Author Topic: Romans (37) Has Israel Forfeited Its Future? (Part Two)  (Read 1113 times)

Rebbe

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2542
Romans (37) Has Israel Forfeited Its Future? (Part Two)
« on: October 28, 2017, 12:41:06 PM »
PAUL'S LETTER TO THE ROMAN CHRISTIANS (37)
Analytical Commentary on Romans

Has Israel Forfeited Its Future? (Part Two)
ELECTION: The Righteousness of God in the Creator's Superintendence of History
Romans 9-11

The Audio MP3 of this lecture is available via this link: http://www.bripodcasts.com/Romans/Lecture37.MP3

Copyright © BRI 2017 All Rights Reserved Worldwide by Les Aron Gosling,
Messianic Lecturer (BRI/IMCF)

CAUTION: BRI Yeshiva notes are not available to the general public. They are not for distribution. They are not for reproduction. The notes may also bear little or no resemblance to the actual audio or video recorded BRI Yeshiva lecture.
 

"Everything is foreseen, yet freedom of choice is given" -- Rabbi Akiba (Aboth 3.16)

"The Pharisees... when they determine that all things are done by faith, they do not take away the freedom from men of acting as they think fit; since their notion is that it has pleased God that events should be decided in part by the council of fate, in part by such men as will accede thereunto acting therein virtually or viciously" -- Josephus


THE TEXT
"I am speaking the truth -- as one who belongs to the Messiah, I do not lie; and also bearing joint-witness is my conscience, governed by the Ruach HaKodesh: my grief is so great it consumes me, the pain in my heart so constant, and not letting up, that I could wish myself to be actually accursed from Messiah -- cut off and banished -- on behalf of my brothers, my own flesh and blood, the people of Israel! They are the possessors of Sonship, the Sh'khinah has been with them, the covenants are theirs, likewise the giving of the Torah, the Temple service and the promises; the Patriarchs are theirs; and from them, as far as his physical descent is concerned, came the Messiah, who is over all. God blessed forever! [Stern, in order to tone down this reference in his Jewish New Testament, unwisely wrests what Paul actually wrote. To do this he must distort the Greek to read "Praised be God for ever!"] Amen. But the present condition of Israel does not mean that the Word of God has failed. For not everyone from Israel is truly part of Israel; indeed, not all the descendants are seed of Abraham; rather, "What is to be called your "seed" will be in Isaac." In other words, it is not the physical children who are children of God, but the children the promise refers to who are considered seed. For this is what the promise said: "At the time set, I will come; and Sarah will have a son." And even more to the point is the case of Rebekah; for both her children were conceived in a single act with Isaac, our father; and before they were born, before they had done anything at all, either good or bad (so that God's plan might remain a matter of his sovereign choice, not dependent on what they did, but on God, who does the calling), it was said to her, "The older will serve the younger." This accords with where it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." So are we to say, "It is unjust for God to do this"? Heaven forbid! For to Moses he says, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will pity whom I pity." Thus it doesn't depend on human desires or efforts, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "It is for this very reason that I raised you up, so that in connection with you I might demonstrate my power, so that my name might be known throughout the world." So then, he has mercy on whom he wants, and he hardens whom he wants. But you will say to me, "Then why does he still find fault with us? After all, who resists his will?" Who are you, a mere human being, to talk back to God? Will what is formed say to him who formed it, "Why did you make me this way?" Or has the potter no right to make from a given lump of clay this pot for honorable use and that one for dishonorable? Now what if God, even though he was quite willing to demonstrate his anger and make known his power, patiently put up with people who deserved punishment and were ripe for destruction? What if he did this in order to make known the riches of his glory to those who are the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory -- that is, to us, whom he called not only from among the Jews but also from among the Gentiles? As indeed he says in Hosea, "Those who were not my people I will call my people; her who was not loved I will call loved; and in the very place where they were told, "You are not my people," there they will be called sons of the living God!" But Isaiah, referring to Israel, cries out, "Even if the number of people in Israel is as large as the number of grains of sand by the sea, only a remnant will be saved. For God will fulfill his word on the earth with certainty and without delay." Also, as Isaiah said earlier, "If the Lord of Legions had not left us a seed, we would have become like Sodom, we would have resembled "Gomorrah." So, what are we to say? This: that Gentiles, even though they were not striving for righteousness, have obtained righteousness; but it is a righteousness grounded in trusting! However, Israel, even though they kept pursuing a Torah that offers righteousness, did not reach what the Torah offers. Why? Because they did not pursue righteousness as being grounded in trusting but as if it were grounded in doing legalistic works. They stumbled over the stone that makes people stumble. As the Scripture puts it, "Look, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make people stumble, a rock that will trip them up. But he who rests his trust on it will not be humiliated" (Romans 9).

BACKGROUND INSIGHTS
Scholars have questioned why it was that the Jewish population of Jerusalem welcomed the sight of Yeshua riding on a donkey into the city during Pesach -- thus announcing himself to be the expected Messiah -- crying out aloud "Osanna!" to him, and a week later "Crucify him!" (Jn 12.13, 19.15).

The fact of the matter is that the Sanhedrin had commissioned rabbinic scholars to follow Yeshua from morning to evening watching his every move and reporting back to them everything they could extract concerning what his teaching happened to be at any one time. They are noted for their repetitious question "Are you the Messiah? Tell us plainly." Instead of always tempting him for incrimination purposes, these lawyers were sincerely attempting to ascertain (clumsily or otherwise) whether or not he was in fact, the long anticipated Mashiach who was to bring salvation to the Jewish race and peace to the world at large.

Finally, they came to realise he was Mashiach and they decided to support him in his mission to be sacrificed for the nation (which in those days was expected of the Messiah). Their own texts of the Second Temple Period are candidly clear on this matter (though never appreciated by early Roman Catholic scholars and others). They knew he had to die for the sins of the people, and they expected him to rise from the dead when he did so. It is only in recent years that academics have recognised that the Messiah was to be slain and that there would be a three day period involving his death for the people. Intriguingly, the apostle John (a close friend of the high priest Kayafa) gave us all inside information about Kayafa being granted a prophetic voice in respect of Yeshua.

"Then the chief priests and Pharisees called a meeting. 'Here is this man working all these signs,' they said, 'and what action are we taking? If we let him go on this way everybody will believe in him and the Romans will come and destroy the Holy Place and our nation.' One of them, Kayafa, the high priest that year, said, 'You don't seem to have grasped the situation at all: you fail to see that it is better for one man to die for all the people than for the whole nation to be destroyed.' He did not speak in his own person, it was as high priest he made this prophecy that Yeshua was to die for the nation -- and not for the nation only, but to gather together in unity the scattered children of God. From that day they were determined to kill him" (Jn 11.47-53).

The high priest, and all the Jewish leaders assembled with him, agreed that Yeshua must die not only for the salvation of Israel, but "to gather together in unity the scattered children of God" -- in other words, to fulfill the Messianic commission. It is for this reason -- to actualise the Jewish prophecy that the Messiah must "die for the people" and "gather the scattered children of God" -- that the Jewish leaders determined to "kill" him, and not, as we have been told by two thousand years of Gentile-Christian history, because they and the Jews whom they led "despised" and "rejected" him.

Kayafa (Caiaphas) speaking as a prophet proclaims that Yeshua must be executed, not as a punishment for claiming to be the Messiah but, on the contrary, in order to fulfill his Messianic destiny: "Yeshua," he says, "must die for the nation [of Israel]... and not for the nation only, but to gather together in unity the scattered children of God." Kayafa is calling on the authority of Jewish Oral Scripture. The first part of his prophecy that "Yeshua [must] die for the nation" parallels the Jewish, pre-Christian Oral Scripture:

"When God desires to give healing to the world He smites one righteous man among them... and through him gives healing to all... A righteous man is never afflicted save to bring healing to his generation and to make atonement for it" (Zohar 5.218a).

This Atoning Messiah of Judaism not only "dies for the people," but also rises from the dead after three days -- as shown in another Jewish Oral Scripture that states: "(The) Messiah [ben Joseph] will... be slain and lay in the streets for three days. Then... the prophet Elijah will go and revive [him]... And in the hour when the Tribes of Israel will come forth, Clouds of Glory will go before them. And the Holy One, blessed be He, will open for them the sources of the Tree of Life, and will give them to drink on that day" (Otot Ha-Mashiach).

Clearly, this pre-Christian, Judaic doctrine anticipates Christ's alleged prediction throughout the Gospels, that on the "third day" He would "rise again."

The second part of Kayafa's prophecy -- "and not for the nation only, but to gather together in unity the scattered children of God" -- refers to another Jewish Oral Scripture: AAnd then the Community of Israel communes with the Holy One, blessed be He, and that hour is a time of Grace for all, and the King [Messiah] holds out to [Israel], and all who are with her, his scepter of the thread of Grace so that they all may be wholly united to the Holy King" (Zohar 5.45a). Furthermore, a Mishnah by Maimonides states, "If a king will arise from the House of David [who]... gathers the dispersed of Israel [as Kayafa believes Yeshua could do], he is definitely the Messiah" (Mishnah Torah: Hilchot Melachim U'Milchamoteihem 4.11).

Three days after his crucifixion (which had been accompanied by stoning), our resurrected Lord Yeshua still bearing the scars of recent torture walked out of an empty tomb that had been heavily guarded by tough Roman soldiers. No doubt they were reduced to babbling nervous wrecks by the incident. The Rabbis knew he had risen from the dead and they then expected him to accomplish that which their traditions had anticipated. They were then mortified, not by something that happened, but by something that had not happened.

Firstly
, Yeshua did not rise up, calling on his 12 legions of angels -- over 80,000 of them -- to deliver the Jewish State out of the hands of the Roman troops garrisoned in the holy Land.

Secondly, he did not exterminate the Roman State and capitol of the world exalting Israel in God's Government over the earth as the prophets all said he would.

Thirdly, Yeshua failed to return the lost tribes of Israel and the Jews of the Diaspora to the holy Land.

On this basis the Sanhedrin which had finally acknowledged Yeshua as Mashiach, then -- after the resurrection -- rejected him completely.

Many tens of thousands of the Jews nevertheless accepted Yeshua as the promised Messiah. Yeshua's brother Yaakov (James/Jacob) became the alternative high priest of the Jewish nation, a post he held until he was assassinated by the Sadducees in 72 CE.

In the meantime the priestly John outlined the endtime scenario in his Apocalypse which taught that Yeshua as Messiah would return in a time of immense peril that was dominated by a three-and-a-half year (or 1260 day) period. It would be the time of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness (to borrow an Essene phrase) and fragments of Zealot material make mention of the expected "return" of the Messiah at that time. The only Messiah that could have "returned" would have been a Messiah that had previously visited the planet. Here is evidence that the Zealots were followers of Yeshua. (The "sons of light" would come into a final conflict with the "sons of darkness" initiating the rapid return of the Messiah from the heavens. It is stated in 2 Baruch 30.1.

"And it will come to pass after these things, when the time of the advent of the Messiah is fulfilled, and he will return in glory, then all who have fallen asleep in hope of him shall rise again. And it will come to pass at that time that the treasuries will be opened in which is preserved the number of the souls of the righteous, and they will come forth, and a multitude of souls will be seen together in one assemblage of one thought, and the first will rejoice and the last will not be grieved."

As to this latter reference from the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch parts of which appeared around the same time as John's Revelation, this is not an expectation of the first advent of a Messiah, but is a direct statement of a "return." The Zealots were very much expecting YESHUA to return as the Messiah!)

That the Zealots were in association with the Christians is a point established in the writings of Jude and 2 Peter. The Zealots (and John the apostle) were oriented around an obscure 65-year prophecy found in the scroll of Isaiah that was to be fulfilled at the end of days. I have written extensively on this perception.

So now we return to Paul's Letter to the Roman Christians to ascertain the thoughts that led Paul to come to an understanding of the role of Israel's rejection of Christ in the matter of the doors opening to the Gentiles for the apocatastasis -- "restitution of all things" -- prophesied from ancient days and recorded as a phrase in Acts 3.21.

IS ROMANS 9-11 PARENTHETICAL?
Emil Brunner spoke of Romans 8 as "The Righteousness of God Through Faith in Jesus Christ" and Romans 9-11 as "The Righteousness of God in His Ruling of History." There can be little doubt as we progress through this special section of Paul's Letter to the Roman Christians that Brunner correctly articulated this thoughtful assessment of the Righteousness of God as pertaining to Justification by Faith (Alone), for the sake of humanity, and as especially witnessed in the saving action of the God of history -- having relevant pertinence relationally as well as in His sovereign superintendence cosmically. Justification, or Righteousness by Faith, emerges always strategically throughout this epistle. There can be no doubt that "the history of Israel in the present is as much a part of the revelation of God's righteousness as the history of Israel in the past" (H.L. Ellison, The Mystery of Israel, 1968,1978, 27). Remember Romans is all about God's Righteousness.

Again, if I may quote directly from Howard Snyder in an extract from a previous lecture in this series on Romans:

"In contrast to traditional views, the Bible describes the church in the midst of culture, struggling to maintain its fidelity while tainted by the corrosive acids of paganism [on the one hand] and Jewish legalism [on the other]. This view is sharply relevant for the modern age... The Bible sees the church in cosmic-historical perspective. Scripture places the church at the very centre of God's cosmic purpose. This is seen most clearly in Paul's writings, and particularly in the [letter to the] Ephesians. Paul was concerned to speak of the church as the result of, and within the context of, the plan of God for His whole creation (Eph 1.9,10, 20-23; 3.10; 6.12). What is this cosmic plan? Based on the first three chapters of Ephesians we may say it is that God may glorify Himself by uniting all things in Christ through the Church. The key idea is clearly reconciliation -- not only the reconciliation of man to God, but the reconciliation of all things, 'things in heaven and things on earth' (Eph 1.10)" (Howard Snyder, The Problem of Wineskins: Church Structure in a Technological Age, 1975, 154,155).

The author continues: "Central to this plan is the reconciliation of man to God through the blood of Jesus Christ... as mind-boggling as the thought is, Scripture teaches that this reconciliation even includes the redemption of the physical universe from the effects of sin as everything is brought under proper headship in Jesus Christ" (Snyder, ibid).

Again, "Paul emphasises the fact of individual and corporate salvation through Christ, and from this goes on to place personal salvation in cosmic perspective. The redemption of persons is the centre of God's plan, but it is not the circumference of that plan. Paul alternates between a close-up of personal redemption, but periodically switching to a long-distance wide-angle view that takes in -- all things -- things visible and invisible; things past, present and future; things in heaven and things on earth; all the principalities and powers -- the whole cosmic-historical scene" (ibid, 155 emphasis his).

As I have laboured over decades to insist, Christianity (or better, churchianity) early threw out the Jewish baby with the Jewish bathwater in their hostile rejection of Jewish thoughtform and as a consequence the biblical revelation suffered. Perhaps it would be better to assess that Christians (and the world, for that matter) suffered and not so much that the biblical revelation suffered. Humans suffered because they rejected knowledge, even the knowledge of salvation. Recall that Yeshua stated in absolute terms "Salvation is of the Jews" (Jn 4.22). But the Constantinian church wanted nothing to do with the Jews, and it was as a result of their condemnation of the race for Deicide that Jews were murdered by "Christians" (particularly Roman Catholics) over the centuries and in their millions.

But we are busily restoring the lost Jewish thoughtform to the biblical revelation, and multitudes are accessing our sites to their benefit. May more come to the realisation that apart from the Jews, there can be no salvation for Gentiles (Jn 4.22).

Jewish Christian expositor Henry Leopold Ellison in his The Mystery of Israel which I have mentioned above, notes that "we owe [Romans 9-11] not merely to Paul's love for his unbelieving people, nor to the problems of the Christians in Rome or elsewhere, but ultimately to the fact [of the lengthy biblical] history of Israel..." (Ellison op.cit., 27).

So, in short...

Romans 9 speaks of God's ELECTION of Israel. Essentially this is viewed as PAST tense.

Romans 10 speaks of Israel's REJECTION. Essentially this is viewed as PRESENT tense.

Romans 11 speaks of Israel's RECEPTION. Essentially this is viewed as FUTURE tense.

To an academic mind, Romans 12 would more logically flow directly on the heels of the concluding text of Romans 8. It would seem a smoother transition from Paul's preoccupation with the particulars of the doctrines involving salvation upon which he has been faithfully focused (Justification in Romans 1-5; sanctification in Romans 6-8; and glorification in Romans 8) to his labours explaining how once-saved believers in Yeshua ought to now live their lives (Romans 12). Let me show you what I mean.

Paul concludes Romans 8 with the following thoughts and comments. "Who will bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? It is Messiah Yeshua, who died, yes, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us. Who will separate us from the love of Messiah? Will hardship, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, "For your sake we are being killed all day long; we are accounted as sheep to be slaughtered." No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all the universe, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Messiah Yeshua our Lord" (Romans 8).

Romans 12 flows straight on logically...

"I exhort you, therefore, brethren, in view of God's mercies, to offer yourselves as a living sacrifice, set apart for God. This will please him; it is the logical, rational, intelligent Temple worship for you. In other words, do not let yourselves be conformed to the standards of the present evil age fashioned after and adapted to its external and superficial customs. Instead, keep letting yourselves be transformed by the renewing of your minds; so that you will know what God wants and will agree that what he wants is good, satisfying and able to succeed. For I am telling every single one of you, through the Grace that has been given to me, not to have exaggerated ideas about your own sense of self-importance. Instead, develop a sober estimate of yourself based on the standard which God has given to each of you, namely, trust. For just as there are many parts that compose one body, but the parts don't all have the same function; so there are many of us, and in union with the Messiah we comprise one body, with each of us belonging to the others.... etc" (Romans 12.1-3).

Alva McClain most certainly understands this noteworthy characteristic style of Paul's when he writes, in his lectures on Romans, "Paul has shown [in Romans 1-8] how God saves a sinner. And, as in every other epistle he has written, Paul follows the doctrinal portion with exhortation, as in Ephesians; "I... beseech you to walk worthily of the calling wherewith ye were called" (Eph 4:1, ASV). Notice how nicely chapter 12 would follow. He has finished telling us about the mercies of God. "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God" -- that is, on the basis of the mercies as dealt with in the first eight chapters -- "that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice." Then Paul tells them how they ought to live their lives" (Alva McClain, Romans: The Gospel of God's Grace, 1973, 172).

But it is precisely at this point -- with the start of the section of his letter which we refer to as Romans 9 -- that Paul begins to talk about Israel's rejection of Yeshua as their Messiah! Small wonder many expositors of the word of God believe Romans 9-11 is parenthetical.  

There are good arguments for and against parenthesis BUT what I have found entirely lacking amongst scholars is the recognition of Paul's psychological and/or personality makeup which I have stressed in past lectures bordered on a depressive illness, dissociative behaviour, and bi-polar disorder. Why do believers want to sidestep the patently obvious? In suggesting this abnormality in Paul I am not denigrating the great apostle. In no way is this the case. Rather, understanding Paul as he really was grants us an acute insight into the kind of people God uses to spread the Gospel. Paul himself writes that "not many of you are wise by human standards, not many come from noble birth, not many are wealthy or influential" (1 Corinthians 1.26) and he humbly views himself in much the same manner even though he himself came from a very powerful family dynasty. Knowing Paul's psychological profile is an encouragement to any of us who tend to feel less than ordinary, or even perhaps inwardly screaming to be ordinary. Paul helps us to accept ourselves as not only salvageable by Christ, but as saved COMPLETELY by Messiah.  So, what am I implying concerning the insertion of chapters 9, 10, 11 of Romans at such a juncture as this?

I think some of us need to reflect on the very first lecture I gave in this series on Romans in which we read of "Paul the Headstrong" and to again labour the point of his self-will in opposition to the movement of the Ruach HaKodesh in his life and the testing of God's patience toward him in his decisions to go adamantly against God's commandments concerning outreach to others. Paul's headstrong and powerful will, noted by the rabbi's physician Luke in his composition known as Acts, overrode the freely urged promptings and instructions of the Spirit -- and he was prone to do this on other occasions as well. It is on record by Paul's own hand that he rejected an entire city God's Spirit had led him to evangelise, opting otherwise to search out his friend and spiritual brother Titus.

"Now when I went to Troas to preach the Gospel of Messiah and found that THE LORD HAD OPENED A DOOR FOR ME, I still had no peace of mind, because I did not find my brother Titus there. So I said goodbye to them and went on to Macedonia" (2 Corinthians 2.12,13).

To consider that Paul found rejection of friends difficult to cope with, psychologically plunging headlong into manic fits of depression, would be somewhat of an understatement. He had no peace of mind by his own admission in missing his friend Titus, so he diverted his attention away from the city of Troas which the holy Spirit desired the rabbi to evangelise. This incident involved a rejection of an important populated city of myriads choosing instead to forsake those thousands of souls in order to find one lone individual.

In Lecture 31 of this series I analyse Paul's oftentimes serious plunge into despair and deep sadness immediately subsequent to his experience of being on an elevated emotional and/or intellectual "high" -- a symptom of a condition known as being bi-polar. And it is exactly to be anticipated that at the moment when Paul at the conclusion of Romans 8 expresses his intense JOY and personal SATISFACTION concerning his SAVED CONDITION and his mind-expansive awareness of the coming "new creations" [advancing aeons] of God stretching through eternity that he suddenly is reminded of his hostile Jewish brethren who had largely rejected Yeshua, and all claims of their need of salvation by Grace. As anticipated Paul PLUNGES into morbidity. Notice it now:

"I am speaking the truth -- as one who belongs to the Messiah, I do not lie; and also bearing joint-witness is my conscience, governed by the Ruach HaKodesh: my grief is so great it consumes me, the pain in my heart so constant, and not letting up, that I could wish myself to be actually accursed from Messiah -- cut off and banished -- on behalf of my brothers, my own flesh and blood, the people of Israel!" (Romans 9.1-4).    

CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING
What does it mean to be "accursed" from Christ, from the Messiah? Really, there is no argument against the proposition that it means being -- if it were possible -- eternally lost. This reminds us, if we are students of the biblical revelation, of an encounter which Moses had with God. It was actually a "super angel" which had the Name of God embedded in its person and which predominantly exercised its authority over the nation of Israel during and after the exodus from Egypt. Please examine the following texts for a proper understanding of the reality of this angel in Israel's affairs:

"Wherefore then serves the Torah? It was added because of transgressions till the seed should come [Mashiach] to whom the promise was made; and IT WAS ORDAINED BY ANGELS in the hand of a mediator" (Gal 3.19).

Special Note: This "mediator" was not Yehovah. Strengthening his verbal assault on the weak Gentile Christians in his composite Letter to the Galatians, Paul adds the thought, "Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is One" (Gal 3.20).

Amazingly, Paul's point is overlooked, pigeonholed or ignored by expositors, but it is clear that the mediator who gave Moses the law on the mountains of Sinai was not God. Paul just said so. How could God give the law to Moses and act at the same time as a mediator between Himself and Moses? And the mediator could not be Moses, otherwise Paul would have been woefully redundant in his statement! All Israel knew that Moses wasn't God!

But now, and here is an important point, the early Messianic community was comprised of Jews who were considered "Hebrews" and Greek-oriented Jews who were known as "Hellenists."

Luke rather abruptly introduces the Hellenists into the narrative of Acts in 6.1. Stephen, a progressive Hellenist and the first recorded Messianic martyr, identifies explicitly the mediator. Speaking of Moses, Stephen testifies:

"This is he, that was in the congregation in the wilderness with THE ANGEL WHICH SPOKE TO HIM IN MOUNT SINAI, and with our fathers: who received the living oracles to give to us" (Acts 7.38).

Then, in a later confirmation he exclaims, speaking of Israelites "Who have received the law BY THE DISPOSITION OF ANGELS, and have not kept it" (Acts 7.53).  

The Mosaic law, according to the Hellenist Stephen, was given to ancient Israel by extraterrestrials! Earlier, recounting the history of Moses, Stephen makes the remark that the Being that appeared to Moses in the burning bush was not Yehovah. Rather, he said it was the angel of God!

"And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai AN ANGEL OF THE LORD in a flame in a bush" (Acts 7.30).

Yes, there can be no doubt that Stephen understood that the entire Mosaic economy was extended to Israel by angelic powers. The Jews of his day certainly accepted this fact as witnessed by the works of that period.  

Also, the author of the circular letter to the Hebrews makes mention of this same event of angelic intervention in Israel's affairs. "If the word SPOKEN BY ANGELS was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward..." (Heb 2.2).  

"Behold I send an Angel before you, to keep you in the way, and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, and provoke him not [please note again that angels are essentially unfriendly to us]; for he will not pardon your transgressions: FOR MY NAME IS IN HIM" (Ex 23.20,21).

The Angel of the Lord's presence (Isa 63.9) bore the holy name of Yehovah, the God of Israel, in Himself. In other words he was utilised by God to speak on His behalf in the first person as if he were God himself (for abundant proof, consider the following: Gen 16.7-11; 21.17; 22.11,15ff; 24.7,40; 31.11-13; 32.24-30; Ex 3.2; 14.19 with 13.21,22; 33.11; Num 22.22; Josh 5.14; 6.2; Judg 2.1-5; 6.11-14; 13; 1 Chron 21.15,18,27; 2 Sam 24.16; Zech 1.9-17).  

In any event, as mentioned earlier, Paul's desire to be accursed from Messiah has an antecedent way back in an account of Moses intervening for Israel between his hostile kinsmen and the living God (think "super Angel" or "ET" if you wish). Writes lecturer McClain,

"There came a time when Moses went up into the mountain to get the Ten Commandments. While he was up there, the people melted their gold ornaments and made a molten calf; and when Moses came down he found the people of God naked, dancing before a molten calf, and saying, "These are the gods that brought us up out of Egypt." Moses broke the tables of stone in his hand and rebuked them. God was going to destroy the whole nation. They deserved to be destroyed. Moses threw himself upon his face before God [and he called out to the people] "You have sinned a great sin; and now I will go up unto the Lord. Peradventure I shall make atonement." Can a man make atonement for sin? No. Moses was beyond his depth here. He was wrong, but he says, "Perhaps I can save you." Moses returned to Jehovah: "Oh, this people have sinned a great sin and have made them gods of gold. Yet now, if Thou wilt forgive their sin" -- That sentence was never finished. There is a dash there. "And if not" -- what then? "Blot me I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written." Moses is asking God to destroy him along with the people, if forgiveness is not possible. Notice the answer. God rebukes him: "And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book" (McClain op.cit., 178).

Now Paul has Moses right in front of him clearly delineated in the Torah (Ex 32.10-14). And Paul knows that he is identifying with the patriarch of the Sinai Covenant. But please note that the great apostle to the Gentiles, who so loves his own people Israel, goes way beyond Moses. For Moses wishes to die with the people that God is wanting to destroy. Paul in contradistinction to Moses wants to die in order for his people to live.

Recall again, Paul's own words recorded in his letter for posterity: "My grief is so great it consumes me, the pain in my heart so constant, and not letting up, that I could wish myself to be actually accursed from Messiah -- cut off and banished -- on behalf of my brothers, my own flesh and blood, the people of Israel!" And, moreover, in the Greek what Paul actually said was as I have penned it, not as some others who seek to garble and misrepresent the original intention of the apostle. "I could wish." For, the Greek tense is imperfect, incomplete. In other words "But there is something that stops me. I am prevented from so doing." That something was the inspired Scripture that Paul knew off by heart. Typical of the rabbis of his day and age he memorised entire scriptures. He knew them back-to-front. It was the inner conviction of the Ruach HaKodesh within the emissary of the kingdom of God guiding, leading and consoling the very human Paul.

Of course! Paul knew that once a believer is saved he cannot in any way, shape or form be cast out of Christ's presence. He wrote "Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Messiah Yeshua" (Rom 8.1 Greek). "No condemnation" appears in the Amplified Translation as "no adjudging guilty or wrong." Yeshua had made it candidly clear. He said, "All that the Father gives to me, and him who is coming unto me, I will in no wise cast out" (Jn 6.37).

What is true of Paul is equally true of each of us. If we stand in Messiah we are saved to the uttermost. That is what Righteousness by Faith is all about. It's about what Christ accomplished for us on our behalf. We are not saved by what Christ can do IN us by the power of the holy Spirit or otherwise. But we are saved by what Christ has done extrinsically for us. Christ is for us. He has done it all on the bloodied tree of Golgoleth. There is nothing we can add to the perfect Work of the Messiah. We need to rejoice in it more often.

CONCLUSION
With deep emotion etched in his tears of grief Paul starts to progressively work out in his mind, and then directly onto his parchment -- in a great task of biblical and theological proportions -- his understanding of the working out of the sovereignty of God in human affairs. This is why Romans 9,10, and 11 do not seem to fit into the scheme which Paul had designed originally, that is with Romans 12 following immediately on from Romans 8. He got himself sidetracked through his grief, but I see the Ruach HaKodesh working mightily in Paul presenting him with a unique opportunity to share with both Israel and the world at large why it is God permitted Israel's rejection of the Messiah in God's intent, plan and purpose concerning a full salvation of (and for) the world. God was helping Paul to grasp the wider, larger, greater intent of God for the salvation of the Gentiles as well as for Israel to fulfill her destiny under the might and power of the Spirit of God.

There is little doubt in the way Paul's Letter to the Roman Christians is now designed, that Paul has (to our lasting benefit) laid a concrete foundation for the Salvific acceptance of humanity, but this acknowledgment and acceptance is constructed upon faith -- faith in the completed, perfect Work of Christ. It is really, in the ultimate analysis, Christ's own faith which saves. THEN and then only does the Spirit of God, through the writing of Paul's Letter to the Roman Christians, encourage Christians in living the sanctified -- "set apart for holy use" -- life. The only motivation for acceptable living standards that we will find in Paul's Letter to the Roman Christians is one that is based entirely, wholly, completely on that which Christ has himself accomplished on our behalf -- and not a salvation based upon the rules and regulations, laws, statutes, judgments and ordinances of a Sinai Covenant given by angels in the hand of a Mediator during the second millennium BCE "Age of Gravel."

We shall pursue Romans 9 in our following lecture.

THIS CONCLUDES LECTURE 37

Have you been spiritually edified with this lecture? Would you like to know more about the biblical revelation from such a unique perspective? Our private BRI/IMCF International Internet Yeshiva Members Forum has hundreds of in-depth lectures available for those who subscribe to the IMCF. Membership is entirely by donation and Messianic Enterprises has provided a PIN PAYMENT icon for your convenience which you can access on the front page of the public BRI/IMCF site at:

http://www.biblicalresearchinstitute.com.au/

Just depress the Pay Now icon and within days your request for International Messianic Community of Faith (IMCF) membership will be acknowledged.

Thank you for becoming supportive of this growing unique Work of God and for allowing us to serve you in this manner.