God divorced Israel?

[jonshaff]

I haven't copy/pasted anything in here; many Jewish customs begin with scripture but end with twisting in favoritism towards Judaism. Matthew 16:6 “Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

Not all Bible teachers are in agreement and not all popular bible teachers are good apples.

I'm not going to thread jack, but come on Buzz...this clearly puts the so-called-divorce in great perspective, on the fact they're not divorced at all...God says himself BILL OF DIVORCE. Who wrote that bill Buzz? Jews inspired by God?

And by the way I was talking about the famously copy and pasted Jack Kelley's ask a bible teacher.

[jonshaff]

Jeremiah 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a BILL OF DIVORCE; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Why would we not educate ourselves on exactly what God means by a bill of divorce? We aren't ignorant of any of the Jewish feasts as they pertain to prophecy and things of that nature.

I believe this passage has a lot more meaning if you divide this Bill and put it in perspective of God's relationship with Israel, then and in the future.

God specifically says Bill of divorce and if you read about it you understand that just because he served them a bill of divorce, it doesn't mean they are ACTUALLY DIVORCED. Which negates Fru's idea that God and Israel were divorced to begin with, which was absurd for him to say, IMHO.

[HeIsEnough]

But let me also say this, God himself says a "bill of divorce," Jeremiah 3:6-10. I believe understanding what that bill entails gives a great PERSPECTIVE of Gods relationship with Israel.

What do you do with verse 14 regarding the divorce?

Why would you shoot down Jewish customs, derived from OT scriptures

For the uninitiated, the writings can lead to hebrew roots beliefs. We don't want to be the ones who start people down a path that we know is a trap. And quite honestly, I wouldn't recommend anyone looking into the writings of the Rabbi's unless they are mature already in sound doctrine, which would include soteriology and eschatology. This subject is a good example. We know and understand the relationship between God and Israel today, for sure in terms of what the Lord did, is doing, and what will happen to her. However one views God's decree of divorce, it must fold in the rest of her history, Messiah, Jacob's trouble and the return of Christ to establish Jerusalem and bring back the house of David. These things don't add up to a divorce as we know it. Even though Israel was unfaithful, God is faithful, and He demonstrates it when we read all the way through the Revelation. I've had to deal with this in my own life, hebrew roots teachings are very deceptive, and they rely heavily on customs, ones in which we were never given, yet you'll find yourself returning to in practice, even though they are not for you.

[jonshaff]

What do you do with verse 14 regarding the divorce?



For the uninitiated, the writings can lead to hebrew roots beliefs. We don't want to be the ones who start people down a path that we know is a trap. This subject is a good example. We know and understand the relationship between God and Israel today, for sure in terms of what the Lord did, is doing, and what will happen to her. However one views God's decree of divorce, it must fold in the rest of her history, Messiah, Jacob's trouble and the return of Christ to establish Jerusalem and bring back the house of David. These things don't add up to a divorce as we know it. Even though Israel was unfaithful, God is faithful, and He demonstrates it when we read all the way through the Revelation. And quite honestly, I wouldn't recommend anyone looking into the writings of the Rabbi's unless they are mature already in sound doctrine, which would include soteriology and eschatology. I've had to deal with this in my own life, hebrew roots teachings are very deceptive, and they rely heavily on customs.

Please reread my posts.

I clearly said they ARE NOT DIVORCED. And it is absurd to think they are.

Please see post #44

[HeIsEnough]

We were both writing at the same time, Jon, no reason to shout. I see it now and that particular point wasn't really a problem for me, it was the other part about customs which is a concern.

[jonshaff]

We were both writing at the same time, Jon, no reason to shout. I see it now and that particular point wasn't really a problem for me, it was the other part about customs which is a concern.

I apologize for shouting. My point is also this, do we not highlight Jewish "wedding feasts" and "marriage supper" and Jewish traditions of that nature? All the time, to compare them to the rapture and 2nd coming.

I did the same thing with the bill of divorce and I was told "you shouldn't adhere to rabbis and their customs." I was making a similar comparison of different customs to put things into perspective, just like the wedding feasts and marriage comparisons.

[HeIsEnough]

I apologize for shouting.

I'm sure it would be a lot easier talking face to face, the interwebs isn't the easiest place to communicate..

My point is also this, do we not highlight Jewish "wedding feasts" and "marriage supper" and Jewish traditions of that nature? All the time, to compare them to the rapture and 2nd coming.

These are some of the traditions we all agree to, the ones taught to us by the Apostles. Which probably highlights the point better than anything else, we cling to only those things they passed down to us, so extraneous writings or traditions really become suspect, things like the mishnah.

[jonshaff]

I'm sure it would be a lot easier talking face to face, the interwebs isn't the easiest place to communicate..



These are some of the traditions we all agree to, the ones taught to us by the Apostles. Which probably highlights the point better than anything else, we cling to only those things they passed down to us, so extraneous writings or traditions really become suspect, things like the mishnah.

I understand where you are coming from.

But I believe God intended us to have some understanding about a "bill of divorce," otherwise why would he even bring it up? Fru obviously misinterpreted the bill because he wasn't educated on it, IMHO.

And if we dig deeper, we find in Leviticus 21:14 A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife. (speaking of a high priest)

So obviously if a high priest cannot marry a divorcee, neither will God, thus Israel and God would never have been divorced. It's what I infer from Leviticus 21:13 And he shall take a wife in her virginity, Israel must accept Jesus and be washed in His blood in order for God and Israel to be a union again.

[iSong6:3]

I'm not going to thread jack, but come on Buzz...this clearly puts the so-called-divorce in great perspective, on the fact they're not divorced at all...God says himself BILL OF DIVORCE. Who wrote that bill Buzz? Jews inspired by God?

And by the way I was talking about the famously copy and pasted Jack Kelley's ask a bible teacher.

There's a problem with thinking all Jewish writings and "customs" as you say and anything else is "God-inspired" just because it's Jewish. Only the Bible is perfect in relating God's inspiration.

To start down the path of elevating things just because they're *Jewish* is to start down the slippery slope of Hebrew Roots.

ETA: According to Jewish law (not Biblical) a man can divorce his wife because she burned his eggs. This is a well-known basis for argument in Judaism, it's a famous contention.

I believe your final conclusion is correct, but the process to it being found in man's arguments/laws is illegitimate. It has to be found in the Bible.

[Mitsy]

Sorry it doesn't make any sense to me that God has divorced Israel?

[jonshaff]

There's a problem with thinking all Jewish writings and "customs" as you say and anything else is "God-inspired" just because it's Jewish. Only the Bible is perfect in relating God's inspiration.

To start down the path of elevating things just because they're *Jewish* is to start down the slippery slope of Hebrew Roots.

ETA: According to Jewish law (not Biblical) a man can divorce his wife because she burned his eggs. This is a well-known basis for argument in Judaism, it's a famous contention.

I believe your final conclusion is correct, but the process to it being found in man's arguments/laws is illegitimate. It has to be found in the Bible.

I truly understand your points. I do, I just finished taking a class on Judaism and know about the Mishnah, and the dangers there of.

My main point of interest, like I have said several times, is God specifically saying "bill of divorce," but we can read in v.14 of that chapter that a divorce is no where near the ends of this relationship.

Understandably, its nothing to confuse with scripture, but knowing and comparing a "get" to the "bill of divorce" God threatens Israel with can put into perspective the situation/relationship at hand. Especially when you have this "false doctrine" of God and Israel being divorced spreading around.

[Tall Timbers]

This is an interesting thread.... didn't mean to hijack the one where this was originally posted... was giving input on who Fruchtenbaum thought would be at the wedding feast (I think... it's been a couple of days now ) as there was a lot of discussion on that in the hijacked thread. In the portion of Footsteps that I quoted, it included the "divorce" topic.

For Buzz: the reason I'm so fond of Fruchtenbaum's work is, while it has to be imperfect, and how much so I can't say, I can say that his conclusions taken from the Word are very logical throughout the book. I can't say that for any other eschatalogical work I've ever read or studied. Now, if you read a work, and are in agreement with it, you're less likely to notice logical errors. In the case of Footsteps, a lot of what he said was new to me so I could only be partially guilty of fondness due to being in previous agreement. In every other case where I've read an eschatalogical work, I've found what appears to me to be deviations from logic with further assumptions made that are based on the initial fallacy, and not the Word at all. I'm saying this as a generality, because it's unlikely I'll make the time to go back and look at those points I would dissent with in those works... although, for any that might be on my book shelf, I've probably got notes by those areas. More often than not those areas that caught my interest due to my perception that they were errant were things to come where the author's were most likely IMHO influenced by what their minds could perceive as possible, combined with popular thinking at the time... at the time they were accomplishing their studies. And of course, it's just possible my own perceptions of a particular work are errant. That can be the case with all of us. I'm also fond of Footsteps, because for reasons beyond my full ability to understand, after reading it, I could finally read the Old Testament voraciously... where as before I must admit reading the Old Testament was not something I could easily do, except for small parts. I do believe also, that Fruch's positions on a topic are very worthy of inclusion in our discussions, so I often insert them.

Like others, I didn't know what HR was.

As to the alleged divorce, When I read through those parts of the Old Testament, I get the sense of a divorce, along with the heavy sadness that comes with such a thing. But the Testament does end with hope and promise: Malachi 4:5: "Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord. He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse." That doesn't sound like God has divorced Israel. If not, what exactly was meant by bill of divorcement in the Word? Did he write it but not give it to Israel? He knows the end from the beginning so why would He give it to her? I don't know.

As the end of days gets ever closer, as the future becomes present, prophecy will likely become more clear to us, and when we're at the wedding feast, we'll certainly know who the guests are. We'll be trading our beliefs and speculation for reality and understand things quite well as they come to pass, in this life (hopefully), and in our our next.

[Hootmon]

The reconciliation of the 'divorced' couple wont be complete until the 'mother' weeps for her 'first born Son'.

"I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.
(Zec 12:10)

[Tall Timbers]

The reconciliation of the 'divorced' couple wont be complete until the 'mother' weeps for her 'first born Son'.

"I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.
(Zec 12:10)

How wonderful, and powerful that moment will be. I'm very much looking forward to it!

[Wally]

Matthew 5:31-32 New King James Version (NKJV)

31 “Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality[a] causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.


Romans 7:2
For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband.



God has not died thus Israel is not released from Him. The certificate allowed a husband to put her away. She is not free to marry another.

But a husband can restore an unfaithful wife as Hosea did with Gomer.


We were espoused to sin and death, but Christ caused sin to die and released us from the bondage we had. As if a new bride, we now are betrothed to Jesus. Redemed and bought, cleansed like Israel, but not restored. We never had a marriage to God.

[Tall Timbers]

God has not died thus Israel is not released from Him. The certificate allowed a husband to put her away. She is not free to marry another.

But a husband can restore an unfaithful wife as Hosea did with Gomer.

That's very insightful Wally.

[HeIsEnough]

He knows the end from the beginning so why would He give it to her? I don't know.

Two reasons come to mind right away. Israel is not forgotten on account of the patriarchs. God is faithful, even when we are not. We can see this in the history of Israel. God's dealings with Israel must be seen through to its conclusion, all the way through the Revelation and beyond, prophecy shows us what the Lord is up to. These are the most powerful of evidences, ones that too many in the church ignore.

I didn't know what HR was.

We keep watch and warn others.

[waiting1]

First, what is HR?

Secondly, if God hates divorice then why did He divorice Israel? Are you sure that divorice is what actually happened?

But let us not forget that God hates Adultery too.

Thank goodness for God's Mercy since Adultery is worthy of death and Israel was guilty of it, so rather than kill Israel for it He divorced them instead.

[iSong6:3]

This is an interesting thread.... didn't mean to hijack the one where this was originally posted... was giving input on who Fruchtenbaum thought would be at the wedding feast (I think... it's been a couple of days now ) as there was a lot of discussion on that in the hijacked thread. In the portion of Footsteps that I quoted, it included the "divorce" topic.

No worries at all, TT, there was interest in taking the subject further.

For Buzz: the reason I'm so fond of Fruchtenbaum's work is, while it has to be imperfect, and how much so I can't say, I can say that his conclusions taken from the Word are very logical throughout the book. I can't say that for any other eschatalogical work I've ever read or studied. Now, if you read a work, and are in agreement with it, you're less likely to notice logical errors. In the case of Footsteps, a lot of what he said was new to me so I could only be partially guilty of fondness due to being in previous agreement. In every other case where I've read an eschatalogical work, I've found what appears to me to be deviations from logic with further assumptions made that are based on the initial fallacy, and not the Word at all. I'm saying this as a generality, because it's unlikely I'll make the time to go back and look at those points I would dissent with in those works... although, for any that might be on my book shelf, I've probably got notes by those areas. More often than not those areas that caught my interest due to my perception that they were errant were things to come where the author's were most likely IMHO influenced by what their minds could perceive as possible, combined with popular thinking at the time... at the time they were accomplishing their studies. And of course, it's just possible my own perceptions of a particular work are errant. That can be the case with all of us. I'm also fond of Footsteps, because for reasons beyond my full ability to understand, after reading it, I could finally read the Old Testament voraciously... where as before I must admit reading the Old Testament was not something I could easily do, except for small parts. I do believe also, that Fruch's positions on a topic are very worthy of inclusion in our discussions, so I often insert them.

I don't believe the Frucht is HR, he is quite solid about who the Church is and who Israel is, etc. Imo, I have also found things from him that are brilliant and aren't found much at all but by those other reputable teachers we love here who quote him (including Dr. Thomas Ice, Dr. David Reagan.) While I think he sometimes goes off on a rabbit trail and comes up with wild stuff, that's not usual for him. He has earned my ears.

I also ask TT what the Frucht has to say on certain subjects, and TT graciously responds.

Like others, I didn't know what HR was.

It's a horror.

As to the alleged divorce, When I read through those parts of the Old Testament, I get the sense of a divorce, along with the heavy sadness that comes with such a thing. But the Testament does end with hope and promise: Malachi 4:5: "Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord. He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse." That doesn't sound like God has divorced Israel. If not, what exactly was meant by bill of divorcement in the Word? Did he write it but not give it to Israel? He knows the end from the beginning so why would He give it to her? I don't know.

As the end of days gets ever closer, as the future becomes present, prophecy will likely become more clear to us, and when we're at the wedding feast, we'll certainly know who the guests are. We'll be trading our beliefs and speculation for reality and understand things quite well as they come to pass, in this life (hopefully), and in our our next.

Amen!

[Wally]

I was thinking,

God did die - in Christ.

But only those jews who faithe in Jesus are released from the Divorce to marry anew. They become part of the Bride of Christ.


Those who remain "jewish" will go through a purification process before they are restored.



Jeremiah 3:1-3 New King James Version (NKJV)

1 “They say, ‘If a man divorces his wife,
And she goes from him
And becomes another man’s,
May he return to her again?’
Would not that land be greatly polluted?
But you have played the harlot with many lovers;
Yet return to Me,” says the LORD.
2“ Lift up your eyes to the desolate heights and see:
Where have you not lain with men?
By the road you have sat for them
Like an Arabian in the wilderness;
And you have polluted the land
With your harlotries and your wickedness.
3 Therefore the showers have been withheld,
And there has been no latter rain.
You have had a harlot’s forehead;
You refuse to be ashamed.





Jeremiah 3:6-7 New King James Version (NKJV)

6 The LORD said also to me in the days of Josiah the king: “Have you seen what backsliding Israel has done?
She has gone up on every high mountain and under every green tree, and there played the harlot.
7 And I said, after she had done all these things, ‘Return to Me.’ But she did not return. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it.