Why Did The Creator Choose the Jews?

[frankbaginski]

To understand the evil in the world you need to understand spiritual warfare. It only makes sense when viewed thru a spiritual battleground.

I heard something last night that made a lot of sense. I often wondered why Satan is destined to burn in the lake of fire. With no chance of redemption. Satan was the only one who became evil without anyone whispering in his ear. Satan is the father of lies. Because of the spiritual pressure to sin we are given a chance to redeem ourselves no matter what we have done in the past. This is a measure of God's love not a balance of justice.

Love the sinner hate the sin. Words to live by.

[Canuckster1127]

Why did God choose the Jews?

I don't know.

Why not?

[johnt]

I don't know either. That's why I asked.

[Canuckster1127]

I don't know either. That's why I asked.

I understand. I think the only real answer we can ever have to that question would be what God directly told us. If we accept inspiration and inerrancy in the Old Testament, it wasn't that God chose the Jews first as a people, it was that He chose Abraham and extended that choice through Abraham's descendents at times differentiating and selecting specific lines of decent as opposed to others.

Why? Sometimes based perhaps on their behavior (and/or His divine foreknowledge) sometime perhaps for reasons known only to Him.

More to the point for us today would be our view of the Church and whether God's covenant is still with the Jewish nation or whether the Church replaces them, or whether some other form defines the application of the different covenants God has made with His people through the ages.

That understanding will have profound impact upon how we interpret and understand God's Word and our relationship to Him individually and corporately.

[johnt]

Thank-you. That has been the reply I have been looking for. Those who have accepted Christ as Lord, Savior and follow His way no matter what denomination are the "choosen ones". We "Choose Him" over everything else. We will be with Him forever.

[BavarianWheels]

I don't know either. That's why I asked.

I understand. I think the only real answer we can ever have to that question would be what God directly told us. If we accept inspiration and inerrancy in the Old Testament, it wasn't that God chose the Jews first as a people, it was that He chose Abraham and extended that choice through Abraham's descendents at times differentiating and selecting specific lines of decent as opposed to others.

Why? Sometimes based perhaps on their behavior (and/or His divine foreknowledge) sometime perhaps for reasons known only to Him.

More to the point for us today would be our view of the Church and whether God's covenant is still with the Jewish nation or whether the Church replaces them, or whether some other form defines the application of the different covenants God has made with His people through the ages.

That understanding will have profound impact upon how we interpret and understand God's Word and our relationship to Him individually and corporately.

Agreed.
.
.

[B. W.]

Johnt,

Thanks for your post,

The word 'name' in ancient Hebrew was meant to express the character and nature of the one named. Jabez wanted his name changed as he did not want the character associated with being — 'One who causes Pain.'

Look to the bible for the names of God. These describe who he is and this is what we are to declare.

The Lord is righteous, God of wisdom - the all knowing one, Lord of all, Lord who heals, God who sees, Lord our Banner, God of Justice, etc and etc…

Look to these phrases from the bible alone and you'll understand what the name of the Lord is and what we are to declare by who we live - according to His Name...

God bless
-
-
-

[Canuckster1127]

I don't know either. That's why I asked.

I understand. I think the only real answer we can ever have to that question would be what God directly told us. If we accept inspiration and inerrancy in the Old Testament, it wasn't that God chose the Jews first as a people, it was that He chose Abraham and extended that choice through Abraham's descendents at times differentiating and selecting specific lines of decent as opposed to others.

Why? Sometimes based perhaps on their behavior (and/or His divine foreknowledge) sometime perhaps for reasons known only to Him.

More to the point for us today would be our view of the Church and whether God's covenant is still with the Jewish nation or whether the Church replaces them, or whether some other form defines the application of the different covenants God has made with His people through the ages.

That understanding will have profound impact upon how we interpret and understand God's Word and our relationship to Him individually and corporately.

Agreed.
.
.

See! We can agree.

Now, how those covenants work in relationship to the Church today ..... I suspect we have some differing conclusions there.

[BavarianWheels]

See! We can agree.

Now, how those covenants work in relationship to the Church today ..... I suspect we have some differing conclusions there.

You had to go and ruin a good thing... - I suppose one basic difference is the holding that "it's for the Jews" thinking...which I disagree with.
.
.

[Canuckster1127]

See! We can agree.

Now, how those covenants work in relationship to the Church today ..... I suspect we have some differing conclusions there.

You had to go and ruin a good thing... - I suppose one basic difference is the holding that "it's for the Jews" thinking...which I disagree with.
.
.

I'm sorry.

I think you have to look at each covenant individually, not as a whole and determine what is temporal and what is universal and work it out from there.

[BavarianWheels]

See! We can agree.

Now, how those covenants work in relationship to the Church today ..... I suspect we have some differing conclusions there.

You had to go and ruin a good thing... - I suppose one basic difference is the holding that "it's for the Jews" thinking...which I disagree with.
.
.

I'm sorry.

I think you have to look at each covenant individually, not as a whole and determine what is temporal and what is universal and work it out from there.

I would agree here too...but I would NEVER assume God's only written words to man to be temporal.
.
.

[Canuckster1127]

See! We can agree.

Now, how those covenants work in relationship to the Church today ..... I suspect we have some differing conclusions there.

You had to go and ruin a good thing... - I suppose one basic difference is the holding that "it's for the Jews" thinking...which I disagree with.
.
.

I'm sorry.

I think you have to look at each covenant individually, not as a whole and determine what is temporal and what is universal and work it out from there.

I would agree here too...but I would NEVER assume God's only written words to man to be temporal.
.
.

You'll need to explain that to me a little more to be sure I'm understanding you correctly.

I think every word in the Bible is purposefully there for a reason and that as believers we have a responsibility to look at that and seek to understand why God has it there.

Not every word of the Scripture are God's words in the sense that he spoke them. The Bible preserves Satan's words for instance, Demon's words, the words of Job's comforters etc.

I'm assuming though that that is not what you are speaking about.

When I say that some elements of God's words or covenants are temporal, I'm not saying that they are unimportant or that there is not a reason for their preservation. I'm saying that there are some part of those that were for specific individuals or corporate groups, for specific times and that those specific elements no longer carry the weight of an in effect and enforced covenant because either, we are not part of the group participating in that covenant, and/or, that particular covenant has lapsed or has been superceded by a new covenant.

How does this figure into what you are saying?

Blessings,

Bart

[BavarianWheels]

You'll need to explain that to me a little more to be sure I'm understanding you correctly.

I think every word in the Bible is purposefully there for a reason and that as believers we have a responsibility to look at that and seek to understand why God has it there.

Not every word of the Scripture are God's words in the sense that he spoke them. The Bible preserves Satan's words for instance, Demon's words, the words of Job's comforters etc.

I'm assuming though that that is not what you are speaking about.

When I say that some elements of God's words or covenants are temporal, I'm not saying that they are unimportant or that there is not a reason for their preservation. I'm saying that there are some part of those that were for specific individuals or corporate groups, for specific times and that those specific elements no longer carry the weight of an in effect and enforced covenant because either, we are not part of the group participating in that covenant, and/or, that particular covenant has lapsed or has been superceded by a new covenant.

How does this figure into what you are saying?

Blessings,

Bart

As an Adventist...I bang the 10 Commandments drum A LOT on this forum...and probably other forums if I frequented others...simply because we Adventists differ from the "main stream" Christianity on a few accounts. The main point would be over the Sabbath. Another would be the state of the dead...some differences on end time chronology. But for the most part, I would say we agree on more than what we disagree on.

Again I would agree on what is quoted above. My point is that to assume or place God's words written in stone as temporal (for one of the 10) is to assume God speaks idle words. I tend to be in the camp that whatever God speaks is Truth when spoken and remains Truth long after. Not only do we have God's words, but also we have God writing these with His own finger. What gets me all up in a tizzy...I admit my manner of writing is on the confrontational side...is the manner in which Christians today uphold ALL the Commandments...except one...and that ONE is always pushed aside because, "it's of the old covenant" or "it was only for the Jews", or "we are no longer under the Law", or "we are freed from slavery to the Law"...and so on. My question always remains, "How can a Christian believe and uphold ANY of the 10 if they are of the old covenant and no longer binding?" If is one that is temporal...then the whole lot of them are temporal. Since it is no longer Truth that we should Remember the Sabbath...then by the same token it is no longer Truth to follow ANY of the 10. Why would God ask any of us (including the "Jews") to follow any of a "temporal" law? Can what God asks be good only at one point in time? If God actually came down and told you or me to go out and kill someone...would that be considered against His Law? Why should we criticize how the Law Giver hands out punishment for law breaking or what He uses as a tool to hand that punishment out? Does God go against His own Law when at the end of all things it is He that "kills" those against Him?

So it is in this sense that I say God's only written word is not temporal, but universal and everlasting. Isaiah 66:22-23 mentions that even at the end...the Sabbath endures. Why would it?

God firstly places the Sabbath as special at creation by the written account in Genesis prior to any Jew or covenant. God rested on the 7th day and made it holy...for a time? I say not for a time, but for all time. Doesn't it seem ironic God would "rest"? While the word can mean to cease...it still begs the question of why the day in which this occurred is made holy? It is firstly a remembrance that God is Creator...and later a remembrance that God is the Liberator.

How does this fit in with the topic? We all know Jews, to this day, keep the Sabbath "holy" as is their custom handed down through generation. I don't uphold their manner of keeping it with all the rules...but rather would follow Christ's example of keeping the Sabbath. Healing (as best we can. This is sometimes only by bringing Christ into other's lives...and not an immediate physical healing), serving others, being a good neighbor, loving one another...and so on. None of God's Law is a burden to those that love Him, but become a way of life out of love for Him. They are to be written on our heart. Something written on the heart means it is followed through gratitude and not fears.

Today there is no Jew or Gentile. As mentioned, God didn't choose the "Jews", but chose a people to be set apart...those that follow His word.

No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.

What is sin?

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

So the Law points to what sin is.

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law,

So the law, if followed to the letter, showed that those that followed the law perfectly were righteous and deserving of life everlasting (impossible to any human after Adam)…but a righteousness APART from law was made known…that being though faith (in the old covenant in the promise and in the new covenant a promise fulfilled) in Christ.

Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about--but not before God. What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."

There is no boasting because there is no one that can claim he has kept the law perfectly and is righteous. (only Christ). So man is justified APART from that law…it only condemns him showing his sin. That righteousness is through faith. Faith afforded to Jews and Gentiles alike. So is the law then nullified? No. We uphold the law as it still points to Christ and that which is not sin.

The old covenant is no different from the new in that both are based on faith and not on law. The law NEVER was put forth as a means to salvation…but as a finger pointing at our sin and thus to that which was of God. If there were no law, there would be no sin. (Romans 4:15)

Being no longer under law means simply that the law has no power to condemn us since we are dead already to that law. As a matter of law, we have paid the price the law (God) requires of a sinner through Christ.

For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.
What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey--whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

Obedience to what? The law. To follow the law is neither sinful nor contrary to a righteous life, but it points to righteousness and what obedience to God is. (See also Romans 7:4-7)

So…I've drawn out this long thing for the simple notion that what God utters/writes is not temporal, but everlasting.

I hope this helps explain my position...
.
.

[Canuckster1127]

Bavarian Wheels,

It does explain your position and it does it well.

I'm with you that we agree on far more than we disagree upon. I'd go so far as to say, what we disagree upon, while certainly important, does not raise to a cardinal issue to where either of us would judge the other as unsaved.

I can be blunt too and sometimes not as charitable as I should be, so I'm with you on that point as well.

Rather than rehash spelling out my position on a point by point rebuttal basis (which I can do if you wish) I'd just observe the following.

1. I agree that it is compelling argument at face value that the 10 commandments remain in effect in terms of a strong statement of God's moral standards and in that regard it would be and is in fact foolish to argue equally that theft, murder etc. are somehow no longer sins or morally wrong.

2. I do think there is an event that has taken place since the giving of that law that has affected how we relate to the law. That event is the atonement accomplished by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Where our relationship in the past to the law, was one of acknowledged short-comings and inability to keep the law, and by that our need for Christ's redemptive work was displayed, we are no longer in that relationship, having by God's grace and Christ's sacrifice been justified.

3. While the Sabbath was established before the choosing of Abraham and his descendents, it is difficult to separate that that from the fact that the writing of the Scriptures that refer to it were written after that selection and in many cases as a justification and explanation as to the pattern of sabbath recognition.

4. The above point, in and of itself wouldn't mean much unless there were specific instances or instructions on proper authority indicating a difference or change. Christ's relationship to the sabbath (and the accusations made of Him for not keeping the Sabbath properly) indicates just such a change to my observation. He declared the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. I understand there is disagreement as to the significance of that between us. Further some clear delineations are made by Paul that includes Sabbath keeping in the category of things like circumcision and kosher food laws which seems odd, if Paul writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit meant to hold those in different categories.

5. The early Church itself did not cease in the keeping of a Sabbath but in recognition over time of the new covenant in which Christ rose on Sunday representing the establishment of a new order, moved to recognizing that day as a set aside day of worship and rest. This point in and of itself does not elevate to Scripture, and could not stand on its own as valid, but when combined with the points above, makes a very strong statement as to how the early Church understood and viewed the matter and it gives strong evidence of the decisions handed down at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 resulting in this change of view.

6. Again this is a minor point, and I say it not to unfairly tweak you, but it's also true that a fair observation of those Christian Traditions that emphasize Saturday sabbath keeping that it is not unusual to see along with it either overtly or subtlely additional elements of emphasis upon elements of the law such as dietary laws etc. that are emphasized which speaks to some degree of the mind-set and possible inclination toward legalism. In fairness, I think you've said as much in some of your previous posts and I respect that.

As I've stated before, I don't have an issue with those who sincerely believe that they are honoring God by observing the Sabbath in this manner. I observe the Sabbath with equal sincerity. That said, we both can't be right so either one of us is sincerely wrong or possibly we're both missing the point.

The only issue I have is when it is elevated to a point of judging other believers and claiming greater righteousness or holiness for its practise as opposed to those whose practice is different. I would have that issue with either group, including my own, but it's fair I think to note, that that is a more likely issue with those making the point for establishing the OT practice.

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree and I'm glad you're here and I think your presence and positions in this matter are represented.

Bart

[BavarianWheels]

.
.
Bart...that was beautiful. I love how you can disagree with me and still make me feel like I've made headway on my position. Thx!

It would suffice to say that I'm in total agreement that many Sabbath keepers, (Adventists are notorious) hold themselves up thinking, "We have the truth of the Sabbath...and you don't." I hate that. I hate the stigma it brings when I utter my religious affiliation. But the fact remains that Adventism is the closest "religion" I see that follows the religion of the Bible. Do we/did we have things wrong? Sure...1844...legalistic thinking...Sabbath elitism...improper use of EGW...the investigative judgement...and I'm sure there would be one or two more you can think of. However, just because one group of believers (the Jews) tacked on other rules for Sabbath keeping...Adventists upholding food laws...doesn't mean they are done solely as a means to belittle, change, or otherwise rise above other groups. I can see why the Jews added (and why God said certain things regarding the Sabbath and His Laws in the OT) these things. It was for the purpose of teaching what is right and wrong. A Sabbath Day's walk...while there shouldn't be a limit in the distance one can walk to help a neighbor or take the Gospel to unbelievers...there is some wisdom in having one think about what the point of the journey is. An Adventist might uphold the food laws, (I don't necessarily other than refraining from drinking, smoking, and pig products...except pepperoni and bacon...oh...I love pepperoni and bacon.) but that shouldn't be for any reason other than a healthier style of living. There is no salvific (sp?...is it a word?) value in following the food laws. But...can a person that abuses his/her body in direct contradiction to these laws expect miraculous healing from on High when sickness occurs? So it is with the Sabbath. It was set up by God in the beginning. I believe there is value in the Sabbath. I believe God's blessing on the Sabbath making it holy wasn't done idly. I believe that while the Sabbath, at this moment, is not an issue of being saved or not, that there will come a time when the Sabbath will be an issue of division between believers. I believe that there will come a time when the Christian community will start to draw a line.

My question to you and anyone sitting on the fence of upholding the 10 or just 9, is this; If the prediction is correct that a time will come when the line will be drawn between those that hold to the Sabbath and the 10 Commandments as one whole of God's truth vs. only 9...which side will you go to? If this happens...which side will you go to? Which side will see persecution for upholding all of God's hand-written words? If keeping the Sabbath is a non-issue as most believe, then keeping it should never become a line of division.

Yet we see many aspects of this coming/have come to fruition. Blue laws. Family Day. Rose Parade never on Sunday. etc. Some of these are just stepping stones on the way to what I see as a coming enforcement.

I see the Biblical account of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego as a foresight to what will happen again. (Daniel 3) Bowing down to an "image" set up by man.

Anyway I've again rambled. However I rest more easily knowing I've at least made my point more clear to you. I leave this open for more discussion if anyone needs/wants clarification on my position(s).

As we disagree on the Sabbath...I know we both agree on Christ being our Savior. Only through faith in Him are we afforded the undeserved gift of life.

As my favorite quotation says: "A Christian is always a sinner, always a penitent, always right with God." ~M. Luther
.
.