Will you bow down to the Jewish Zionists and deny Jesus is the Messiah OR will you become a fellow cast-off with Jesus, as this man born blind and healed by Jesus had to do, and be disowned by your own family and friends, and potentially lose everything?
-Created4Health dot org
The full article in which this quote is pulled is linked above if you desire to read all of it. I pulled out this false conclusion of his to make several points about current antisemitism in the professing "church" and among professed believers (current and past).
The writer apparently doesn't like Jews. Yes, that's an opinion, but it doesn't take long on his site to determine that's it's not an unfair assessment. But you may draw your won conclusions upon visiting.
First, we must recognize that in the current age, with Israel set aside and all being considered Gentiles for the sake of the revelation of the Mystery, that those promulgating the Jewish rejection of Christ are, in fact, the enemies of Christ. We also note that those pushing Jewish ordinances inside or outside Christendom are also enemies of Paul's revelation.
But while acknowledging that, we also note very strongly that the plan of God for the earth (covering the vast majority of scripture including the gospel accounts, the Acts, and the epistles of the Acts age) is very much centered on the physical children of Abraham. We have covered that in many other places, so we will leave that there and only point to a couple of foundational verses (out of many) along this line.
Then Jesus said to the [Gentile] woman, “I was sent only to help God’s lost sheep—the people of Israel... “It is not right to take the children’s bread and to throw it to dogs.””
-Matthew 15:24,26b
For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brothers, my kinsmen by race, who are Israelites, to whom belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service [priesthood] of God, and the promises, to whom belong the patriarchs, and from whom, according to the flesh, is Christ, who is over all, God forever blessed. Amen.
-Romans 9:3-5
Now I say that Jesus Christ has become a servant to the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers [patriarchs; ancestors].
-Romans 15:8
The Lord was sent to redeem Israel and bring in her kingdom, on earth, centered in Jerusalem. That is what he taught the Apostles after his resurrection (Acts 1:3-6) as the 12 will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28). We will be starting and building on that foundation.
In the question posed above at Created4Health, we are offered a false dichotomy
It's a false choice in two ways:
- he is essentially arguing that all Zionists (anybody who believes God promised a physical land to Abraham and a physical kingdom to David's offspring) is quote "bow[ing] down to Jewish Zionists." This would include the chosen Apostles of Christ, by the way, including Peter.
- he argues that anyone who believes in the land and Kingdom promises (like the Apostles did) is one who denies Jesus is the Christ
As we shall see, he (as well as Calvin) insult and demeans the very chosen Apostles to the Circumcision. Apostles chosen and commissioned by Christ himself. God did not abandon or condemn Israel in the Acts age and neither did the Apostles.
On the contrary, they saw that I was entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, as the gospel to the circumcised was to Peter. For He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles. When James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, understood the grace that was given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
-Galatians 2:7-9
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ. For it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
-Romans 1:16
As to his stated argument, I'm not sure how believing God will eventually keep his promises regarding the land, the Kingdom, and the covenants (which are Israel's alone, Romans 9, etc.), the owners being his earthly people (and people are free to believe this interpretation or not), somehow means I am denying Christ is the Messiah? That's a rather harsh charge. It doesn't bother me as it is a false choice and I am fairly confident that God is a God who will keep his promises.
His argument is self-serving to say the least. It falls into the "have you stopped beating your wife?" category of questions.
I've read the prophets and the New Covenant. I am convinced God will restore the Kingdom in a believing, cleansed Israel in a future age. That is, I believe the prophets are clear.
The writer of the article (and related site owner) must have as low opinion of the scripturally enlightened (Luke 24:25) and chosen Apostles of the Lord, who were taught for 40 days by the risen Lord about the Kingdom in which they will sit in 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes (Mat 19:28). We noted these passages already. The only way to get around the literal nature of these verses and the natural conclusion of the chosen Apostles of Christ is to accuse these men of ignorance and as did Calvin.
Let's take a rather amazing look at what Calvin wrote about the Apostles:
He showeth that the apostles were gathered together when as this question [about the restoration of the kingdom in Israel] was moved, that we may know that it came not of the foolishness of one or two that it was moved, but it was moved by the common consent of them all; but marvelous is their [the Apostles'] rudeness, that when as they had been diligently instructed by the space of three whole years, they betray no less ignorance than if they had heard never a word. There are as many errors in this question as words. They ask him as concerning a kingdom; but they dream of an earthly kingdom, which should flow with riches, with dainties, with external peace, and with such like good things; and while they assign the present time to the restoring of the same. They desire to triumph before the battle; for before such time as they begin to work they will have their wages. They are also greatly deceived herein, in that they restrain Christ’s kingdom unto the carnal Israel, which was to be spread abroad, even unto the uttermost parts of the world. Furthermore, there is this fault in all their whole question, namely, that they desire to know those things which are not meet for them to know. No doubt they were not ignorant what the prophets did prophesy concerning the restoring of David’s kingdom, they had oftentimes heard their Master preach concerning this matter. Lastly, It was a saying common in every man’s mouth, that, in the most miserable captivity of the people, they should all be comforted, with the expectation of the kingdom that should be. Now, they hoped for the restoring hereof at the coming of the Messias, and hereupon was it that so soon as the apostles saw their Master Christ risen from the dead, they straightway began to think thereupon; but, in the meantime, they declared thereby how bad scholars they were under so good a Master.
-John Calvin (excerpt, Commentary on Acts 1:6), emphasis added
Such blasphemy against the chosen twelve. And if the opening argument from Created4Health is true, the Apostles were thus "denying Jesus is the Messiah." Peter, in Acts 3 will go on to offer "Ye men of Israel" the "restoration of all things" should they repent. No gentiles at Pentecost. No gentile having any gifts of the Spirit at this point (and that means believing gentiles). When a Gentile does receive the "same gifts" as the Jews, the Apostles are "astonished" and then go out and preach "to Jews only." Were they denying the Lord Jesus is the Christ?
And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. [Note: before they were baptized].
-Acts 10:45
And as I [Peter] began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them [Gentiles], as upon us [Jews] at the beginning. Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ If therefore God gave them [Gentiles] the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?” When they [Jews] heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.” Now those [Jews] who were scattered after the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to no one but the Jews only.
-Acts 11:15-19
As Calvin holds the Sermon of the Mount being somehow given to a Gentile "Church," (I do not) and as one who believes in bodiless eternal fiery torment as he did (I do not) his condemnation of the Apostles even more amazing (horrifying). He calls them bad scholars, greatly deceived, rude, ignorant, and foolish. That is, he is ironically calling the chosen Apostle of Christ "fools."
And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.
-Matthew 5:22
Calvin in his own words, says of verse in Matthew 5 warning against calling a brother "a fool":
He who shall say to his brother Christ assigns three degrees of condemnation besides the violence of the hands; which implies, that this precept of the law restrains not only the hands, but all affections that are opposed to brotherly love. “Those who shall only be angry with their brethren, or treat them with haughty disdain, or injure them by any reproach, are murderers.” Now, as it is certain that the word Racha occupies an intermediate place between anger and openly reproachful language, I have no doubt that it is an interjection of contempt or disdain. Though Christ adjudges to the hell of fire none but those who break out into open reproach, we must not suppose, that he declares anger to be free from a similar punishment; but, alluding to earthly judgments, he assures them that God will judge and punish even concealed anger. But, as he who manifests his indignation by bitter language goes farther than this, Christ says, that that man will be held guilty by the whole heavenly council, that he may receive severer punishment.
-John Calvin (excerpt, Commentary on Matthew 5:22), emphasis added
The writer of the article quoted at the start must really not like Paul either. For that matter, he must really really hate the twelve who went to Jews only (Acts 11:19, I've done the math here, Acts 11 comes after Acts 2 and the falling of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost). As noted, I guess he believes he knows better (as Calvin seems to know) what the risen Lord taught the enlightened and chosen Apostles of Christ for 40 days about the restoration of the Kingdom in Israel (Acts 1:3-7) despite not having heard one word! Nothing the Lord taught them alone is recorded for us. How does Calvin or anyone today conclude that the Apostles were wrong in their conclusion? Christ certainly does not correct or chastise them, our Lord merely tells them that they are not to know the timing of the event.
As I read it, Calvin and many others not only accuse the Apostles of stupidity, they have to assume that they somehow know what the Lord's teachings about the Kingdom during those 40 days must be. Again, any are free to disagree with my interpretation, but I certainly wouldn't conclude that if you disagree, that means you are somehow denying Jesus is the Christ. But I would say that they are blaspheming the Apostles.
[The Lord Jesus Christ] said to them [the Apostles], “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority."
-Acts 1:7
Accusing the Apostles of ignorance concerning teachings that are (a) only for the Apostles for which (b) we have no record and arguing that if we agree with their conclusion we are somehow denying Jesus is the Christ is a terribly self-serving Logical Fallacy and conclusion.
Ironically, the writer accuses the Pharisees of a logical fallacy when they attempted to ignore the Lord's arguments and presented him with a false dichotomy. From the article linked above:
they did what the servants of Satan always do when they cannot win a debate based on merit, and instead resorted to personal attacks against Jesus, and slandered his character.
His false choice slanders anyone who believes God will someday "restore the Kingdom in Israel" including the Apostles of Christ!
We do not currently live in the age wherein Israel is to have their kingdom restored (that was put on hold at the end of the Acts age), but if the author and accuser of the Apostles wants to embrace the Book of Romans as for himself and as for this current age, I would offer this bit of advice:
For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root [Israel] is holy, so are the branches [Jews] . 17 And if some of the branches [Jews] were broken off, and you [Gentiles], being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them [Jews], and with them became a partaker of the root [Israel's promises] and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches [Jews] . But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root [Israel] , but the root [Israel] supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.”20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches [Jews], He may not spare you [Gentiles] either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you [Gentiles] were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree [Israel] , how much more will these [Jews], who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
-Romans 11:16-24
- do not boast against the branches [Jews].
- Do not be haughty [against the branches], but fear.
- Otherwise you also will be cut off.
Anyone is free to interpret that passage anyway he likes. But interpreting it as Gentiles grafted into Israel for the Holy Spirit, scripturally stated purpose "to make Israel jealous" (Romans 10:19, 11:11, 11:14) does not mean I have chosen to deny Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God!
And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.
-John 20:30-31
I didn't know hating Jews or denying the hope of their earthly kingdom was a requirement to make that choice. If it were, as Calvin charges, and as "Created4Health" (also "Health Impact News") accuses, the twelve were denying Christ, not true believers, and headed for the fires of [man's traditional] hell.
Such blasphemy!
If the author quoted at the start does somehow believe Israel has a future in the land (and maybe he does), does he believe the mechanism for Israel to be in the land to experience the tribulation and cleansing is stated clearly in scripture? If so, make the argument without concluding that anyone who disagrees with you is thus denying Jesus is the Christ. If he doesn't think Israel has a future, that would be odd. Looking at other article from his site he obviously holds to a future Antichrist.His false choice is self-serving and contemptable.