THE BOOK OF GALATIANS AND AN ISRAEL EXC LUSIVE. Although identity believers are convinced of the basic concepts of identity, that is: • That Jesus came to save “His people” from their sins. • That Jesus says He was not sent but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel. • The Law and the Word was given as a covenant to Israel only. • That Israel in the New Testament is still the same people they were in the Old Testament. • That the so-called Gentiles in Romans and Galatians could only be Israelites. • That “The Jews” of the New Testament are not Israelites, that is, they are not Judaites. Christians still have areas, particularly in the Book of Galatians, where they tend to get tossed about by every wind of doctrine, especially in regard to the words Greeks, together with the differences between Christ, Jesus, Jesus Christ, The Lord Jesus Christ and Christ Jesus. To say that the words are always interchangeable is a presumption. Churches allow the presumption, even if it is an error, as we will see. In two critical verses, Galatians 3:26 and Gal 3:29, the same word, christos, is used. The word simply means “anointed”. The concordances erroneously present things like, Christ, The Messiah, an epithet of Jesus. This is saying is that “christ” is a surname of Jesus. This stays in peoples’ minds as if it were a truth, because we have been taught to think that way from usage. This is far from right. When we see the expression “Jesus Christ” it is hard to imagine why the Apostle Paul chose to leave Iesou [Jesus] out in some passages whereas he chose to put it in others, without having some reason for doing so. In both Gal 3:16 and Gal 3:29 the word Iesou (Jesus) is not there: Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christs, then are ye Abrahams seed, and heirs according to the promise. In these two critical verses we have something else which is anointed! What can it be? What is the subject? Is it not the seed of Abraham, in their generations, according to the original promise? Hence Gal 3:16 reads and to thy seed which is anointed and Gal 3:29 reads and if ye be an anointed (people) then ye are Abraham’s seed. The churches try to spiritualise the matter of Abraham’s seed. We will look at this first. CAN THE PROMISES MADE TO ABRAHAM’S SEED BE SPIRITUALISED? This is a major issue! That is, are people of every race who are “converted” now the seed of Abraham? Is Jesus the epitome of the whole group? Churches say this as if Jesus had a seed in fact! Answers in the affirmative are the foundation of the traditional teachings. They have become the standard teachings since the Reformation. In essence they teach a generalisation that God does not [and did not] exhibit His Sovereign Nature and make any choices on a national or racial basis. That this is clear in the Old Testament is partially accepted by them, but any suggestion that God has not changed in the New Testament is rejected absolutely. Historically, Rome brought in the teaching that she was the one true church and that anyone of any race could be converted into the Church by acceptance of that Church’s dogmas, sacraments and traditions. The Roman church taught that she was Israel. Anyone who was not of the Holy Apostolic Roman Catholic Church was stated to be a Gentile. [remember, “Gentile” is a transliterated Latin word, not a Greek word]. This concept has carried into Protestantism from Bible translations based on the Latin Vulgate. Instead of meaning a non-Roman, “gentile” has come to mean a non-Israelite. This was the concept that Martin Luther had, as did some of the reformers. The word “gentile” has been a problem ever since. The present view held by the Churches has its origin with the Roman Mother of Harlots and is not in Scripture. 2 Translators render ethnos (nations) in different ways. They do likewise with the word hellen (Greek). Both hellen and ethnos are translated as “gentile” when it suits the translators, in order to perpetuate the Roman doctrine. Presumably it was considered that because the Greeks were not of the Jewish nation, they were not considered to be Israelites. In the Old Testament, we find promises that are made to Abraham which carry through to Abraham’s seed, through Isaac. That is, they are made to the people of Israel. The question that arises is, If the promises were made to Jesus, as being that promised ‘seed’ of Galatians 3:16, does this mean that Jesus is Israel? As a matter of fact, as He had no earthly father, He could not be the actual ‘seed’ (sperma) of Abraham, or of any other man. We read in Heb.2:16, “But he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren”. We can see what this means when we consider the words, “took on Him” and “to be made”. The teaching that Jesus was the promised seed of Gal 3:16 is seen to be false, when the verse is carefully translated, directly from the Greek: Now to the Abraham and to the seed of him, the promises were spoken. He says not, And to the seeds as of many, but as of one, and to the seed of thee which is anointed. Galatians 3:29 supports this translation and a careful translation gives: But if you are belonging to an anointed [people], then you are of the seed belonging to Abraham, and heirs according to promise. Note well that it is “you”, not Jesus who is Abraham’s seed. “You” here is emphatic and plural In the AV verses we find interesting words like, Abraham and his seed, promises, as of one, Christ and heirs according to the promise. Each of these phrases in the Greek presents a different picture from what is presented by the churches. In Scripture, Jesus is, amongst other things: [a] The Redeemer of Israel [b] The Saviour of Israel [c] The King of Israel. By Him were all things created, but He is not his own creation [other than by bringing about His incarnation by His Own Will]! Jesus is the Eternal Son of God, not a created being. If the seed of Jesus is now spiritual Israel, then Jesus would have to be His own redeemer. But in fact, Jesus has no “seed”. WHO ARE THESE “HEIRS ACCORDING TO THE PROMISE”? This latter part of verse 29 tells us a lot more, and it helps us to understand more about the but as of one in verse 16. The word kleronomos (heir) means a sharer by lot or getting by apportionment [Strong G2818] and Thayer confirms, one who receives by lot. The promise is epaggelia [Strong G1860] and means a divine assurance or pledge. What was the pledge God made? To whom was it made? To whom was it later confirmed? To find out and to be certain, we must consider the original covenant. WHO IS THE SEED TO WHOM THE ORIGINAL COVENANTS WERE MADE? Addressing Abraham, God says, Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. Here we have to note some important things. If Jesus is the one seed, then all generations between Abraham and Jesus have been dis-inherited from the covenant! If we say that this promise was made only to Abraham and to “Christ”, then it could not have been also confirmed to Isaac and Jacob and their descendants. But it was in fact confirmed to Isaac and Jacob; thus it includes those living between Abraham and Jesus and to Jacob’s descendants after the time of Jesus. Romans 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers: … 3 Scripture says the promises were made to The Fathers and not “Jesus Christ”. We are not told that Jesus came to confirm the promises made to Himself, are we? So, the fulfilment must be taken the way it is stated in Scripture. It is fulfilled in the seed of the Fathers. Looking again at the AV version of Galatians 3:16, now unto 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, we can see by this statement that there is a limitation of the promise to just one party, namely “the fathers”. Being of Israel, Jesus would be of that party. Here we have to ask a very simple question, and that is, if “christ” (an anointed) means “Jesus Christ” would this not mean, that as Jesus is God manifested in the flesh, He would be making a covenant with Himself? What purpose would there be for God to make a covenant with Himself? Sincere seekers are mislead by this translation which puts in a capital ‘C’ in christ, because it tries to say that the seed of Abraham is now the seed of Jesus. There is no in their generations when taken this way. The divine pledge of Genesis 17:7 was made to Abraham and would not be valid if it was not for all generations, or in their generations. In their generations is plural! Yes? Jesus is singular! Yes? Therefore the interpretation of and thy seed which is Christ, must be wrong. That the usual interpretation is quite unacceptable can be concluded without great depth of Greek study. God did not make it that complicated. But, the verses can be translated rather than transliterated. R.K. Phillips in his What saith the Scriptures reads the Greek text of Galatians 3 this way: Verse 26. For ye are all Sons of God through faith, in an anointed [people] of [belonging to] Jesus [christo is representing a noun in this phrase]. Verse 29. And, if ye belong to an anointed [people] then are ye Abraham’s seed, heirs according to the promise. Now before anybody rises up in wrath and indignation, let me agree at once that ‘Iesou’ is the same for the Dative form as for the Genitive form, so ‘en christo Iesou’ has two possible translations: 1. In an anointed [one] Jesus … [which simply means Jesus Christ]. 2. In an anointed [people] of [belonging to] Jesus. Then Mr. Phillips asks what excuse there might be for not translating the word Christo/s/ou, pointing out that a transliterated word means nothing in another language. He also points out that checking this with a concordance will only repeat the errors of the translators. Note: When we consider Gal 3:26 and 29, christos is used as the dative and genitive cases respectively. The dative must be used after the preposition en in verse 26 (in an anointed). In verse 29 it occurs as the genitive, of, or belonging to an anointed. If we want to keep on choosing a translation which is not in context to prove a point then we must be making a mistake. This is trying to make the verse fit the theory! One of the reasons why the latter translation is not acceptable was given by a Greek “expert” as being, because the Gentiles are not Israelites. But, as the so-called Gentiles that the Apostle Paul addressed in Scripture were outcast Israelites, then the latter translation must be right in this context. It is understandable why the first translation is accepted almost universally. Firstly, it is because of the misuse of “gentile”, and secondly because the word christos has been transliterated to always mean “Jesus Christ”, by translators from early times and this is the problem. “AS OF ONE” AND “THE ANOINTED SEED” 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. The expression, as of one in Galatians 3:16 is commonly taken as as of ONE, inferring Jesus is the ONE. This is the historical interpretation and most commentaries and lexicons comment from this basis. Many will make comments like, a unique use of the singular [Vine] or will admit that this tends to be at variance with the genius of the original languages. Vine “The children of the promise are counted for the ‘seed’ points firstly to Isaac’s birth … The ‘children of the promise’ indicates that the seed are indeed plural”. 4 From the many meanings of heis (one), it is possible to regard either Jesus or Isaac as being the “one” seed of Gal 3:16. Abraham had seven sons apart from Isaac and these are who Gal 3:16 refers to as the many. But the seed as of one refers to Abraham’s seed which was IN Isaac [Gen 21:12], that is, Jacob and his descendants. Romans 9:7 confirms that Isaac is the ‘one seed’ - But in Isaac shall they seed be called. This shows the fulfilment of Genesis 21:12 as being in Isaac’s seed. Then the Scripture continues on to say that Isaac is the one or the “one seed”. Rom 9:10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; So the one here is Isaac, and not Jesus. If we accept the meaning that it is the seed of Abraham through Isaac which is anointed, does Scripture make better sense? Do not both Testaments then agree? Do they not then witness together? “IN CHRIST” OR “IN JESUS” The Churches today use the expression in Jesus when at times they should use in christ or vice-versa. This is not just splitting hairs. The Bible expression in christ may be a far cry from in Jesus. The expression in Jesus comes from the doctrine that is in question here. In Jesus, covers up the meaning of in christ (in an anointed), the latter sometimes having to do with a certain anointed people. These people can be found through both Testaments. They are that way from conception. But being born that way [in christ (in an anointed people)] does not make them in Jesus under the New Testament. When we consider that Iesou (Jesus) occurs 683 times and the word christos (christ) only 300 times, why should we treat them as being interchangeable? The text joins them together when they should be joined together. The Apostle Paul sometimes joined them together and sometimes he did not. He must have had a reason. God must have had a reason. But the churches think of both of the words as always having the same meaning, despite the variety of combinations and grammar in which the words are used. Let us consider an example to show the point. 2 Cor 6:15 - “ What concord hath Christ with Belial?” … Young’s concordance points out that ‘Belial’ should not be regarded as a proper name and Belial simply means a worthless person. In the Old Testament, Belial categorises a particular type of person. In this context we can either assert Jesus has some association with Belial-type people or we can translate it properly as what concord hath an anointed (person) with Belial. This is in keeping with the context of the chapter, which contrasts several other classes of things with each other. Notice that each class is of the same type: [a] righteous with unrighteousness (two classes of behaviour) [b] light with darkness (two components of the visible spectrum) [c] believer with an infidel (two types of spiritual attitude) [d] Temple of God with idols (two types of attitude). Therefore we can go contrary to the other instances and compare “christ” (taken as a specific person) with Belial (a category of person) or we can compare an anointed person (a type of person) with Belial (a type of person). Heb 11:26 (Moses) esteeming the reproach of christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt … What did Moses know at that time about Jesus if Jesus was Christ in this context? Jesus had not then been incarnated! His name shall be called Jesus, but He was not so named at the time of Moses. What Moses did know about in his day was the anointed people! To deny this is to show an impossible bias and to believe a lie. Strong words? They need to be! Moses esteemed the reproach of an anointed people greater riches than the treasures of Egypt. The account of Moses’ life bears this out - Moses left the palace to join his people rather than live on in the palace and become Pharaoh in due course. To become absolutely clear about the use of the word christos [or christos], it is necessary to determine if this was the name God gave to His Son, or if it was a title given Him by men. It can 5 be demonstrated that the word is sometimes a common noun in the New Testament and that it is sometimes a proper noun or title. THE MEDIATOR Gal 3:19,20 Wherefore serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels, in the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. God had made a covenant with Abraham and his seed, in their generations, which was not displaced through the Law. The law was added because of transgressions, until the seed arrived to whom the promise had been made in the will [Gal 3:19,29]. This seed still has to be Abraham’s seed, in their generations for the promise made to Abraham to remain valid. Now, this mediator must be in the middle of two other parties. He cannot be one of the parties, can He? 1 Timothy 2:5 tells us that there is one mediator between God and man. Jesus gave Himself a ransom for all, “all” being all of those who were being bought back. This is Israel alone. If God is one as we are told, could the Law be directly opposed to the promises? The mediator of the New Testament God made with Israel was the man Jesus Anointed. The mediation was with the same people who broke the Old Testament. The heirs are still the same people. The next chapter of Galatians confirms them as being those who were under the Law. This is Israel alone. The Law was the schoolmaster to bring us to Jesus who fulfilled the added law (of sacrifice) by making the ultimate sacrifice and thereby doing away with the added law. There is no scope at all to include any other peoples. What one believes about this matter is mostly influenced by what is taken to be the meaning of the word “gentile”. The wording of the translations are in line with the beliefs of the translators and it is this that creates the difficulties in understanding. Some scholars even say that they translate the way they do because they say the word “gentile” must apply to all non-Israelites. Why ever must it so apply? This is the preconception most Christians have. The word essentially refers to Israelites who were then scattered throughout the nations of the known world and especially the nations of the former Greek empire. When we accept who the Gentiles are, then it is no longer necessary to bend it is written to fit the popular belief. Then we find harmony between the promises and their New Testament fulfilment. “NEITHER JEW NOR GREEK” Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male and female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. If we apply what we have learnt about christos to this passage, we find it reads: for ye are all one in an anointed (people). This is a parallel with: 1 Cor 12:13 For by one spirit are we all baptised into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles [Hellene - Greeks], whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one spirit. In saying that there is no difference between Jews and Greeks, it must be noted that the terms are national rather than racial. Both are of the one descent from Israel, as Abraham’s seed [Gal 3:29]. All Israelites, whether Judean or Greek speaking, whether male or female, or whether slaves or masters, are accepted. These two verses say the same thing and the interesting thing here is again in the translations. In both verses “Greeks” and “Gentiles” are the same word Hellen in the Greek text of these verses. Even the NIV translates Hellen as “Gentiles” in the book of Romans more than once because this suits the doctrine of the translators, but they are willing to translate the same word as “Greeks” in Corinthians. How dare they do this? Hellen is not even remotely like ethnos. In Galatians 3:28 there is something in common between the “Jews” and the “Greeks” that links them together. In Gal 3:16 and Gal 3:29 we found it is the anointing [christos] and in 1 Cor 12:13 it is one spirit. The common linking factor is “anointing” and “spirit”. Please do not 6 dismiss this subject of the anointed race. Tradition has avoided it to accommodate their form of “Jews and Gentiles” doctrine. Now, when we go back, it can be seen how this all ties up. As we have seen before, the two parties are: 1. Israelites in Judea – The Circumcision. 2. Israelites of the Dispersion – The Uncircumcision – or the dispersed amongst the Greeks. The New Testament re-unites the Judean Israelites and the Dispersion into One Body by Calvary. The whole of Israel is the one body. The expression “dispersion” is what we find in John 7:35 where the Pharisees said, Will He go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles [more correctly translated, the dispersion among the Greeks]. In Ephesians 2:11-22 it is no different. The Dispersion had become [were] as strangers but through the same Spirit, with which they were anointed they were able to be reconciled unto God in one body by “the cross”, or stake. In one body there is no difference between the Israelite Judeans and the Dispersion. Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit, unto the Father. The “both” are the two groups (Judean and Dispersed Israelites), or two parts of the one body, having access by the one Spirit. Then there is also the presentation in Ephesians where we find, The Commonwealth of Israel. Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenant of promise, having no hope (because of your caste off state), and without God in the world (order) … This commonwealth, [according to reference 4174 in Thayer’s Lexicon], is spoken of as the theocratic or divine commonwealth. The people being addressed by Paul were not currently subject under this divine administration. When they submitted to this administration, they became one with those who were already subject, so then there was no difference. Paul confirms this in Romans 10:12 where he declares, For there is no difference between the Jew (Judean) and the Greek (Dispersion), for the Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. [In context, “all” is all of the “Jews” and “Greeks” meaning all of the Israelite Judeans and the Dispersion]. The word difference is used as of musical instruments being in tune [Thayer 1293]. Before someone jumps up and down to say that Ephesians 2:12 says these “gentiles” were without Christ and therefore could not have been anointed from physical birth, it must be pointed out that there are two different withouts in the verse. Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. The first is choris [Strong G5565] which means “separately” or “by itself”. These “Gentile Israelites” were on their own apart and separate from the Israelites in Judea but they still had the anointing that came with their birth. The second “without” is athoes and means “God-less” [Strong G112], but they were still Israelites, although they were God-less, in this sense. With this understanding, the whole Bible does not conflict any more in this area. The promises made to the Fathers are fulfilled in us their children and in their generations and not in some mythical non-Israelite Gentiles or Church that has no ‘children’ or ‘generations’. So we can see that in no way could non-Israelites be genetic children of the Fathers. WHO ARE THE GREEKS? The dispersed among the Greeks [John 7:35] - is a telling expression. John 7:35 Whither shall he go that we shall not find him? will he go to the dispersed among the Gentiles [Hellen: Greeks], and teach the Gentiles [Hellen: Greeks]? Who would they be talking about as being the dispersed? Historically and Biblically, it cannot be any but the House of Israel and the bulk of the House of Judah. That this is so accords with 7 prophecy. Hence as we shall see, “Greeks” is used as a synonym throughout the New Testament for the Dispersion located amongst the nations of the former Greek empire. To talk about non-Jews being scattered among non-Jews would be silly and meaningless. In this verse we have another instance of Hellen as “gentile” instead of “Greek”. If we were to take the meaning of “gentiles” as belonging to other nations referring to Israelites scattered among other nations, this would be acceptable. This mistranslation is also found in the following places where it is rendered as “gentiles”. [Note: By ‘Judean’ we mean ‘Israelites of Judea’ exclusive of other races from Judea ]. Romans 2:10 To the Jew [Judean] first, and also to the Gentile [Hellen: Greeks]. Romans 3:9 … for we have proved both Jews and Gentiles [Judeans and Hellen: Greeks], that they are all under sin. 1 Cor 10:32 Give no offence, neither to the Jews [Judeans], nor to the Gentiles [Hellen: Greeks], nor to the church (assembly of called out ones) of God. 1 Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles [Judeans or Hellen: Greeks],
Posted on: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 11:24:51 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015