| Author |
Message |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 1645
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2008 - 10:32 pm: |     |
Wow, a lot to catch up on.
For starters, it's utterly necessary to understand that Isaiah and Ezekiel (and other prophets) wrote in shadow. Otherwise, we should drop our "Jesus is our Sabbath" arguments straightaway and return to believing that we will worship God from one Sabbath to another (and one New Moon festival to another).
This is especially critical when we look at the end of Ezekiel. Jeremy and Colleen, what I am saying is that taking Ezekiel's end literally contradicts what is revealed in the New Covenant. Think about it: Christ offered Himself once for all, and there is no more need to sacrifice for sins. But Ezekiel says that "the prince" will offer sacrifices for his sins and for the sins of the nation. Splitting things into pre or post-milennial theory does not solve this problem, because if Ezekiel's end is to be taken literally, then we are looking at Calvary as an insufficient, incomplete atonement. The Milennium does not solve the problem of explaining how a literal reading of Ezekiel's end undermines Christology and Soteriology.
Re: the article. Robert Brinsmead's current convictions aside---and in fact, his past convictions aside as well---I think what I posted of from his writings above stands on its own merit. It's not impossible for "rocks to cry out". Take Balaam for example, or Solomon. It's not worth debating, so if the Brinsmead article is distracting, let it go. I won't debate it any further on this thread. My earlier explanation of Ezekiel illustrates the same points, and no one has really addressed the simple specifics I laid out in it.
Okay, had better check the other thread! Sorry for the abruptness of this post.
Blessings,
Ramone |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 1647
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2008 - 11:10 pm: | |
Re: "The miraculous existence of the modern nation of Israel"
I can't quite call it miraculous. The "nation" of Israel in God's sight has never been limited to the borders of a country. They were "Israel" even when they were in slavery in Egypt. It would be more appropriate to say that the existence of the Jews is a miracle. This would be more fitting considering that the modern state of Israel did not exist when the Jews faced perhaps the most concentrated attempt to exterminate them in history -- in Germany and across Europe.
The word "Israel" has become more 'charged', more 'loaded' since 1948. And that's a problem we need to recognize when speaking of Biblical things, historical things, and the Jewish people in general. If "Israel" in God's sight strictly refers to people in the borders of the modern nation, then that excludes Jews living abroad. No, of course God doesn't see things that way. (Why do we, so often?) Israel--that is, the Jews--has always been who they are whether or not they had a nation named after them. This was true in Egypt, in Canaan, in Israel, in the Two Kingdoms, in exile in Babylon and Medo-Persia, in Samaria, in Judah, in the Greek Empire, in the Roman Empire, after the fall of Jerusalem, and all the way up to 1948.
If we look at people as being "Israel", it makes more sense. But if we look at the modern nation-state as being "Israel", we are going to run into problems. Not merely because it didn't exist for over a thousand years prior to 1948, but also because it simply does not match up with ancient Israel. The most obvious reasons why are that modern Israel does not have a king upon the throne, nor is it the theocracy under judges that existed prior to the kingship. It is a parliamentary system.
Moreover, the way in which the modern nation-state of Israel was founded was dubious at best. It was not done with the consent of the people there, and it arose out of the Zionist movement in the 1890s, which often became violent and included acts of terrorism. Most of the Arab-Israeli conflict of today traces back to the way in which Zionism achieved its goal of the creation of a Jewish state. Prior to this, Jews and Arabs have not always been at war. When crusaders marched to capture Jerusalem, Jews and Arabs actually fought alongside one another to resist the Christians.
Looking at http://jewsagainstzionism.com/ was interesting because it cites historical examples of Jewish (Zionist) leaders who chose to pursue the creation of a Jewish state instead of lobby for aid to Jews being slaughtered in Europe during the war.
On this link (http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/antisemitism/holocaust/gedalyaliebermann.cfm) it cites history that makes your blood curl... that there were attempts by countries (including Germany) to simply move Jews out of Europe, but Zionist leaders abroad would only consider moving Jewish refugees to Palestine. Because the administrators of Palestine would not allow that, thousands upon thousands of Jews who could have been evacuated remained in Europe where the Nazis could send them to the gas chamber.
Chaim Weizman, the future first president of the state of Israel, had said during those times, "The most valuable part of the Jewish nation is already in Palestine, and those Jews living outside Palestine are not too important". Yitzhak Greenbaum, the future first Interior Minister of the state of Israel, apparently said, "One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe".
I've looked for refutation of these things, and have so far read one site which cites the minority size of the group lodging these protests, but it didn't actually show that the quotes or historical claims were incorrect. It simply brushed everything aside as ridiculous.
There's a lot to investigate about the way that Zionism arose, the way that the State of Israel was created, and all of our theological suppositions that we've attached to it. If indeed the State was founded on blood, that would be a huge Biblical problem in God's sight, and could easily explain why 'the sword' has sadly not departed from the land. (The non-theological explanation actually teaches us more, though, that violence begets violence).
Whatever the case, the State was not founded in a democratic way --with the consent of the people in the land. The Gospel declares that God died for all people, including Jews, Arabs, Palestinians, Greeks, and so on. To take someone's life because "God said this land is my inheritance" neglects the truth that 1) this land will pass away and 2) the nations are Christ's inheritance. When we destroy people for whom Christ died for the sake of perishable land, we are robbing Christ of His inheritance. And because we are "co-heirs with Christ", it is right of us to realize that the nations are also our inheritance. Our neighbors are our inheritance! If we kill our neighbors to possess their property, are we not trading our heavenly inheritance (our neighbors' lives) for a perishable earthly inheritance?
There is simply too much that is historically dubious and theologically un-gospellike in the creation of the State of Israel to call it a miraculous intervention of God. Thus I believe that the State of Israel may play into final events of earth's history, but sadly, not in a positive light because the State represents the elevation of earthly inheritance over eternal, and the State represents spiritual abuse in God's name against people who did not believe in Him but were warred against simply because of the property they lived on. Someone will then say, "Yes, but that's the way things happened in the Old Testament!" True, but God was leading that and we weren't there to see what was going on in the pagan nations (i.g., "the sin of the Amorites" becoming full, etc.). The King of Israel (Jesus Christ) has called us to the Gospel and given us a New Covenant -- both Jew and Gentile alike. The State of Israel is not the kingdom of Israel, and it is not the Kingdom of God. As Christians it should first and foremost be our desire to help our Jewish friends into the Kingdom of God. The land is a strong love in many hearts since political Zionism began in the 1890s. In short, the land has superceded the desire for the King.
All of these things taken together, what "the State" represents today (as created/envisioned by Zionism) is not quite a positive thing. God has miraculously preserved Jews--across the world, but the State of Israel is very, very problematic, and deserves our utmost prayer and preaching of the Gospel at all costs.
Bless you in Jesus!
Ramone |
Christo
Registered user
Username: Christo
Post Number: 76
Registered: 2-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, November 13, 2008 - 11:54 pm: | |
Gen. 15:18
In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
Gal. 3:16
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
This passage ,in a very important letter in the bible ,has a faith building message, of a strong love for Christ, and not a nation state, in a region that has consistently denied the Father and the Son.
When we become transformed by the renewing of our minds, rather than conformed to the ways of the world, when we accept Christ,there is a new heaven, and a new earth, so to speak.
I pray the people of this region come to know the atonement of God, and man, through Christ Jesus, quickly, because it's going to happen in that region whether they like it or not, and they will like it.
Chris |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 1651
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2008 - 6:22 am: | |
That's very deep, Chris. I hadn't noticed that connection before.
What I had noticed was this:
For he [Abraham] was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God... All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. 14People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them... For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come.
(Hebrews 11:10,13-16, 13:14)
Abraham was looking forward to a better resting place than Canaan/Palestine/Israel. And so were "all of these" people in Hebrews 11, and so were the writer & believing readers of the book of Hebrews.
Bless you in Jesus!
Ramone |
8thday
Registered user
Username: 8thday
Post Number: 562
Registered: 11-2007
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2008 - 10:50 am: | |
Ramone,
I am familiar with the arguments against Zionism. I'm not really concerned with HOW an event takes place. Even the works of the most evil of men can fulfill the plan of a Sovereign God. Miraculous events HAVE taken place however in their favor as a modern nation that are reminiscent of the days of David and Goliath. (I believe God still rules the nations and ordains who leads them. I love Psalms where it says he looks at the plans of the kings of the earth, and laughs.) I can't see any reason they have not been completely overtaken by the enemies that surrounded them, (look at a map!! They are tiny, they are nothing!) especially considering the fact that at no time as the UN ever been favorable to their cause, and have never even been allowed a seat on the security council, to my knowledge. I tend to see the hand of providence in this, and not just a freak product of human effort.
I am also not surprised at the prejudice of atheist, socialist Jews against one their own people. Israel today is a secular country for the most part with many of the the same moral problems as ours. But has God cast them off and forgotten his promises? If so, how can we be so sure he will keep his promises toward us? There are many people looking at Christians today saying, "If those are Christians, God must not be real." Praise God, he moves on our behalf in spite of ourselves.
But I used to be on the other side of this debate, so I do understand where you are coming from. =) No animosity whatsoeverness. =)
Sondra
p.s. Any lurkers out there accusing us formers of "groupthink" oughta get a load of these threads eh? ha. |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 8983
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 15, 2008 - 9:41 am: | |
Ha! No kidding, Sondra!
Romans 11 has convinced me that, whether or not I understand it, God still loves Israel on account of the patriarchs, and the day is coming when they will be unhardened, for they are hardened in part until the full number of Gentiles has come in.
Also, Romans 3:1-4 also emphasizes the reliability of God's promises. Paul begins by discussing the "advantage" of being a Jew: "First of all…they were entrusted with the oracles of God."
And then he says this, "What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? May it never be! Rather let God be found true, though every man be found a liar…"
I absolutely do not believe there is another method or plan for salvation for the Jews, as some people teach. But I do see the NT teaching that God will make good on His promises—for the sake of the patriarchs, if nothing else—and also because of His own faithfulness. God is sovereign. People don't have to be believers for God to use them for His own purposes.
The formation of Israel in 1948, their economic and even political and military success cannot be explained simply in terms of human power and cleverness. Acts 17:26 does say God determines the times and places of every nation on earth. And no mere human plan can thwart God's purposes!
Colleen |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 1652
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 1:02 am: | |
The problem, Colleen, is that there have been military successes here and there in the past which we could also say were miraculous...
Santa Ana's defeat to Sam Houston's forces. The fall of the Babylonian empire. The many falls of Jerusalem. The victory of Constantine's army. Joan of Arc's angelic-inspired victories. The battle of Little Bighorn. The "manifest destiny" conquests against the Native Americans. The Puritan slaughters of sleeping villages of Native Americans (to which thanks to God was given). The conquest of the Babylonian empire. The conquest of Hitler's early "blitzkrig" victories. Napoleon's conquests. The battle of Midway. Et cetera.
We must interpret all things by the gospel, not by how miraculous the military victories look, you know?
Furthermore, it's important to realize that military victories do not mean that the victorious nation is "right". Babylon was not "right" when it destroyed Jerusalem and took the Jews into exile. It was absolutely no reflection on the Babylonians. It was God's purpose to destroy Jerusalem, true, but in the case of the 1948 founding of the State of Israel, what is it that we're inferring by seeing the hand of God in it? That it was His will for hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to be evicted from their homes in the name of giving "God's people" their land back?
When we tend to say that the '48 founding had God's hand in it, what we end up doing is sanctioning it and the State of Israel, completely regardless of how un-gospel the founding was and how it wounded the entire reigon (not to mention put countless future generations of Israelis in a position where they would inherit a cycle of violence).
If we say that God had a hand in it, then we had best recognize that it is more akin to the "victory" of Joseph's brothers when they effectively got rid of their brother. Yes, it was God's will and purpose. But it was very painful and felt like no "victory" for Joseph himself. But in His mercy, God turned it into a victory for Joseph, also, and his brothers repented.
The church has been like a "yes-man" to Israel. The proclamation of the gospel to them is all positive, all affirmative, with none of the cutting edge of the gospel at all. No call to repentance. No accountability for unchristlike actions. For lack of a better term, it is a neutered gospel. We are walking on eggshells around them instead of giving them the word of life---even if that word should involve a life-giving rebuke. God disciplines children He loves, and we also confront brothers and sisters who have hurt or wounded us, or who are hurting or wounding others. But we, the church, are not acting like a brother or sister to the State of Israel. We are not treating them as we would our family, and we are not treating them as our Father would, either. We are not treating them like legitimate members of the family, but are treating them instead like a celebrity living in our house who is allowed to wound the neighbors, the family, and who expects no blame and takes no responsibility.
By not proclaiming the gospel--including the call to repent, forgive, love neighbors, and be Christlike--I believe we are actually hindering the salvation of many in the State of Israel.
In prayer, in Christ,
Ramone |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 1653
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 1:02 am: | |
P.S. Anyone going to answer the things about Ezekiel that I wrote above? |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 1655
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 6:33 am: | |
P.P.S.
quote:Romans 11 has convinced me that, whether or not I understand it, God still loves Israel on account of the patriarchs, and the day is coming when they will be unhardened, for they are hardened in part until the full number of Gentiles has come in.
Remember when looking at Romans 11 that it is preceded by Romans 9:6-8,
quote:Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. 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."
"Children of the promise"... we've seen that expression somewhere else, haven't we?
quote:Now you, [Galatian, gentile] brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. (Galatians 4:28)
Ah, yes, this is familiar, for it resounds throughout the New Testament:
quote:Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. (Galatians 3:6-7)
A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. (Romans 2:28-29)
In Him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with Him in baptism and raised with Him through faith in the power of God, who raised Him from the dead. (Colossians 2:11-12)
For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh. (Philippians 3:3)
I mention these things because it is very easy to just focus on Romans 11 and forget Paul's common theme -- that there is neither Jew nor Greek in Christ, but that God has made Gentiles & Jews "one new man" in Christ, members together of one body, heirs together in the promise of Christ Jesus.
Romans 11 declares that "all Israel" will be saved... but yet Paul said that all who are Israel (in the natural) are not Israel (of the promise). Looking up a few verses in Romans 11, we see that the Gentiles were "grafted in". They are "in" the Kingdom, but the natural descendants of Israel are not yet in the Kingdom (they currently live in their own earthly kingdom without the King). And not all of them are going to be grafted in. Certainly we can and should pray for that to happen, but Paul has already said that "not all the descendants are Israel". Thus the part that is "hardened" refers only to the elect among Israel's descendants, not to all the descendants of Israel.
All are loved in Christ -- all nations. God has loved the world so much that He gave His only Son. So when Romans 11 speaks of the elect among Israel's descendants being "loved on account of the patriarchs", I believe it is talking about the elect being saved because the faith of their fathers (the patriarchs) is living in them. They are living by faith (and/or will return to the faith of their fathers).
What I wrote earlier is something that I think we need to pay good attention to: that we must be careful and clear when we use the name "Israel". Firstly, because not all of the descendants of Israel "are Israel". Secondly, because we are the circumcision in Christ, heirs together with the faithful in natural Israel (in whom lives the faith of their fathers) --and in fact Abraham is the father of us both, we are both grafted in by faith, and we are in fact "one body" with no separation in Christ. Thirdly, because of the modern State of Israel, which has confused the matter considerably. Focusing on the State causes us to forget that there are 'Israelities' all over the globe, not just in the land of Palestine. And finally, because of the subtly Judaizing theology of dispensationalism, our eyes are largely focused "in the end time" on earthly Jerusalem (which is in slavery), instead of heavenly Jerusalem (which is free and to which we belong).
Paul prophesied that some Jews' hearts are going to leave earthly Jerusalem for the heavenly Jerusalem, and when that happens, the 'number' of Israel will be complete -- all Israel will be saved ("all Israel" means Gentiles and Jews together in one body -- in Christ).
But today we tiptoe around Jews and the State of Israel. In contrast, Paul and the other apostles boldly declared to them that there is no life in the ministry of condemnation & death (the Old Covenant), that they have a King, and as soon as they believe, the Kingdom comes upon them and they live in it (or rather, the Kingdom lives in them!). Like the rest of the nations, Israelis sin and need to repent. They wound one another, hurt one another, fight their neighbors, and do not know that their inheritance is not perishable land but is heavenly, eternal treasure (and that their neighbors--the nations--are also their inheritance with Christ). Paul prophesied of the day when the elect in natural Israel will "come [back] in", but he also spent much of his life debating with the Jews, speaking the gospel to them and telling them where they were wrong. He didn't tiptoe around because he knew one day some of them might suddenly turn back to God. On the contrary, he recognized that it was by preaching the whole gospel (difficult words and all!) to them and to the nations that natural Israelities would one day be turned back to God.
Blessings in Jesus Christ, the elect one!
Ramone |
Philharris
Registered user
Username: Philharris
Post Number: 1180
Registered: 5-2007
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2008 - 7:28 am: | |
God will keep his covenant with Israel and his promises are literal in their description:
Leviticus 26:40-45(NIV)
" 'But if they will confess their sins and the sins of their fathers—their treachery against me and their hostility toward me, which made me hostile toward them so that I sent them into the land of their enemies—then when their uncircumcised hearts are humbled and they pay for their sin, I will remember my covenant with Jacob and my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land. For the land will be deserted by them and will enjoy its sabbaths while it lies desolate without them. They will pay for their sins because they rejected my laws and abhorred my decrees. Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them. I am the LORD their God. But for their sake I will remember the covenant with their ancestors whom I brought out of Egypt in the sight of the nations to be their God. I am the LORD.' "
We may not fully understand the workings of God and how all things fit together. But, our God is a God of truth. Someday, maybe very soon, a literal nation of Israel will occupy a land from the Nile River to the Euphrates River. It is my own theory that since they will rebuild the temple, worship and rest on the Sabbath and restore the ‘daily sacrifices', at the time, they still have not turned their hearts over to the Lord Jesus Christ as their Messiah. All changes when the Lord returns to set up his kingdom.
Phil |
Aliza
Registered user
Username: Aliza
Post Number: 176
Registered: 8-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2008 - 5:42 am: | |
When I first left Adventism and started attending other churches, I often felt I was living in the Left Behind series because that was the current buzz across various denominations and non-denominational churches in the area.
Now, as we look for a church in a new area we are finding a huge degree of focus on Israel and feasts. I was very thankful for the last issue of Proclamation as it's not only with SDA churches that I see this happening.
I most certainly don't know how it will all work out once Christ returns and we look back at history. But I do know I'm very concerned when I see people of various belief strands getting off on tangents, adamantly spending time and money to promote their particular area of interest. I've seen churches that don't seem particularly interested in local evangelism getting trips together to do mission work in Israel, often not to promote the Gospel but for more social work. While I'm certainly not opposed to mission trips, I'm just afraid that too often people grab a hold of things and take it to extremes.
I understand what you're saying, Ramone, and I believe caution is in order. But I also believe we need to be open that some things may be way more literal than we were ever ready to accept while Adventists. |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 8997
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2008 - 11:37 am: | |
Absolutely, Ramone, the nation of Israel is unbelieving. Most of the Jews in Israel are still the broken branches described in Romans 11.
When Paul talks about "all Israel will be saved," he doesn't mean every single Jew. He means that when Israel is un-hardened after the full number of Gentiles has come in, there will be many who will turn to the Lord. Of course he's not saying every single Jew will be saved any more than he's saying every single Gentile will be saved.
The fact is, there are the "temple faithful" in Israel—who do not accept Jesus—who already have the components of the temple built and ready to go. They have the golden candlestick ready, made to biblical specifications, and it's on display in a glass case at the entrance to the Western Wall. They have the flocks of red heifers ready. They are only waiting for whatever event will remove the Dome of the Rock.
Now, these Israelis are not Messianic Jews. If they rebuild that temple, it will not be a new covenant reality. But build it they will, if they get the chance. The prophecies that it will be rebuilt do not state all the circumstances. Ezekiel, however, gives meticulous descriptions for the third temple, and it has never been built.
I used to think that the prophecies couldn't be fulfilled unless they were fulfillments done by God-fearing, Christ-honoring people. But they don't actually SAY that. We don't know what will transpire and how. The Bible DOES say the temple will be rebuilt—but that does not mean that it will be part of a believing nation who will worship the Lord JEsus in truth and reality.
God historically did many things for Israel even in their syncretism and partial belief. To be sure, He disciplined them severely. This last diaspora that began in 70 AD and continues even today—although since 1948 there have been Jews coming back to Israel through totally unforeseen and astonishing circumstances—is His longest and severest discipline yet.
I'm just saying that the fact that prophecy will be fulfilled doesn't mean it will be fulfilled the way we imagine it to be. Somehow God will unharden the Jews—but how? Who knows? Perhaps through allowing them to push their way back into sacrifices (which they've already begun to practice doing—our pastor saw an online video of the first red heifer sacrifice done a few months ago as a sort-of "practice" of the ancient rite) and temple worship as unbelievers before Jesus appears among them.
I'm not trying to make any absolute statement. I just know that, as Gary said, the Bible says the temple will be rebuilt, so it will be. God's word cannot fail. But the Messiah has already come, and there's only ONE WAY for Israel to be saved. That ONE WAY—the Lord Jesus—saves Jews and Gentiles the same way.
It's an unknown, but Bible is certainly more exciting when we don't have to totally explain it away and just let it "be" and "say" what it is. The future is still unknown—but God's word is sure.
Colleen |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 1682
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Monday, February 02, 2009 - 5:49 am: | |
Hi all,
It's taken me some time to take care of some things over here, so I set aside this thread (and another) because I knew I would probably want to write more on it. I'll try to pick up now, even though it's a little old.
Phil --
The passage you quoted from Leviticus refers primarily to the Babylonian exile. This is seen in the final chapter of 2nd Chronicles, particularly verse 21, which clearly shows it was the fulfillment of the Leviticus 26 passage.
I'm not sure where the idea comes from that the "literal" nation of Israel will "occupy a land from the Nile River to the Euphrates River, rebuild the temple, worship and rest on the Sabbath and restore the daily sacrifices", etc. I know it might be possible to speculate basing things on interpretations of the difficult prophecies in Daniel, however, it is speculation and is not stated clearly. As I mentioned earlier (piggybacking on the Brinsmead writing), the way that OT prophecies were "fulfilled" in the New Testament (i.g., John the Baptist) is something that we need to learn from before we start taking prophecies from the OT and saying they need to be fulfilled literally as we define "literally". The way that the NT defines "fulfillment" should be our standard. We tend to not filter "fulfillment" through the NT, however, and go straight to the OT and insist on it being fulfilled as we read it. We don't hold it up to the Light.
Additionally, one thing that is important to realize is that "Israel" in God's eyes is larger, not limited to, and not defined at all by the modern state of Israel. When Israel was in captivity in Babylon, she was still "Israel". When in dispersion or when in the land of Canaan, she was still "Israel". The land was not a necessity before 1948 to be seen as "Israel" in God's sight, because God looks at peoples more than politics.
You wrote that "God will keep his covenant with Israel and his promises are literal in their description."
Yes, but we must understand that God has kept His literal promises to Israel in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the literal fulfillment. The "covenant of their ancestors" refers to Abraham, and Galatians declared that Christ is the fulfillment of that covenant, the promised seed. Those who are in Him now belong not to the earthly "literal" and perishable Jerusalem, but to the heavenly, eternal and imperishable Jerusalem. Jesus is the promised rest, and He is the promised land. The earthly inheritance was a shadow of His eternal inheritance.
Thus the verses you quoted, while referring immediately to the Babylonian exile, refer ultimately to Jesus Christ, for while they returned to their "land" after the exile, their hearts were not fully returned and continually went "back to Egypt" as Stephen pointed out in his speech before the Sanhedrin.
Again, compare Hebrews 3-4 (Psalm 95) with Numbers 14. In Numbers, God curses the people saying that because of their rebellion they will not enter the promised land. In Psalm 95, nearly the same words are used but instead of "promised land" it says "they will not enter My rest". The author of Hebrews ties these two things together -- the promised land and the promised rest. (And actually, the theme of God "giving them rest" as they entered the promised land can be seen in the book of Joshua as well). Psalm 95 and Hebrews 3-4 make equivalent the "land" and the "rest". Although they entered the "promised land" literally, spiritually they did not enter in their hearts. Although they "kept the Sabbath", they did not "enter His rest". Like the prodigal son's older brother, although they lived in the father's "land", spiritually they were living in a far-away country just like the younger son was literally.
*****
Today I read Psalm 105 which I think brackets the purpose of "Israel" in Scripture very interestingly.
quote:Remember the wondrous works that he has done,
his miracles, and the judgments he uttered,
O offspring of Abraham, his servant,
children of Jacob, his chosen ones!
He is the LORD our God;
his judgments are in all the earth.
He remembers his covenant forever,
the word that he commanded, for a thousand generations,
the covenant that he made with Abraham,
his sworn promise to Isaac,
which he confirmed to Jacob as a statute,
to Israel as an everlasting covenant,
saying, "To you I will give the land of Canaan
as your portion for an inheritance."
...he remembered his holy promise,
and Abraham, his servant.
So he brought his people out with joy,
his chosen ones with singing.
And he gave them the lands of the nations,
and they took possession of the fruit of the peoplesf toil,
that they might keep his statutes
and observe his laws.
The first thing to note about this passage is the address to the "offspring of Abraham". This title is not exclusive to the circumcision ("literal Israel", or Israel after the flesh). Galatians and the rest of the NT make it abundantly clear that we all are now Abraham's children. Therefore we need to recognize that even the promise of "the land" is not exclusive to "physical Israel". If, as Ps.105 declares, it is to Abraham's children, then it belongs to the Gentiles in Christ as well -- to all who are in Christ. However, as I mentioned already, there is the matter of discerning what our eternal inheritance truly is.
The second interesting point to notice is the "thousand generations". Should this be taken literally or figuratively? Whatever the case, it suddenly seems to put a limit on the "land" promise, don't you think?
The final thing to notice is that when God gave them the land of Canaan, having brought them out of Egypt, He did so "that they might keep his statutes and observe his laws". This seems to be a reference clearly to the Sinatic covenant, for similar language is used not only in Moses' speeches to Pharaoh, but also throughout Deuteronomy and beyond.
The purpose that God brought them into the land of Canaan was so that they might keep the statues and laws He gave them which would for all time tell them & the world about the coming Messiah!
Their time in Canaan was God's sovereign purpose to testify of the reality of sin and mankind's inability to remain as a faithful covenant partner with God. Their time in Canaan was God's sovereign purpose to testify that a faithful covenant partner was coming, Jesus Christ!
Okay, onto the next reply!
Bless you in Jesus,
Ramone |
Philharris
Registered user
Username: Philharris
Post Number: 1361
Registered: 5-2007
| | Posted on Monday, February 02, 2009 - 4:48 pm: | |
Well Ramone,
I say "thousand generations" is literal in meaning, but then, so is the rest.
For the spiritual Israel to be true, so does the physical Israel. For Israel to be Israel both the literal people and the literal land are Israel.
Phil |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 1685
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2009 - 1:49 am: | |
Hi Phil,
You'd written:
quote:For the spiritual Israel to be true, so does the physical Israel. For Israel to be Israel both the literal people and the literal land are Israel.
You're my bro and elder, and I love you in the Lord, but I've got to respectfully disagree here. Before they possessed Canaan, God referred to the descendants of Jacob as "Israel" to Pharaoh's face. Whether in Egypt, in Canaan, or in dispersion in Babylon and beyond, "Israel" was still "Israel" and did not depend on having or being in the land.
In a very similar way, "ekklesia" (church) is not a place but a people. The literal meaning is "the called out ones". That's why there is 'the church assembled' and 'the church scattered'. The identity of the church doesn't depend on having a building or meeting house.
I want to re-state the significance of what Psalm 105 notes, because I think I may not have said it clearly enough:
*****
#1) The land is given "for a thousand generations". This means it is not given for an indefinite time, but for a limited time.
*****
#2) The purpose of Israel's receiving of that land was so that they might obey the Old Covenant laws & statutes. (Since the Old Covenant is not forever, what becomes of the need to possess the land, then?) Most importantly, this suggests that the purpose of Israel having that land was so that they would testify about the Messiah who was coming. This testimony is contained in the Old Testament. Now that the Old Covenant is completed in Jesus Christ, the Old Covenant is obsolete. Jesus Christ is the end of the old covenant for those who believe.
Again, the purpose of Israel being in the land (in ancient times) was to tell the world (by word and by example--even negative example) that Jesus Christ was coming. The land, laws & people were pointing forward to Him. That was their primary purpose.
If this sounds too far-fetched, consider the way that the promise was worded to Abraham: "I will make you a blessing... through your seed all nations will be blessed." God blessed Abraham and His children/descendants so that He might bless the whole world through Jesus Christ.
*****
Finally...
#3) The "land" is given to the "offspring of Abraham" according to Psalm 105 and the original promises spoken to Abraham. According to the books of Romans and Galatians (and John the Baptist), the children of Abraham are those who believe in the Messiah.
This brings up several ramifications which should make things crystal clear to us. First...
A) If the land of Israel is given to Abraham's descendants, and we who are of his faith are his descendants, then the land of Israel belongs to us (even Gentiles) just as much as it does to the physical circumcision.
B) In fact, compared to the circumcised who do not believe, the land belongs to us more than to them, because according to the books of Galatians, Philippians and Romans, it is not the natural children who are considered Abraham's offspring, but those who are of his faith and are circumcised in heart.
This leads us to odd territory, don't you think?
C) Does the "land of Israel" then belong to the church?
I hope this kind of reasoning makes you as sick as it makes me. In fact, as I was thinking of this last night, the Lord interrupted my thoughts and said,
"I don't want My people to have land, I want them to have Me!"
But the medieval Catholic church looked at "land" as being "their inheritance", hence, it set out on "crusades" to recover the holy land (and thus caused Jews & Arabs to fight alongside one another against the crusaders).
But this method of thinking has its priorities wrong, not because of it's definitions of "spiritual" or "literal Israel", but because at the heart of it land is valued more than lives. That was the true problem with medieval "replacement theology" --the loss of the gospel's agape love-- not the definitions of "spiritual" or "literal" Israel.
Paul wrote that we shouldn't destroy "our brother for whom Christ died" because of quibbles about food and holy days. How much more is this true for quibbles about land? Especially so when Jesus told us to bless those who persecuted us, and give to those who wanted to take from us!
However, that metaphor falls short of describing the modern state of Israel, because the land of Israel had not been "taken" from them by the Arabs in the first place. Rather, the Roman army destroyed Israel because of its rebellions. (Ever notice the phrase "the rebellion that causes desolation" in those prophecies in Daniel?) What happened in modern times was not that the land was taken from Israel, but rather the opposite: Israel took the land back, destroying and sending away as refugees the inhabitants of the land -- people for whom Christ died.
Going back further, many different peoples inhabited the land even prior to the re-establishing of Judea after the Babylonian exile, conquering kings moved other peoples into the land. The Samaritans were descendants of some of those peoples whom Nebuchadnezzar (and others) moved into the land. Instead of kicking them out of the land or looking at them as if they were impeding God's purposes for the re-establishment of Israel, Jesus showed His love and concern for these people time after time. His priorities are clear: lives over land, including the lives of non-Jews and even the lives of enemies.
*****
Bless you in Jesus,
Ramone |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 1686
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2009 - 2:07 am: | |
Hi Colleen,
quote:The prophecies that [the temple] will be rebuilt do not state all the circumstances. Ezekiel, however, gives meticulous descriptions for the third temple, and it has never been built.
I used to think that the prophecies couldn't be fulfilled unless they were fulfillments done by God-fearing, Christ-honoring people. But they don't actually SAY that. We don't know what will transpire and how. The Bible DOES say the temple will be rebuilt--but that does not mean that it will be part of a believing nation who will worship the Lord Jesus in truth and reality.
I understand this reasoning, Colleen, but the problem is that the way Ezekiel wrote about the rebuilding of the temple, it was something done in God's sight, according to His plan, and done with righteous sacrifices. A river of life was pictured flowing out of that rebuilt temple, and the name of the city was "The Lord is There". Ezekiel's temple is therefore clearly not a temple built by unbelievers or by people who are moving apart from God's direct leading.
More importantly, the river of the water of life flowing out of that temple is seen again flowing out of the holy city in the last chapter of Revelation with similar wording about how its leaves are for the healing of the nations. The temple of Ezekiel is likely a picture of the same "temple", seen through Old Covenant eyes (to use Brinsmead's metaphor).
quote:I'm not trying to make any absolute statement. I just know that, as Gary said, the Bible says the temple will be rebuilt, so it will be.
The problem, again, is that the OT pictures the rebuilding of the temple by godly people according to God's will, and the nations coming and worshiping there. On the other hand, Christ said "tear down this temple and I will rebuild it in three days". He was referring to His body.
When Jesus Christ came, He became the temple in which God dwelt among men.
When Jesus Christ returned to heaven and the Holy Spirit came into believers, we became the temple in which God dwells among men, which is why Paul twice says, "Don't you know that you are God's temple?" And Peter refers to the church as God building His temple.
Brinsmead was right, and we do need to study the way that the NT declares OT prophecies fulfilled so that we don't make the same mistake of reading by the letter with the Prophets that Adventism made reading by the letter of the Law.
Thank you for sharing about the various preparations that are being made for the temple in Israel, by the way. It is a big problem, and one which evangelical Christians continue to tiptoe around because of dispensationalism: There is a big obstacle in the heart of many Israelis in the way of receiving Christ... it can be seen in what Caiaphas said when he prophesied that Jesus should be killed "or else we will lose our nation and our place". The word "place" is an old way of referring to the temple (the temple is referred to in this way almost exclusively in 2nd Maccabees, for example).
The nation was an idol in the hearts of Jewish leaders in Christ's day, and they sacrificed Him on the cross in order to keep their nation. Today the idol still exists... a belief that "we must have our land". The desire to keep the land has moved desire for the Messiah into second place.
Must run.
Bless you in Jesus,
Ramone |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 1687
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2009 - 2:09 am: | |
P.S. I don't disagree that the temple may be rebuilt, but it would not be as a fulfillment of positive OT prophecies in Ezekiel. More akin to things in Daniel, sadly. |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 9352
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2009 - 10:33 pm: | |
Ramone, I agree that Israel's desire for the land today is a distraction from a desire for the Messiah. In fact, I don't particularly see the Jews' longing for the land to be particularly spiritually significant at all.
What I see is that the existence of a state of Israel is not so much a statement about Jews as it is a statement about God. Just as He scattered and regathered the Jews historically, he can do the same thing today. The gathering doesn't have to correspond to the Jews' "belief"--it can mean merely that God is establishing authorities and "thrones" at His will and for His purposes within His own time frame.
The Ezekiel vision of the dry bones is certainly not a vision of believing Israel being gathered. It's a picture of dead Israel being gathered--with the promise that eventually there will be life among them again.
The existence of the state of Israel, in my mind, has nothing to do with the eternal status of each Israeli citizen. Rather, it has to do with God keeping His promises...a fact about God which gives us even more evidence to believe that there will come an end to the time of the Gentiles, and there will come a time when Jews will be evangelized and there will be a great turning to the Lord among them.
Colleen |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 1791
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Monday, March 23, 2009 - 9:19 am: | |
Hi Colleen (and others),
I just posted some things on the Adventism & Dispensationalism's Common Hermeneutic thread and have finally re-visited these two threads because of a NY Times article that I read yesterday.
I want to reply to some things that you said here on this thread, Colleen:
quote:Ramone, I agree that Israel's desire for the land today is a distraction from a desire for the Messiah.
You're right. It's that, and it's more as well. It's also a distraction from the Messiah's desire. God promised His Son "the nations" as His inheritance (Ps.2:8). The reason that "love your neighbor" and "love one another as I have loved you" feature so prominently into the gospel is that the nations are Christ's inheritance. Our neighbors --both our friends and our enemies-- are His inheritance.
Think of it: For Satan, what better way to distract people than to have them all hating one another (in God's name, no less) and killing one another? What better way to blind them to the fact that they themselves are God's treasures than for them to have their hearts set on earthly treasures--even land? And what better way to accomplish this than to mute the witness of the Church about it by having them (at minimum) silently stand back viewing things as part of God's sovereign plan, or (at maximum) by having them support one side's effort to attain that coveted land and wipe out it's enemy who is also Christ's inheritance?
quote:In fact, I don't particularly see the Jews' longing for the land to be particularly spiritually significant at all.
Firstly, it is of great significance to the God who died for them so that they might have Him Himself, and an eternal inheritance which does not spoil or fade as well. But here especially I urge you to re-read John 11:45-57, because this "longing" is very biblical, actually. It is what the leaders chose instead of choosing Jesus Christ. It is what they chose to value instead of the life of the Son of God.
quote:"What are we accomplishing?" they asked. "Here is this man performing many miraculous signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place [temple] and our nation."
Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, "You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."
It is the same spiritual stronghold -- firstly a valuing of God's gift in place of God Himself, and secondly a valuing of God's gift instead of valuing human lives that God created. The Jews were rightly worried about the Roman Empire (the Christians would find out how easily it flip-flopped its kindnesses in the years to come), but instead of trusting God and following the truth, they chose to sacrifice the truth in an effort to protect themselves and their possessions. In short, they chose to save their lives in this world -- and ended up losing them in the end. (And they lost their nation and temple, as well).
Today the people of the state of Israel are happy to be "home", but sadly they are not completely able to enjoy it because of the hostility of the nations around them (nations that are hostile because of the way Israel was formed by Zionism, and because the nations are still having to take care of thousands and thousands of Palestinian refugees that Israel drove out during the war). But I digress. The point is that in order to save her lives, Israel needs to come back to the truth. Tenaciously clinging to our efforts to protect our lives and our property leads us to death. Surrendering these to God --putting His kingdom first-- leads to life.
In an article recently, I read what one Jew (the son of parents who had started a synagogue) was raised to value:
quote:"I had a lot of long talks with my father about our religion... He said it wasn't necessary to think too much about an afterlife. What was important was this life, how we live it, what we contribute, our families, and the memories we leave..."
"The importance of Judaism isn't simply theological, or, in the minds of some Jews, necessarily theological at all. It is that we have stayed together and respected these things for thousands of years, and so it is important that we continue."
There is something deeply touching and beautiful in this description, and something deeply true as well, in valuing how we live our lives now. However, it is missing the light of Jesus Christ, who tells us about "the afterlife" in joyful overtones, and through whom we actually can live better today, as well. As Hebrews 3 and 4 point out, in Jesus Christ today we do enter the promised land and the Sabbath-rest of Eden (see this post for a study on that). Jesus Christ is the Way that we can live in love and peace with today and the afterlife. He is the Way in which we may embrace the theological without worrying about losing touch with everyday life and relevance.
What struck me most, however, in these words I've quoted above, is that what was emphasized was not the actual truth of Judaism, but rather the emphasis of the culture of Judaism. That tradition should be adhered to simply because it is tradition. It reminds me now not ironically of cultural Adventism which values the "heritage" of Adventism and views the actual claims of its truth as being of much lesser importance.
From what I've observed (in visiting synagogues and in reading things expressed by Jews -- such as at the Judaism101 site, etc.), this valuing of Jewish culture as being primary and truth as being secondary is not an isolated phenomenon, but is very widespread. I think you could almost call it the legacy of the Sadducees. In a way, it is natural that the Jewish people would embrace culture and tradition over truth and faith because of what happened: they had returned from exile just as the prophets had promised, but [physical] Jerusalem did not endure forever as the prophets had said it would.
This brings us to the next comment you'd made, Colleen:
quote:The Ezekiel vision of the dry bones is certainly not a vision of believing Israel being gathered. It's a picture of dead Israel being gathered--with the promise that eventually there will be life among them again.
I don't know if you had read it or not, but in this member's thread I wrote about the problems with seeing Ezekiel's "dry bones" as being partially fulfilled in the establishment of the modern state of Israel. Ezekiel was written among the exiles, and deals with their being exiled to Babylon, and deals with their returning ...from Babylon. At the end of their "gathering" in Ezekiel 37, God speaks of making "an everlasting covenant" with them. In the same way, God spoke of gathering His people in Jeremiah 31 and also spoke of a new covenant. This pairing is not coincidental, I believe. Both passages speak of the immediate result of Christ's finished work --- the coming of the Holy Spirit.
Ezekiel 37 (and 36) speaks of being gathered, being brought back from the nations, and then being filled with God's Spirit, making them alive, receiving a new heart and a new spirit. Chapter 37, just like chapter 36, is about Christ and the New Covenant. In the immediate context, Ezekiel is speaking to those who returned from the exile. This doesn't forsee a future exile after A.D. 70. In fact, the only time Israel is said to have been "exiled" was before the Babylonian exile. What happened in A.D. 70 was not prophetically spoken of as an exile, but rather as judgment for the slaying of all the prophets in Israel's history.
The exiles returned from Babylon, although some still remained in other lands. But did you notice what Acts 2:3 says? "Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven." What Ezekiel had seen and spoken of in chapter 37 was fulfilled at Pentecost. Firstly, the exiles had returned from Babylon to their homeland. They had been "gathered". Second, people who had stayed in other nations were assembled in Jerusalem at Pentecost. And then the Holy Spirit was poured out, and 3000 of them came to life immediately. These 3000 had more and more added to their number daily, and they in turn went back to their home nations, where their numbers increased all the more. The "army" of apostles (sent ones) increased and was effective -- and it is still increasing today in number and in effect.
Moreover, the amazing effectiveness of this "army" is seen in that it was used to bring people to God -- bring them to LIFE in His Spirit! What other army brings life to people? Do not all armies take lives, even in trying to save other lives? But this army, God's apostolic army, it goes forth and with its unearthly weapons saves lives for eternity. Not only that, but this army saves lives wherever has gone, regardless of location. Not only Gentiles, but firstly they brought Jews to life who lived in the nations among the Gentiles. There is nothing in Romans 11 which says that Israel has to be in the land in order for a great number of Jews to be re-grafted into Christ---into His body, the Church, the fullness of Him who fills every thing in every way. It is an unnatural juxtaposition of dispensationalism to read Zionism (the need for Jews to be in the land of Israel) into Romans 11. Of course it could theoretically be "easier" for many Jews to come to God if they were in one location, but Paul didn't say "how long" the unhardening would take, and as the witness of the early church shows, those who apostolically "went out" to dispersed Jews were just as effective as (and perhaps even more effective than) those who had stayed in Jerusalem.
As I wrote on the Member's thread, Ezekiel 36 & 37 look forward to the Cross and Pentecost, not to a future time. These chapters are soteriological, not eschatalogical. They point us to Jesus Christ, not to the end times. They point to the Kingdom of God, not the nations of the earth. Ironically, the church has looked at Ezekiel 37 soteriologically throughout its history -- either as referring to the resurrection or to the coming of the Holy Spirit. It is only since dispensationalism (which is Israel-centered) and 1948 that the passage has been re-interpretated to mean something eschatological instead of soteriological.
"1948" is why dispensationalism is so difficult to let go of. 1948 seems to be proof that dispensationalism got something right. And so when the other errors of dispensationalism produce bad fruit (such as Christian churches sponsoring armed settlers in Palestinian territories), Christians keep silent because... because dispensationalism "got 1948 right" (so to speak).
It's the same as how "Sabbath" validates the whole Adventist "package" for Adventists. Many Adventists who have questions and qualms about Ellen White, the health message, the Sanctuary & Investigative Judgment, etc., many Adventists will still stick with Adventism because "it got Sabbath right." Sabbath becomes a validation, a "proof" of the correctness of Adventism.
In the same way, the establishment of the state of Israel appears to validate Dispensationalism's focus on Israel -- it's absolute belief in the separation of Israel and the Church, and in the need to read "Israel" literally in the Old Testament (even if New Testament interpretations of Old Testament passages didn't follow that rule). "1948" tells Christians that dispensationalism got its literal reading of Israel right, and once that interpretive rule is established (again, no matter how the NT itself shows how to interpret the OT), literal "Israel" is established in the minds of Christians. From then on, all of Scripture will be read in accordance with that rule (because after all, "1948" is right), and whatever may seem to be contrary in Scripture must be re-interpreted match that rule (or set aside and shelved as being "difficult")... Scriptures such as Hebrews 3-4 & 11 which speak of the promised land spiritually are set aside or re-interpreted to match the external "proof" that validates dispensationalism: "1948".
For this reason, I think it's just about as difficult to leave dispensationalism as it is to leave Adventism. Both have the same kinds of interpretive principles (errors). Of course both have important differences -- Adventism has a stronger cultic element, and Dispensationalism has a more current "proof" than Adventism does (1948). But the similar interpretive method keeps many people in both camps from being able to read what is clearly written in the Scriptures. The "veil of the Old Covenant" can of course refer to the 10 Commandments specifically, but more obviously it refers to the entire Old Testament, as is seen when Paul says "when Moses is read". And similarly, both "isms" have a firmly-driven-in "stake" which keeps even marginal believers in their ranks. In Adventism it is the Sabbath, and in dispensationalism it is 1948. For Adventists, to consider the Sabbath being wrong is to say that God's law and morality itself are wrong. For dispensationalists, to question 1948 is to question God's faithfulness and the validity of Scripture itself. Both are dreadful traps that plant fears in us of letting go of their pillars, fears of going into worse errors if we do. Both keep people held back -- in Adventism, from seeing the gospel of God's love and entering into it; in dispensationalism, from speaking the whole gospel of God's love into the Middle East and helping its people enter the true promised land.
I can only pray what my friend did after seeing what I had painted and wrote in tears:
quote:Oh that the cross and the gospel of our salvation would become the focus of our attention instead of Jerusalem! It's all about Jesus and what His tender love for us has accomplished in freeing us from our sins. Oh that He would break all of our hearts with the things that break His!
In Jesus,
Ramone |
|
