This is mind blowing in a beautiful way! Never heard such a detailed explanation connecting these dots before! I am so excited to study the Bible through a new real lens! I am new to your channel but I am grateful that God led me here! Blessings from Puerto Rico!🎉
I’ve often pondered this whereabouts of the original descendants for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob since there were all scattered but didn’t pull it together in this way. I love the way you explained Ephraim being divorced but now able to re-marry (God) because of the death of their first husband (Christ). It’s a bit of a mind bender at first but is also a new ‘aha’ moment for me. I’ll need to ponder this further. 🙏🏻 Thank you for your good work. ❤
There is no condemnation for those who are in Jesus Christ . Very important statement. Now ,tell me,how many denominations teach that we are still sinners?
Yes, I knew it. That is the meaning of Romans 7. The wife could only marry again after her husband died. The husband was the law and Christ died to fulfill the law, so that the wife could marry Christ. Sorry if I sound confusing here. Romans 7 is so deep and it was difficult to understand it, until Watchman Nee explained it for me in one of his books, long ago.
Whoa! If the husband dies...! I was just searching out Ephraim too hoping to understand why they are mentioned so often. And Asenath, the mother of Ephraim and Manasseh was a Gentile! Genesis 46:20
The mothers of all of Jacob's grandchildren would have been Gentiles unless they married their sisters. Remember, at this time, Israel was a father with 12 sons and one daughter (that we know of).
I’ll recently listened to a podcast of stone choir after seeing a tweet on X. If you want to understand the thinking of Jew haters and Holocaust deniers it’s worth a listen truly terrifying!
The church is the bride of Christ (Ephesians 5; 2nd Corinthians 11). The church, of course, is all who are justified by faith in Jesus Christ, whether Jew or Gentile (1st Corinthians 12).
Excellent teaching. Thank you for the insight. One question: In my 40 years of walking with The Lord Jesus and reading His word and other teachings, I was always under the impression that the Jewish diaspora sent Jews all over the world BUT they were able to retain their Jewish Identity and not assimilate with the gentile culture around them. How does that make them 'all nations'?
Remember Israel is not always synonymous with Jews. Jews are a part of Israel. Many make the reference of calling all of Israel the Jews as if they are always one and the same.
I'm so glad I watched until the end. Halfway through it almost felt like it was leaning towards Israel Only (IO) theology. I was a bit scared. Always watch through the end! As a preterist, I really appreciate this thruth that you are sharing because if fits a lot better the reality. Also, your video can be a good starting point against the rise of Hebrew Roots movement who still believe that the law of Moses is still binding on christians.
yeah very uplifting in some way. Thanks for explanation. Did i missed something the 12 tribes will not restored in this age but after christs return right?
I’ve been watching a lot of your content. At the moment I’ve been exploring eschatology and curious your view between the Gentiles and Jews in the end times. I’m leaning towards Historical Premileenial.
Knew this... Also that even though God had "divorced" Israel, Jer 3:12-13 12 "Go and proclaim these words toward the north and say, `Return, faithless Israel,' declares the LORD; `I will not look upon you in anger. For I am gracious,' declares the LORD; `I will not be angry forever.13 `Only acknowledge your iniquity, That you have transgressed against the LORD your God And have scattered your favors to the strangers under every green tree, And you have not obeyed My voice,' declares the LORD. Besides Romans 7 talks about divorcement from the law, indicating that we are not bound to sin (aa to a husband). We can be free from sin. Sin need not have mastery over us.
Can you explain how a Jew becomes a gentile? You said the scattered Jews of the northern kingdom became gentiles. My understanding is once a Jew, always a Jew as it is a people group built on lineage from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.. Granted, a Jew can be non-practicing in a sense, but they cannot disown their lineage. I have never heard this "Jews became gentiles" before.
@@GoodBerean both northern and southern Israel were scattered all over the world. Some mixed with other races and became mixed. Some did not. That is true for both northern and southern Israel.
@ this is what John’s baptism was for. People coming back to Israel that needed to be purified. It was something started by the Pharisees that came back to Israel after being scattered.
@@GoodBerean but the northern kingdom are descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob also, which I understand as "Jews." I understand the northern kingdom was taken by Assyria and they assimilated into the gentile culture, but their lineage still remains from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It seems we have a different understanding of the term "Jew." I would define it as one descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Why did you skip over Acts 1:7 when answering the question posed by the disciples at Acts 1:6? Verse 7 goes to context, showing that the disciples were asking about an issue that they neednt be concerned about.... You wouldbr better off asking, "why?"
Does Romans 7, as well as other passages in the NT that speak of being bound in marriage even after a legal divorce, do these passages actually not refer to earthly marriage, but the covenant between God and His people? Do you think these passages can be taken both literally and metaphorically? So a Christian who is divorced and takes these words literally to remain unmarried or else reconcile to their spouse is taking a stand correctly? Because I have made my stand on these words and I’m unwavering. But could I be wrong?
I can’t fully accept your view of what a Gentile is, which is, if I’m understanding you correctly, is one that includes the 10 ‘lost’ tribes of the northern kingdom of Israel because you reference Ephraim becoming a multitude of nations in Genesis 48:19 but you make an interesting point for me to ponder. So then the Samaritans in your view would be called Gentiles???? but are they??? They were Israelites who inter/married with Edomites or Syrians but scripture calls them Samaritan’s not Gentiles. Their Israelite lineage was certainly corrupted but God still sought after them through Jesus in John 4. Interesting!! A true Gentile in scripture would be one who has no Israelite lineage to any of Jacob’s 12 Children, as in my case, I consider myself a Gentile believer in Jesus, and as in the case of the woman in Math 25: 21-28 and who was called a Canaanite & still she understood Him to be of Son of David! Interesting understanding by her there actually. Maybe I’d be called a ‘dog’ in Jesus’ day! lol that doesn’t offend me at all. Praise God Jesus honoured the Canaanite woman’s faith in Him & healed her son! An example no doubt of how Jesus today honours the faith of us Gentiles who place their faith in Him to save them too when we look to Him. Matthew 15:22-28 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.” 23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” 25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. 26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” 27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” 28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.(KJV) When I read scripture I try to understand when the author is using the word ‘Israel’ to reference the whole 12 Tribes, The Northern 10 Tribes, or Jacob who was renamed Israel by God. All can be very confusing I agree but this I know God loved His nation Israel and He has a place for her even now though she is in rebellion about Jesus their Messiah. Romans 9-11 shows us that God hasn’t cast away His people. He has a remnant and they will come to faith in Him.
1. The myth of the lost tribes of Israel is unbiblical. Scripture does not teach that they were ever lost and in fact they are prophesied to be joined together as one unified Kingdom again in the future, and Ezekiel describes in detail where each tribe will be located when they return to their land after the second coming. The Book of Revelation also confirms that the tribes are not lost ( I don't have time to live all the numerous references because I only have a minute to write and there are so many things about your view that scripture does not support - I wish I had time to write them all or to discuss them one by one with you). Furthermore if you read the biblical historical descriptions in Kings and Chronicles of what happened when they divided into two kingdoms and then continuing all the way up until the northern tribes were conquered and dispersed by the Assyrians, you will discover that huge numbers of all of the other tribes moved to the southern kingdom in various waves, and eventually all 12, were referred to as Jews because they lived in the Judean region. Even in the New Testament this is confirmed as it specifies tribes to which individuals belonged and yet all were referred to as Jews. The history of the Jews until this day support this fact that no tribes were ever considered lost - because such large numbers of them continued to hold their identity all the way up until the time of Christ and thereafter. Luke 2:36 for example specifies Anna's tribe. I believe the lost tribes idea was invented many many years later by gentiles claiming that there were lost tribes, and they were those people. 2. The context leading up to Acts 1 - that is, the book of Luke (not to mention the whole Old Testament context of Luke) -make clear specifically what the apostles and the Lord referred to in discussing the topic of the kingdom being restored to Israel. So for you to change the meaning from what scripture specifies to something totally different based on this idea of 10 of the tribes supposedly becoming gentiles is not proper exegesis. 3. When you quoted from Acts 1 you left out the first part of the Lord's answer to their question. He does not suddenly redefine the meaning of restoring the kingdom to Israel to be something totally different as you have done. Rather, he says that it's not for them to know the time and season when this will happen. He does not tell them that what they expected will not happen. You are reading in the idea that what the Bible specifies about the kingdom being restored to Israel will not happen. And then you are also reading in the idea that there will be this gradual mystical spiritual Kingdom happening as the gospel of salvation by grace goes out into all the world and the Body of Christ grows as souls are saved. Try to find that anywhere in Scripture. Wow I'm already out of time! Jason, please consider at least reading a few of the biblical arguments for another explanation then what you have given. On what Biblical basis can you set aside what the scripture describes the restoration of the Kingdom to Israel to mean in Luke and the rest of scripture?
@@paulakahn9384 thanks for the comment. When Jesus says in the Gospels He has come ONLY for the lost sheep of Israel. What does He mean by this? Matthew 15:24 “He answered, ‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’”
There will be no kingdom restored . 2nd of all ,that is why they have been continuously rebuked at . They were still in their indoctrinated teachings about ´´them´´while all Scripture is testimony about coming of Messiah,His suffering and entering the Glory. Paul clearly in act 13 sitting in gathering,listening them reading Isaiah,and probably laughing in himself,thinking,this people still read fulfilled prophecy . They still do,and the sad thing is half of the churches still dont get that prophets are FULFILLED. Acts 1 pointing Holy Spirit to be Kingdom.. And the 2nd coming. And people still wait for carnal Jesus,deceived,believing in another Jesus..And bc they do not know Him,nor see Him,they do not receive Him John 14....Now both IL and church together blinded by false doctrines,have missed the coming,and together forever wait ... John 111 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.
I'm sorry Jason, I don't know how that verse justifies building a doctrine on a myth. Read the books of Judges, Samuel, Kings, & Chronicles - very clear that no tribes were lost. Same with the rest of Scripture. Same with the facts of secular history. There have always been individuals here and there assimilated into other ethnic groups but that is different than saying an entire people group was assimilated. You are claiming that 10 of the 12 tribes were completely assimilated when the Bible says huge numbers of them were not living in their own little plot at the time the Assyrians carried some of them away. They were not living there waiting to be carried away so they were not. As I mentioned above - besides the earlier displacement of people that you can read about in Judges and Samuel and Kings and Chronicles that occurred before the division of the Kingdom into northern and southern - besides all of those there were also waves of immigrants to the south after the division. The first was right after the split, described in 2 Chron. 11:12-17. They were from all 10 of the other tribes. They kept their tribal identities, and were very diligent to keep track of their genealogies. There is no hint anywhere in Scripture of this myth. Please be careful on what you build your Doctrine. No one was shocked when the Lord Jesus told the 12 that they would be sitting on thrones judging the 12 tribes. They did not say to him, What are you talking about? what 12 tribes? Don't you know we lost 10 a long time ago? The mythology of losing tribes was invented, made up, imagined by Gentiles hundreds of years after the New Testament was completed . It does not originate in Scripture. Don't you believe we should interpret scripture by scripture? The Berean Jews in the synagogue who were more noble or honorable actually studied the Hebrew Bible to see if what Paul was saying was based therein.
"Israel" are, and always have been "the children of the promise," the "seed of Abraham," from every tribe, nation, tongue, kindred, and family, as covenant made with Abraham. The elect according to remnant of grace, before having been born, are counted for the seed, not the children of their flesh. Romans 9:8 KJV That is, They which are 👉the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God:👈👉 but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.👈
@@ManassehJones the seed of Abraham refers to Christ not natural lineage. The promise was to Abraham and his Seed (singular). This is why, God, knowing the hearts of men, said only a remnant of Israel would be saved.
@@ManassehJones God's effectual grace... Hmm, You just never know which of God's "will" you're gonna get... Huh!? The ninevites were descendants of the Assyrians (overthrew the northern kingdom) and yet God "effectual" forgave them. I guess it had nothing to do with their repentance, Jonah 3:4-6 Noah was obedient. Had he not been obedient, God's "effectual" punishment would have been rendered on him also.
I think you are reading way too much into the text here. Seems like your cherry picked a lot of verses to support this post/amillennial view. For example: Rom 7:2-5, Paul is expanding on the theme of the previous chapter "being dead to sin and alive in Christ." 7:4 He ties it all together "likewise you have died to the law through Christ so you can belong to another... the one who raised him (God)." 1. This marriage analogy wasn't "out of nowhere ". It fits perfectly in the context of what Paul was just speaking about in Rom 6. 2. You took this passage WAY out of context and started applying it to your theory of how God is restoring Israelites who are actually Gentiles worldwide. 3. Yes, Paul is addressing many, but this passage speaks of individual salvation not corporate, therefore your application is invalid on various levels. Another example: Acts 1:6-8, you conveniently skipped over verse 7 here. He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority." 1. This verse is crucial to understanding why the apostles would ask Jesus this. Verse 3 shows us Jesus appeared to them over the course of 40 days speaking about the kingdom of God. 2. The answer to their question isn't "Actually guys, restoring Israel is spreading the Gospel".. No, he simply said it's not for them to know the appointed time. and that right now is the time for the coming of the Spirit (v8). From my POV, you've taken passages out of context to explain Rom 11:25 within your theological construct. Jesus implies that the restoration of Israel is 1) future 2) an appointed time by God. This indicates it is an event, not a process. I'm not sitting here guessing who Israel is and who is not, God knows. But I think you're reaching here. Instead of ignoring the problem passages/verses, I recommend confronting them. I'm not inferring any ill intent; we all have a way of overlooking problem texts. Now turning from criticism, I love and respect you as a brother in Christ. I hope you and your family are blessed by God in every way possible. I look forward to your response.
I appreciate your comments and thoughts. I wasn’t intentionally skipping verses. I was only trying to make the lesson succinct. There’s obviously much more to consider and to weigh out. Do you believe there’s no connection to what Paul draws out in Romans 7 and the law of the husband and the house of Israel being divorced?
@GoodBerean Not in that context simply because he is referring the the Law and the individual who is now in Christ. He doesn't start talking about Israel as a national identity until later in the book of Romans. Could Paul have been thinking about the prophets, sure, but I don't see anywhere in Romans 7 indicating that we can for sure say he was connecting the idea to the divorce of Israel. If anything, Paul's overall treatment of the subject of the house of Israel is that God is not done with them , but will deal with them at a later point in time according to His will and purposes. Which from my perspective melds well with the eschatology of the prophets regarding the restoration of Israel and with the parables and explicit statements of Jesus regarding Israel.
This is a very clear Biblical connection you made Jason. It is also a very clear indication that Covenant Theology is a proper way to read scripture. It also verifies a reformed view on Israel and the fulfilment of Gods promises in the new testament which confirms a Calvinist view of Gods electing to salvation as marriage was arranged and the women is given to the man.
@@davevandervelde4799 I’m not quick to run to covenant theology…I also believe election is exclusive to Israel and not salvation of predetermined people
This is mind blowing in a beautiful way! Never heard such a detailed explanation connecting these dots before! I am so excited to study the Bible through a new real lens! I am new to your channel but I am grateful that God led me here! Blessings from Puerto Rico!🎉
I’ve often pondered this whereabouts of the original descendants for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob since there were all scattered but didn’t pull it together in this way. I love the way you explained Ephraim being divorced but now able to re-marry (God) because of the death of their first husband (Christ). It’s a bit of a mind bender at first but is also a new ‘aha’ moment for me. I’ll need to ponder this further. 🙏🏻 Thank you for your good work. ❤
I think that. Thanks for giving me confirmation!
Great video and great point understanding what Paul was thinking when he wrote the New Testament!
There is no condemnation for those who are in Jesus Christ . Very important statement. Now ,tell me,how many denominations teach that we are still sinners?
Yes, I knew it.
That is the meaning of Romans 7.
The wife could only marry again after her husband died. The husband was the law and Christ died to fulfill the law, so that the wife could marry Christ.
Sorry if I sound confusing here. Romans 7 is so deep and it was difficult to understand it, until Watchman Nee explained it for me in one of his books, long ago.
Whoa!
If the husband dies...!
I was just searching out Ephraim too hoping to understand why they are mentioned so often.
And Asenath, the mother of Ephraim and Manasseh was a Gentile! Genesis 46:20
They received a great portion of the blessing, what was intended for the eldest son (read in Joshua)
The mothers of all of Jacob's grandchildren would have been Gentiles unless they married their sisters. Remember, at this time, Israel was a father with 12 sons and one daughter (that we know of).
I’ll recently listened to a podcast of stone choir after seeing a tweet on X. If you want to understand the thinking of Jew haters and Holocaust deniers it’s worth a listen truly terrifying!
The church is the bride of Christ (Ephesians 5; 2nd Corinthians 11). The church, of course, is all who are justified by faith in Jesus Christ, whether Jew or Gentile (1st Corinthians 12).
@reformedpilgrim ...and Israel and Judah already were the bride(s) of YHWH as we see in Ezekiel 23, right?
I've also heard believers be referred to as "spiritual Israel".
Excellent teaching. Thank you for the insight. One question: In my 40 years of walking with The Lord Jesus and reading His word and other teachings, I was always under the impression that the Jewish diaspora sent Jews all over the world BUT they were able to retain their Jewish Identity and not assimilate with the gentile culture around them. How does that make them 'all nations'?
Remember Israel is not always synonymous with Jews. Jews are a part of Israel. Many make the reference of calling all of Israel the Jews as if they are always one and the same.
I'm so glad I watched until the end. Halfway through it almost felt like it was leaning towards Israel Only (IO) theology. I was a bit scared. Always watch through the end!
As a preterist, I really appreciate this thruth that you are sharing because if fits a lot better the reality.
Also, your video can be a good starting point against the rise of Hebrew Roots movement who still believe that the law of Moses is still binding on christians.
yeah very uplifting in some way. Thanks for explanation. Did i missed something the 12 tribes will not restored in this age but after christs return right?
I’ve been watching a lot of your content. At the moment I’ve been exploring eschatology and curious your view between the Gentiles and Jews in the end times. I’m leaning towards Historical Premileenial.
@@pixel7038 I am not fully set on my eschatology. Where I lean is the pre-wrath position.
It's the gospel. Jesus Christ didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfil it
Ephraim became the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
@@youcancallmeaugustus7559 bingo
Yes!! Makes perfect sense. Very different from the Calvinist perspective.
@@emf49 And the dispensationnalist perspective as well.
Knew this...
Also that even though God had "divorced" Israel, Jer 3:12-13 12 "Go and proclaim these words toward the north and say, `Return, faithless Israel,' declares the LORD; `I will not look upon you in anger. For I am gracious,' declares the LORD; `I will not be angry forever.13 `Only acknowledge your iniquity, That you have transgressed against the LORD your God And have scattered your favors to the strangers under every green tree, And you have not obeyed My voice,' declares the LORD.
Besides Romans 7 talks about divorcement from the law, indicating that we are not bound to sin (aa to a husband). We can be free from sin. Sin need not have mastery over us.
Can you explain how a Jew becomes a gentile? You said the scattered Jews of the northern kingdom became gentiles. My understanding is once a Jew, always a Jew as it is a people group built on lineage from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.. Granted, a Jew can be non-practicing in a sense, but they cannot disown their lineage. I have never heard this "Jews became gentiles" before.
@@patticarey9016 Jews didn’t become Gentiles. Those of the house of Israel (Ephraim) became Gentiles. The Southern Kingdom (Judah) stayed as Jews.
@@GoodBerean both northern and southern Israel were scattered all over the world. Some mixed with other races and became mixed. Some did not. That is true for both northern and southern Israel.
I agree. He did not qualify that position.
@ this is what John’s baptism was for. People coming back to Israel that needed to be purified. It was something started by the Pharisees that came back to Israel after being scattered.
@@GoodBerean but the northern kingdom are descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob also, which I understand as "Jews." I understand the northern kingdom was taken by Assyria and they assimilated into the gentile culture, but their lineage still remains from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It seems we have a different understanding of the term "Jew." I would define it as one descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Why did you skip over Acts 1:7 when answering the question posed by the disciples at Acts 1:6? Verse 7 goes to context, showing that the disciples were asking about an issue that they neednt be concerned about.... You wouldbr better off asking, "why?"
Hey Jason! Thanks for being an example of a humble man who wants to find the truth of scripture.
Do you plan on making a video on Christus victor?
I would love to sometime
Does Romans 7, as well as other passages in the NT that speak of being bound in marriage even after a legal divorce, do these passages actually not refer to earthly marriage, but the covenant between God and His people? Do you think these passages can be taken both literally and metaphorically? So a Christian who is divorced and takes these words literally to remain unmarried or else reconcile to their spouse is taking a stand correctly? Because I have made my stand on these words and I’m unwavering. But could I be wrong?
I can’t fully accept your view of what a Gentile is, which is, if I’m understanding you correctly, is one that includes the 10 ‘lost’ tribes of the northern kingdom of Israel because you reference Ephraim becoming a multitude of nations in Genesis 48:19 but you make an interesting point for me to ponder.
So then the Samaritans in your view would be called Gentiles???? but are they??? They were Israelites who inter/married with Edomites or Syrians but scripture calls them Samaritan’s not Gentiles. Their Israelite lineage was certainly corrupted but God still sought after them through Jesus in John 4. Interesting!!
A true Gentile in scripture would be one who has no Israelite lineage to any of Jacob’s 12 Children, as in my case, I consider myself a Gentile believer in Jesus, and as in the case of the woman in Math 25: 21-28 and who was called a Canaanite & still she understood Him to be of Son of David! Interesting understanding by her there actually. Maybe I’d be called a ‘dog’ in Jesus’ day! lol that doesn’t offend me at all. Praise God Jesus honoured the Canaanite woman’s faith in Him & healed her son! An example no doubt of how Jesus today honours the faith of us Gentiles who place their faith in Him to save them too when we look to Him.
Matthew 15:22-28
A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.” 23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” 25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. 26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” 27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” 28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.(KJV)
When I read scripture I try to understand when the author is using the word ‘Israel’ to reference the whole 12 Tribes, The Northern 10 Tribes, or Jacob who was renamed Israel by God. All can be very confusing I agree but this I know God loved His nation Israel and He has a place for her even now though she is in rebellion about Jesus their Messiah. Romans 9-11 shows us that God hasn’t cast away His people. He has a remnant and they will come to faith in Him.
1. The myth of the lost tribes of Israel is unbiblical. Scripture does not teach that they were ever lost and in fact they are prophesied to be joined together as one unified Kingdom again in the future, and Ezekiel describes in detail where each tribe will be located when they return to their land after the second coming. The Book of Revelation also confirms that the tribes are not lost ( I don't have time to live all the numerous references because I only have a minute to write and there are so many things about your view that scripture does not support - I wish I had time to write them all or to discuss them one by one with you). Furthermore if you read the biblical historical descriptions in Kings and Chronicles of what happened when they divided into two kingdoms and then continuing all the way up until the northern tribes were conquered and dispersed by the Assyrians, you will discover that huge numbers of all of the other tribes moved to the southern kingdom in various waves, and eventually all 12, were referred to as Jews because they lived in the Judean region. Even in the New Testament this is confirmed as it specifies tribes to which individuals belonged and yet all were referred to as Jews. The history of the Jews until this day support this fact that no tribes were ever considered lost - because such large numbers of them continued to hold their identity all the way up until the time of Christ and thereafter. Luke 2:36 for example specifies Anna's tribe. I believe the lost tribes idea was invented many many years later by gentiles claiming that there were lost tribes, and they were those people.
2. The context leading up to Acts 1 - that is, the book of Luke (not to mention the whole Old Testament context of Luke) -make clear specifically what the apostles and the Lord referred to in discussing the topic of the kingdom being restored to Israel. So for you to change the meaning from what scripture specifies to something totally different based on this idea of 10 of the tribes supposedly becoming gentiles is not proper exegesis.
3. When you quoted from Acts 1 you left out the first part of the Lord's answer to their question. He does not suddenly redefine the meaning of restoring the kingdom to Israel to be something totally different as you have done. Rather, he says that it's not for them to know the time and season when this will happen. He does not tell them that what they expected will not happen. You are reading in the idea that what the Bible specifies about the kingdom being restored to Israel will not happen. And then you are also reading in the idea that there will be this gradual mystical spiritual Kingdom happening as the gospel of salvation by grace goes out into all the world and the Body of Christ grows as souls are saved. Try to find that anywhere in Scripture.
Wow I'm already out of time! Jason, please consider at least reading a few of the biblical arguments for another explanation then what you have given. On what Biblical basis can you set aside what the scripture describes the restoration of the Kingdom to Israel to mean in Luke and the rest of scripture?
@@paulakahn9384 thanks for the comment. When Jesus says in the Gospels He has come ONLY for the lost sheep of Israel. What does He mean by this?
Matthew 15:24
“He answered, ‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’”
There will be no kingdom restored . 2nd of all ,that is why they have been continuously rebuked at . They were still in their indoctrinated teachings about ´´them´´while all Scripture is testimony about coming of Messiah,His suffering and entering the Glory.
Paul clearly in act 13 sitting in gathering,listening them reading Isaiah,and probably laughing in himself,thinking,this people still read fulfilled prophecy . They still do,and the sad thing is half of the churches still dont get that prophets are FULFILLED.
Acts 1 pointing Holy Spirit to be Kingdom.. And the 2nd coming. And people still wait for carnal Jesus,deceived,believing in another Jesus..And bc they do not know Him,nor see Him,they do not receive Him John 14....Now both IL and church together blinded by false doctrines,have missed the coming,and together forever wait ...
John 111
He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.
I'm sorry Jason, I don't know how that verse justifies building a doctrine on a myth. Read the books of Judges, Samuel, Kings, & Chronicles - very clear that no tribes were lost. Same with the rest of Scripture. Same with the facts of secular history. There have always been individuals here and there assimilated into other ethnic groups but that is different than saying an entire people group was assimilated.
You are claiming that 10 of the 12 tribes were completely assimilated when the Bible says huge numbers of them were not living in their own little plot at the time the Assyrians carried some of them away. They were not living there waiting to be carried away so they were not. As I mentioned above - besides the earlier displacement of people that you can read about in Judges and Samuel and Kings and Chronicles that occurred before the division of the Kingdom into northern and southern - besides all of those there were also waves of immigrants to the south after the division. The first was right after the split, described in 2 Chron. 11:12-17. They were from all 10 of the other tribes. They kept their tribal identities, and were very diligent to keep track of their genealogies. There is no hint anywhere in Scripture of this myth. Please be careful on what you build your Doctrine.
No one was shocked when the Lord Jesus told the 12 that they would be sitting on thrones judging the 12 tribes. They did not say to him, What are you talking about? what 12 tribes? Don't you know we lost 10 a long time ago?
The mythology of losing tribes was invented, made up, imagined by Gentiles hundreds of years after the New Testament was completed . It does not originate in Scripture. Don't you believe we should interpret scripture by scripture? The Berean Jews in the synagogue who were more noble or honorable actually studied the Hebrew Bible to see if what Paul was saying was based therein.
"Israel" are, and always have been "the children of the promise," the "seed of Abraham," from every tribe, nation, tongue, kindred, and family, as covenant made with Abraham. The elect according to remnant of grace, before having been born, are counted for the seed, not the children of their flesh.
Romans 9:8 KJV
That is, They which are 👉the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God:👈👉 but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.👈
@@ManassehJones the seed of Abraham refers to Christ not natural lineage. The promise was to Abraham and his Seed (singular). This is why, God, knowing the hearts of men, said only a remnant of Israel would be saved.
I thought only you were the elect? 😅
@@SheepDog1974 Might be. Noah and His family were the lonely survivors by Gods Effectual Grace.
@@ManassehJones God's effectual grace... Hmm, You just never know which of God's "will" you're gonna get... Huh!?
The ninevites were descendants of the Assyrians (overthrew the northern kingdom) and yet God "effectual" forgave them. I guess it had nothing to do with their repentance, Jonah 3:4-6
Noah was obedient. Had he not been obedient, God's "effectual" punishment would have been rendered on him also.
I think you are reading way too much into the text here. Seems like your cherry picked a lot of verses to support this post/amillennial view.
For example: Rom 7:2-5, Paul is expanding on the theme of the previous chapter "being dead to sin and alive in Christ." 7:4 He ties it all together "likewise you have died to the law through Christ so you can belong to another... the one who raised him (God)."
1. This marriage analogy wasn't "out of nowhere ". It fits perfectly in the context of what Paul was just speaking about in Rom 6.
2. You took this passage WAY out of context and started applying it to your theory of how God is restoring Israelites who are actually Gentiles worldwide.
3. Yes, Paul is addressing many, but this passage speaks of individual salvation not corporate, therefore your application is invalid on various levels.
Another example: Acts 1:6-8, you conveniently skipped over verse 7 here. He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority."
1. This verse is crucial to understanding why the apostles would ask Jesus this. Verse 3 shows us Jesus appeared to them over the course of 40 days speaking about the kingdom of God.
2. The answer to their question isn't "Actually guys, restoring Israel is spreading the Gospel".. No, he simply said it's not for them to know the appointed time. and that right now is the time for the coming of the Spirit (v8).
From my POV, you've taken passages out of context to explain Rom 11:25 within your theological construct. Jesus implies that the restoration of Israel is 1) future 2) an appointed time by God. This indicates it is an event, not a process. I'm not sitting here guessing who Israel is and who is not, God knows. But I think you're reaching here. Instead of ignoring the problem passages/verses, I recommend confronting them. I'm not inferring any ill intent; we all have a way of overlooking problem texts.
Now turning from criticism, I love and respect you as a brother in Christ. I hope you and your family are blessed by God in every way possible. I look forward to your response.
I appreciate your comments and thoughts. I wasn’t intentionally skipping verses. I was only trying to make the lesson succinct. There’s obviously much more to consider and to weigh out. Do you believe there’s no connection to what Paul draws out in Romans 7 and the law of the husband and the house of Israel being divorced?
@GoodBerean Not in that context simply because he is referring the the Law and the individual who is now in Christ. He doesn't start talking about Israel as a national identity until later in the book of Romans.
Could Paul have been thinking about the prophets, sure, but I don't see anywhere in Romans 7 indicating that we can for sure say he was connecting the idea to the divorce of Israel.
If anything, Paul's overall treatment of the subject of the house of Israel is that God is not done with them , but will deal with them at a later point in time according to His will and purposes. Which from my perspective melds well with the eschatology of the prophets regarding the restoration of Israel and with the parables and explicit statements of Jesus regarding Israel.
This is a very clear Biblical connection you made Jason. It is also a very clear indication that Covenant Theology is a proper way to read scripture. It also verifies a reformed view on Israel and the fulfilment of Gods promises in the new testament which confirms a Calvinist view of Gods electing to salvation as marriage was arranged and the women is given to the man.
@@davevandervelde4799 I draw different conclusions, obviously
@@GoodBerean Is that ok?
@@davevandervelde4799 I’m not quick to run to covenant theology…I also believe election is exclusive to Israel and not salvation of predetermined people
@@GoodBerean Which Israel? The Jews or the larger group including the northern tribes?
@@GoodBerean When the Bible talks about a circumcised heart, who is performing this circumcision?