one and magnified to unimaginable heights.

It was not right for the Roman identity of this denouncer of the Jews to have been left out of the discussion with the Volks. This is a rant that could have come from Mel Gibson, who was apparently raised in this form of Catholic anti-Semitism.

Also, at the very beginning of the Understanding the Times radio broadcast an audio clip was played of a man with a British accent who is also not identified, who was going on about how anti-Semitism in Europe has been increasing in recent years "as a consequence of pandering to the bigotry of Muslims," referring to the huge increase in the European Muslim population, who then went on to say "not that Europe has ever needed much encouragement in that direction." And here again it occurred to me to ask, WHICH PART OF EUROPE? Catholic Europe perhaps? The Inquisition killed over 50 million people, most of them TRUE CHRISTIANS. It was the ROMAN Church that set itself to exterminate the Jews, along with all the true Christians, along with sundry Muslims, witches and whomever else they felt like torturing and murdering. If there was SOME Protestant or other source of anti-Semitism, this has to be made clear. And try to avoid histories of such things that have a hidden Jesuit connection in them too. The history of the Holocaust often traces it back to Luther's Lies of the Jews, but the predominant role was really the Catholic church. Pinto proves this.

To Save Some Catholics If Possible

I have been so affected by the information coming from Chris Pinto's ministry about the Church of Rome and its plots and murders that I've become desperate to see people saved from it. I don't have much of a gift of evangelism but now I'm praying that the Lord will give me at least some ability at this.

I have to suppose it is in answer to that prayer that I found an article on Chris Pinto's site, Five Reasons Why Catholic is Not Christian, written by the European Institute for Protestant Studies. I spent a couple hours putting it into tract form, a tri-fold tract on 8-1/2 x 11 paper that can be downloaded, printed and folded.

I will happily send a copy of this to anyone who wants it so you can make your own copies and give them out. If you write to me at Luke21-36@hotmail.com I'll send it to you as an attachment. HOWEVER, it was done in Microsoft Publisher and I know many people don't have that program. You need it in order to download the attachment. I'm sorry about that.

I suppose I could mail a copy though, if anyone wants to provide an address. Then you could get it copied yourself.

The following is a picture of one side of the tract.

Poor poor England

How incredibly sad to see the wonderful achievements of historical Protestantism against the viciousness of Rome casually overturned these days, achievements bought at the price of martyrdoms. Just gut-wrenchingly sad. Of course I'm listening to more from Chris Pinto, where else would I learn this stuff? This is from his radio show of October 31st of last year, Pope on the Move.

If you know anything at all about the price paid by the Protestants in England, for instance the stories of those who were burned at the stake for their refusal to abandon their faith, Latimer and Ridley for instance, that glorious testimony of courage and faith, it is just heartbreaking to realize how it is all being treated as insignificant or even disbelieved because of Catholic propaganda.

The Inquisition itself is denied today as propagandists of the same spirit as Holocaust Deniers (even to Jesuitical influence) declare it really didn't happen or wasn't much after all, that the millions tortured and killed were "really" only a few thousand or so.

And now an edict against the marriage of a Catholic to an English monarch has been overturned and how many of us have any idea of the significance of this event in the light of history? I certainly didn't. That ban is now treated as merely an expression of religious discrimination when in reality it was intended to end the bloody cruelties of the Catholic monarchs.
\
They still hold on to a shred of the original intent of the ban since they haven't yet allowed the monarch him or herself to BE a Catholic. But Rome requires that children of mixed marriages be raised Catholic so the lifting of the ban is really a much bigger victory for the Antichrist than it may first seem to be.

Of course they tell you the Protestants were just as bad, that's always the comeback, and no doubt many of the rank and file of Catholics actually believe that although the higher-ups know better. You really have to know the history to be able to answer such charges and so few of us know any of this history. Also, these days England isn't just Catholics and Protestants but atheists who know even less and care not at all and think all religious opinions are just silly and meaningless anyway. So the historical reasons for the ban on royal marriage with a Catholic, to prevent Rome from gaining power in England and bringing back the Inquisition, have been lightly discarded and now it's only a matter of time before the momentum of this "liberal" mood allows the monarch him or herself to be a Catholic, and then England will have given itself over completely to the destruction of what was once its true greatness.

And another bit of this undoing of English history I've recently been hearing about has to do with something called Guy Fawke's Day which according to Pinto has been an English celebration of a failed plot since 1605 called the Gunpowder Plot, when Catholic Guy Fawkes failed in his mission to blow up the English Parliament as part of the ongoing war against Protestantism. Not only is the historical meaning of the event as a Catholic attack on Protestantism no longer appreciated but some are turning this around to make Fawkes out to be the hero of some kind of concocted story about civil rights. Have the English all forgotten their own history? Of course again the atheists couldn't care less about a mere religious quarrel. They're sure Guy Fawkes and Catholicism should be put on a par with Protestantism but of course atheism rules anyway.

That's how it's all going down these days. The prevailing propaganda is that all religions are created equal and to put one above another is just "intolerance" and "arrogance" and "bigotry."

Well, they WILL learn the truth eventually but meanwhile all this is terribly terribly sad and is going to get murderous too. And Rome doesn't like atheists either.

Chris Pinto on John Hagee, Extreme Dispensationalism versus Replacement Theology

I just have to keep thanking the Lord for Chris Pinto. I've been struggling through my own understanding of Replacement Theology recently, against arguments from both sides that hit me as wrong in many respects even if right in some respects.

I've been bouncing around in Chris Pinto's long list of radio shows -- sure wish he had a search feature -- hearing whatever happens to grab my attention by its title, and just came across his shows on John Hagee, who is an extreme dispensationalist, quite the opposite of Hank Hanegraaf whose Replacement Theology was the subject of my previous post. They both make the same error, however, not making a distinction between Israel of the flesh and Israel of God.

And here I find Pinto saying clearly and simply what I've been struggling to get into focus and say myself. This has happened recently with other subjects as well: I discover that he's said the same thing I've been saying, but more clearly. And he's corrected me in some areas and strengthened me as well in areas where I've been vacillating and spiritually flabby.

THANK YOU, LORD.

Unbelieving Israel is the enemy of the Church. The idea that Christians should treat them as worthy of our special care because they are Jews is a denial of our Lord and a twisting of the teachings of His apostles, but this is what John Hagee teaches, and to a less extreme extent some other teachers I've heard. Religious Jews are identical to the Pharisees of Jesus' day, and Paul's day. Apparently Hagee misapplies Romans 15:27 to call on the Church to supply the needs of these enemies of Christ, although its true reference is to the BELIEVING Jews of Jerusalem in Paul's day. Our call is to support the people of God, not the enemies of God (although we are of course to show kindness and mercy to all just as God does).

Nevertheless national Israel does fulfill prophecy and on a political level should be defended. This is a completely different level from that of the identity of God's people. God said He would make Jerusalem a "cup of trembling" to the whole world and that is certainly happening as Israel is surrounded by implacable enemies and the war to end all wars appears to be just on the horizon. But "not all Israel is Israel." Out of that war and out of the other sufferings coming on the earth as the end times unfold many Jews will come to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.

A related subject Pinto touched on in another show I recently heard was the accusation of Martin Luther as an anti-Semite because of his writing, the Lies of the Jews. I haven't written on this in this set of blogs but I have argued it in the past on various message boards. Maybe I'm a coward and avoid it now because of all the hatred that came against me for my arguments before. Luther was no anti-Semite, and was for a long period very generous toward the Jews -- until he found out what they teach against Jesus Christ, especially in the Talmud, the curses they bring against Him, the accusations of His birth to an adulterous woman or a prostitute and other calumnies -- which RIGHTLY offended Luther, although we might take issue with his recommendations for their punishment. It is certainly the reason GOD has punished them and is going to punish them more in the "time of Jacob's trouble." While we aren't to treat them as equal to the Israel of God which is the Church, we also aren't to mistreat them. For us to leave them in their blindness is far from a blessing, we must pray that God will open their eyes to the truth that they may repent and come to Christ and be spared what is coming both in this world and the next. Through Paul we do learn from scripture that God will save many in the end, and the Reformers also taught that.

This post is mostly just to say this much: Thank You, Lord, for Chris Pinto. Please make his work more generally known to the Body of Christ, and protect him and his family and helpers from all the enemies of the truth that are multiplying like rats these days. Amen.

Replacement Theology spelled out

Since I've made some comments on "replacement theology" recently I've been taking notice of the different sides of the controversy somewhat more than I usually do.

It was a comment by Jimmy DeYoung on Brannon Howse's radio show that prompted me to write a post a while back objecting to his statement that animal sacrifices would persist through the reign of Christ during the Millennium, which seems to me to be a radical departure from the revelation of scripture and Christian theology throughout history. I argued that the Old Testament sacrifices all foreshadowed the sacrifice of Christ, they all represented atonement for sin which He fulfilled perfectly, and therefore if they are reinstated in Israel it would be a blasphemy. Such a blasphemous reinstatement might occur during the reign of Antichrist but couldn't possibly persist after the return of Christ.

Then I did a post saying that I do not believe that national Israel is God's Chosen People. This argument is more in line with the views of what is called Replacement Theology, but I don't agree with them that this means there is no role left in God's plans for national Israel at all.

Brannon Howse had Jimmy DeYoung on his radio program again today, in which the topic was the presence of Christian Research Journal's Hank Hanegraaf at a basically anti-Israel conference, and Hanegraaf's Replacement Theology was addressed.

I think it may help clarify what Replacement Theology is, and my own position, to present Hanegraaf's point of view and respond to it:

Does the Bible Make a Distinction between Israel and the Church?
Hank Hanegraaff

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:28–292).

At the heart of a currently popular end–times theology is the belief that God has two distinct people—one of whom must be raptured before God can continue His plan with the other.

I also have a problem with this division of God's people into two separate peoples, as I don't see scripture supporting this idea. I haven't yet been completely convinced that the Church will be raptured before the very last days begin, but insofar as I entertain this possibility it is with the idea not that there are separate plans for separate Chosen peoples but that there is nevertheless SOME kind of unfinished business God has with Jacob or national Israel, and certainly there is yet the unfinished business of the redemption of the entire Creation to play out. Jesus is to return to claim the entire world as His own in the end, not just His people. The last days are the Day of the Lord which is described throughout scripture as a time of unparalleled suffering. It is a time when Satan gets to run the show, perhaps without interference from the Church. The only glimpse of comfort I see in this whole scenario is that during the "time of Jacob's trouble" God says "he will be saved out of it." None of this is clear to me and probably won't become clear to anyone until it's under way.

Rather than teaching that God has two categories of people, Scripture reveals only one chosen people who form one covenant community, beautifully symbolized by one cultivated olive tree.

I believe what is called the "wave offering" of two loaves of bread that were ceremonially waved before the Lord in various Old Testament ceremonies prophetically shows the essential unity of BELIEVING Jew and Gentile as two peoples composed of the same spiritual stuff. The two olive trees that give their oil to the lampstand pictured in Zechariah are said in the Book of Revelation to be representative of the two witnesses described there, but they also suggest two sources that combine to make one oil which could represent the Church of both Jew and Gentile. Whether this is the case I don't know for sure (that would suggest Enoch the Gentile and Elijah the Israelite as the two witnesses to my mind since both were taken up into heaven without dying, and both witnesses are going to die as they preach in Jerusalem. I don't think one of the witnesses could be Moses because Moses already died once and can't die a second time.), but the point is that there are images in the Old Testament that picture one out of two, but I don't know of any that argue for two ultimately separate people of God.

Hanegraaf later in this article identifies this tree as described in Romans where Paul says the Gentiles were "grafted in" to the root, or the natural olive tree, which represents the Jews.

First, far from communicating a distinction between Israel and the church, the Scriptures from beginning to end reveal that God has only ever had one chosen people purchased “from every tribe and tongue and language and nation” (Rev. 5:9). As Paul explains, the “mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 3:6, emphasis added). Indeed, the precise terminology used to describe the children of Israel in the Old Testament is ascribed to the church in the New Testament. Peter calls them “a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God” (1 Pet. 2:9). Ultimately, they are the one chosen people of God, not by virtue of their genealogical relationship to Abraham, but by virtue of their genuine relationship to “the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God” (1 Pet. 2:4).

Furthermore, just as the Old and New Testaments reveal only one chosen people, so too, they reveal only one covenant community. While that one covenant community is physically rooted in the offspring of Abraham—whose number would be like that of “the stars” of heaven (Gen. 15:5) or “the dust of the earth” (Gen. 13:16)—it is spiritually grounded in one singular Seed. Paul makes this explicit in his letter to the Galatians: “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say ‘and to seeds,’ meaning many people, but ‘and to your seed’ meaning one person, who is Christ” (Gal. 3:16). As Paul goes on to explain: “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:29). The faithful remnant of Old Testament Israel and New Testament Christianity are together the one genuine seed of Abraham and thus heirs according to the promise. This remnant is not chosen on the basis of religion or race but rather on the basis of relationship to the resurrected Redeemer.

Finally, the one chosen people, who form one covenant community, are beautifully symbolized in the book of Romans as one cultivated olive tree (see Rom. 11:11–24). The tree symbolizes Israel; its branches symbolize those who believe; and its root symbolizes Jesus—the root and the offspring of David (Rev. 22:16). Natural branches broken off represent Jews who reject Jesus. Wild branches grafted in represent Gentiles who receive Jesus. Thus says Paul, “Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children….In other words, it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring” (Rom. 9:6–8). Jesus is the one genuine seed of Abraham! And all clothed in Christ constitute one congruent chosen covenant community connected by the cross.3

This article first appeared in the Ask Hank column of the Christian Research Journal, volume 31, number 1 (2008). For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org

I agree with all this, except that he concludes that there is no role left for national Israel whereas I don't, and as I understand it neither did the Protestant Reformers who did envision a role for Israel in the end times but without taking away from the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise in the Church.

What makes the difference here is a confusion between national Israel and spiritual Israel, which occurs on both sides of the dispute. There are not two separate CHOSEN peoples, there are not two separate people of God, but there is still Jew and Gentile OF THE FLESH, as-yet-unredeemed people. National Israel is "Jacob" not the Israel of God but the Israel of the flesh, from which nevertheless scripture promises to draw many Jews into the Israel of God in the end times.

The extreme pro-Israel dispensationalists make the mistake of thinking of national Israel as God's chosen people, and the extreme exponents of Replacement Theology apparently make the same mistake. There will nevertheless be many of them saved out of this Great Tribulation which is to come upon the earth.

Does the Bible make a distinction between Israel and the Church: No, not between spiritual Israel and the Church, they are identical, but national Israel is not spiritual Israel.

Catholic Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York, echoes the same Isaiah 9:10 spirit of defiance of God as other American leaders

According to Wikipedia,  on April 24, 2009,

Dolan visited Ground Zero, the site of the September 11 attacks, on the following April 24.[58] After reciting the same prayer used by Benedict XVI during his visit to the United States, Dolan remarked, "We will never stop crying. But it's also about September 12 and all the renewal, the rebuilding, hope, solidarity and compassion that symbolized this great community and still does."[58]

No mention of God here, of the attack on the WTC as God's judgment, as a warning of more to come, therefore of the need of the nation to repent if we are to escape further judgment. Just the usual defiance of God through assertions of hope in renewal and rebuilding, the same spirit expressed in Isaiah 9:10 which is the centerpiece of Jonathan Cahn's Harbinger.

Just thought this speech made a nice rounding-out of the so-far-unanimous spirit of defiance of God's judgment against this nation, echoing various American political leaders and most evangelical pastors in the country. No reason the Catholics should have any more discernment.  Just the usual message of hope in man rather than in God:

Jer 17:5 ¶ Thus saith the LORD; Cursed [be] the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.