Så älskade Gud och Jesus Israel (inte hela världen)

The popular "Dispensational Theology" suggests that YEHOVAH God deals with different "dispensations" in different ways and they split the Bible up into dispensations. When it comes to the New Testament they say that YEHOVAH God finished with the "Jews" at Acts 28:28 ...

To overcome the mention of tongues, in the Book of Corinthians, they have to say that this book is included in the dispensation that ended with Acts 28:28. If they wanted to do so, they also could have said that the dispensation ended back in Acts 13:46 where Paul says there, "Lo we turn to the Gentiles". But, we find the same word translated as "sign" as in "for the Jews require a sign" occurs 14 times through the New Testament after the Book of Acts. We also find the word translated as "miracles" 68 times and "wonders" 4 times. So all these books of the New Testament also would have to apply only up to Acts 28:28...

...One of the incomprehensible things about those who support futurism and any form of dispensational theology is how they can quote Daniel 9:27 about ”the midst of the week” and then say that the second half of that same week is sometime in the future. To do that they have to say things without prophetical or biblical basis like, “God’s prophetical clock stopped ticking”! The “great persecution against the Church“ (Acts 8:1) -- or the tribulation period from “the midst of the week” until the stoning of Stephen -- was three and one half years (the second half of the same week of years). At the end of this time the early church were “scattered abroad”...


...1 Corinthians 10:1-2: "Moreover, Brethren, I would not have you ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the [Red] sea, And were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea...."

The whole of this book is in the Israel context and does not include anyone else but Israelites. There is a mass of such confirmation through the New Testament. It is the pre-conditioning about "gentiles" that blinds the eye.

In the KJV the word "ethnos" is translated 64 times as "nations", 5 times as "heathen", 2 times as "people", and 93 times as "gentiles". BUT, we also find the word "hellen" sometimes translated as "Gentiles". The translators have made a sorry mess! Let us look further into this mess. Anyone who cares to take a look in any concordance will find that the words in both Greek and Hebrew for "Gentiles" are also used of Israel. Knowing this, then "have some fun"! For instance, anyone can transfer translations for a given word and quickly find that when YEHOVAH God said to Abraham, "I will make a great nation of you", it could equally be translated "I will make a great Gentile of You". Rebecca would have had two Gentiles in her womb, and thus Israelites would have to be Gentiles. The word "Gentiles" refers to any group of people of a common origin, and never did mean what Bible dictionaries try to make it mean. It is not difficult to "knock" the popular interpretation to bits of every reference in the New Testament that appears to contradict the right meaning of "Gentiles". We can look at every so-called type, such as the Ethiopian Eunuch -- (Acts 8:37) -- that is used in support of the wrong meaning and show that they are not valid. Either a look into the original languages or simple questions give us the answer...

-- Why was there such a fuss when Paul wanted to take a Greek (suspected of being a non-Israelite) into the temple?

Anyone who uses a territorial/national term and converts the same into a racial term is liable to come to a wrong conclusion, every time. Yet, this is the common experience and teaching. For instance, when we read in Galatians 3:28 and Colossians 3:11, "Neither Jew nor Greek, circumcision or uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond or free", it is popular to treat the territorial terms as being racial terms. Those who promote this should then be able to say how four racial terms could cover every other race. What this verse is saying is that it does not matter whether or not the Israelites came from Judea, Greece, Scythia, or whether or not they had had a barbarous religion, and whether or not they had been circumcised.

Further to this, when we read in Revelation 5:9, "And hath redeemed us by The Blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people and nation", it is popular to miss out the meaning of "out" (ek) and make this mean "of" instead of "out of" to try to accommodate every race. The prophets only spoke about Israel in connection with both the Blood and who is gathered to the City. It is also recommended that those supporting the popular doctrine should have a good look into the different meanings of "Christ", "Christ Jesus", "Jesus Christ", "Christ's" etc., according to grammar. For instance, where "Christ" is a verbal adjective, no one has any right to translate and use it differently.

It is popular to claim that Ruth was a "Gentile", but Ruth was an Israelite who had been living in Moab. We read in the first verse of the Book of Ruth about Israelites going to live in the land of Moab. That their sons married "women of Moab", does not tell us anything about race; Moab was where the women lived just as we find her Israelite family living in the first verse. Numbers 21:25-35 and Deuteronomy 2:32-34 tell us how Israel killed off all the Moabites completely, and then occupied that land. For an Israelite to be known as a Moabitess is no different than Israelites being known as Judeans or Galileans.

It was unlawful for any Israelite to marry other than an Israelite, so Ruth would have to be an Israelite. Ruth was not an ancestor of the Messiah because no female blood passes to the child. Because the Old Testament is so clearly racist we are quoting primarily from the New Testament, because this is where the changes are supposed to have been made. But, perhaps we should look at one more Old Testament verse which spells out the real position. Jeremiah 31:36: “If those ordinances depart from me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel shall cease from being a nation before me”...

… The traditional meaning of the words "Jews and Gentiles" are so ingrained into the sub-conscious that it is hard for anyone to think they might mean something else. After the time of Solomon and all through the prophets, the two parties are:

[1] The House of Judah. Two tribes. or "the Circumcision" (the Jew of the New Testament).

[2] The House of Israel. Ten tribes. or "the "Uncircumcision" (the Greek of the New Testament)…


...Of course, we all know that grafting in can only take place between trees that are both of a common origin, such as Israel and Judah are. In Romans chapter 11 it is popular to say that metaphor, "contrary to nature" means the grafting of things quite different together, suggesting the grafting of non-Israelites into Israel. But Vine points out that it means the grafting of a wild stock into a cultivated tree, rather that the normal grafting of good stock into a wild original. This of course refers to the House of Israel joining the House of Judah. The House of Israel had been divorced by YEHOVAH God whereas Judah had not. If we look at the expression, "God is able to graft them in AGAIN", those grafted back must have been attached once before they were cut off. The problem again is the Latin word from which we get "Gentiles"; if the meaning was non-Israelites then these non-Israelites were never attached once before.

Where Paul talks about "neither Jew nor Greek" in Colossians 3:11 he is talking to the "elect" who always are Israel as a whole. The same applies in Galatians 3:28 where those who had been under the Law (Israel as a whole) become equal and "all one" as they individually come under the New Covenant. John 7:35 tells us about those of Israel who are dispersed among the Greeks. What misleads most people is the mistranslation of "hellen" to read "gentiles", here and in other places. "Greeks" is used as a synonym of this dispersion 35 times in the New Testament. In no way could "Greeks" mean all the races who were not Judeans. Why would Paul pick just on "Greeks" (meaning Greek speaking) if he meant all races? It has to be noted that the translators did not translate here; they used the Latin-origin word "Gentile" to suit their doctrine...