Some Christian circles hold the position that the Lord Jesus came to save only the twelve tribes of Israel. Two verses provide the cornerstone for this view — in Matthew 15:24 where the Lord Jesus says to a non-Israelite woman,
“I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
And also His command to His disciples in Matthew 10:5-6:
5 These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them, saying, “Do not go on a road to the nations, and do not enter a city of Samaritans; 6 but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
They further contend that Jesus initially came only for the house of Judah — that is, the remaining southern kingdom of Israel — consisting mostly of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi. But then, they contend, Jesus had to die before He could extend salvation to the other ten Israelite tribes — who had been completely divorced from the covenants — to bring them back in — or remarry them.
Therefore — the argument goes — that when the Lord gave the command in Matthew 10:5-6, He was actually telling the the apostles to stay with the southern kingdom of Israel but leave out any of the northern kingdom Israelites — the “gentiles” or “nations” — until such time as He had died and brought them back into the covenants.
Bringing in the “divorced tribes” would be how they explain the bringing in of “the nations” into the New Covenant. In other words, “the nations” — in their line of reasoning — never refers to the Genesis 10 nations — but rather refers only to the scattered Israelites from within those nations.
When the Lord said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” we would certainly agree with the plain interpretation that during the Lord’s time on the earth, His mission would not exceed the scope of the Israelites themselves. However, these circles take these verses a step further to mean that the scope of the Lord’s work would never exceed the literal descendants of Israel — that the scope of His work would never expand to the Genesis 10 nations — even after His crucifixion.
Although we have shown why this view is wrong from many different angles in our other studies, we’d like to address it here from this specific angle. Moreover, we would also like to consider its effect on prophecy concerning Israel.
THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL
First, let’s consider what the term “Israel” (Strong’s 3478) means — rather than presuming that we all know what it means. In the Scripture, many times nations are named according to their patriarchs. For example, the Moabites were called according to their patriarch “Moab.” Or the Edomites were called according to their patriarch “Edom” — otherwise known as Esau. In the Hebrew text, the Egyptians were called according to their patriarch “Mizraim.”
When we refer to Mizraimites, Edomites or Moabites, we are not referring to lands or countries with borders but rather to groups of people who are bound according to their common ancestor. Whether a Moabite is in the land of Moab or in South America, they are still a Moabite.
Modern nation-wreckers known as “the Jews” would certainly have us ignorant of these facts — and their own illegitimacy to claim to be Israelites.
Likewise, when the word “Israel” is used in Scripture, it doesn’t refer to a country or any specific piece of land — rather, it refers to all of those who can trace their patrilineal descent back to Jacob — who was renamed “Israel” (Genesis 32:28). Therefore, an Israelite is an Israelite no matter where they may find themselves geographically. That is, they don’t stop being Israelites just because they are not in the literal “land of Israel.” Furthermore, when we see the word “Israel” in the New Testament, we should consider the true meaning of the word — that is, all twelve tribes who could trace their patrilineal descent back to Jacob — and not just the small Israelite remnant in Judea.
Therefore, when anyone in the New Testament uses the term “Israel,” it can mean only one thing — all Israelites regardless of where they may dwell — whether in Judea, Samaria, Egypt or elsewhere.
This distinction is important to keep in mind — because Christians who hold the view that the Lord intended to save only Israel interpret Matthew 10:5 and Matthew 15:24 with different standards on this point. When the Lord said, “Do not go on a road to the nations, and do not enter a city of Samaritans; but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” He implicitly created an important distinction — which is, that the “nations” and “Samaritans” are exclusive from the “lost sheep of the house of Israel.” That is to say, here Christ Jesus clearly does not take them to mean the same people.
One might object that Samaria — from where we get the name “Samaritans” — was the capital of the northern kingdom of Israel — and, therefore, Samaria should surely be inhabited by Israelites, correct? Not so fast — 2 Kings 17:6 says,
In the ninth year of Hoshea, the king of Assyria captured Samaria and led the people of Israel into exile to Assyria, and settled them in Halah and Habor, on the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.
Then in 2 Kings 17:24,
Then the king of Assyria brought people from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath, and Sepharvaim, and settled them in the cities of Samaria in place of the sons of Israel. So they took possession of Samaria and lived in its cities.
After Assyria conquered the northern kingdom of Israel, they deported most of the population — moving them northward into Assyria and beyond. One of the curses for a disobedient Israel was given in Deuteronomy 4:27,
The Lord will scatter you among the peoples, and you will be left few in number among the nations where the Lord drives you.
Acts 2:5 confirms that “there were Judeans residing in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven.” Note how when Israelites come out from among the nations, the Scriptural writers specifically qualify it by saying, “Judeans….from every nation.”
James also writes to “the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad” (James 1:1). And if all twelves tribes are dispersed abroad, that would most certainly include even members of the southern kingdom — Judah, Levi, and Benjamin — like Paul who was a Benjaminite (Philippians 3:5) and came from Tarsus (Acts 21:39).
In John 4:12 the Lord Himself speaks to an Israelite woman — within a Samarian city — who acknowledges Jacob as her father (or patriarch) — attesting that at least some minority of Israelites did remain in Samaria despite the Assyrian mass deportation — and that the Lord ministered to them because they were of the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Herein lies an obvious difficulty for the view — If the Lord said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” how could that statement exclude entire tribes of Israelites? Even if — hypothetically speaking — certain tribes were divorced from the covenants, they would still be Israelites. Of course, Israelites were still Israelites in Egypt before the covenants were even made in the first place — just as the Lord said of His people in Exodus 4:22, “Israel is My son, My firstborn.” It’s not the covenants which make them Israelites according to the flesh — but rather it’s their patrilineal descent from Jacob which makes them so.
Therefore, if the Lord said that He came only for Israelites, then the scope of “the lost sheep” spans across all twelve tribes of Israel. Furthermore, the idea that entire tribes could be divorced does not work in light of Luke 2:36 — where a woman from the tribe of Asher — supposedly one of the divorced tribes from the northern kingdom of Israel — is found serving at the temple and prophesying. Obviously, the Israelites in Judea — and God Himself — accepted her as a true Israelite — otherwise she never would have been allowed in the temple.
As we mentioned earlier — in Matthew 10:5-6, the Lord creates a distinction between Israel and the nations. Even though there were Israelites scattered throughout the nations and Samaria, the apostles were to go only to “the cities of Israel” (Matthew 10:23) — where they’d be sure to encounter only Israelites.
Yes, there were scattered Israelites outside of Judea, but if they didn’t have time to cover even the cities of Israel according to Matthew 10:23 — then they certainly would not have time to go to all of the dispersions.
If there was an Asherite in the temple (which there was) — and if the Lord ministered to Israelites in the northern kingdom area of Samaria (which He did) — despite commanding His disciples not to go there — then there’s no merit to the idea that He came first only for the southern kingdom of the house of Judah when He said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Furthermore, we see scattered Israelites “from every nation under heaven” attending the feasts in Acts 2:5.
Here we see a shell game being played in the “only-Israel-is-saved” method of interpretation — although not necessarily intentionally — as we ourselves made the same mistake at one point.
On one hand, in Matthew 10, the Lord Jesus said to avoid the nations and the Samaritans — which He qualifies as going only to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel.” In other words, not going to the nations and the Samaritans necessarily means going to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Yet some Christians will insist, “Christ was referring only to the southern kingdom — or the house of Judah — in that command.”
On the other hand, some Christians often use Matthew 15:24 to prove that the Lord came only for Israel as a whole. They will say, “According to Matthew 15:24, Christ said that He came only for Israel. Therefore, He did not come for the nations at all.” They remain oblivious to the fact that they have applied different standards to the same concept which is written exactly the same in Matthew 10:6 and 15:24 — word for word — “the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
In other words, according to their argument, “Israel” in Matthew 10:6 means just “the house of Judah” — whereas in Matthew 15:24 Israel means “all twelve tribes of Israel.” In order to retain a consistent interpretation, these Christians must either allow Matthew 10:6 to mean “all twelve tribes of Israel” — in which case their view that the Lord had to die in order to remarry the southern kingdom Israelites would not work. Or they must allow Matthew 15:24 to simply mean “the house of Judah” — an irreconcilable conundrum.
Moreover — as we already specified, “Israel” always means all twelve tribes generally — notwithstanding any theological position on where any given tribe stands in relation to the covenants. Therefore, to say that Matthew 10:6 refers only to “the house of Judah” doesn’t work ab initio — at the outset. Furthermore, there’s nothing in the Scripture which states that the Lord Jesus would come only for the house of Judah in the first place — thus the position is begging the question — assuming the validity of its own premise instead of proving the validity of its own premise.
They might quote something like Zechariah 12:6 which says, “The Lord also will save the tents of Judah first, so that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem will not be greater than Judah” — as if to somehow prove that the Lord would first come only for the house of Judah — the southern kingdom — and save the northern kingdom only after that.
However, using this verse as a witness would suffice to convince only someone who wanted to believe it in the first place — but that doesn’t seem to be what Zechariah 12:6 is saying at all — especially when reading the passage in its greater context. The passage seems to refer to some event where despite the inhabitants of Jerusalem supporting the lands around them (Zechariah 12:5), their salvation and glory will neither precede nor exceed the house of Judah whom they supported (Zechariah 12:7). Zechariah 12 does not explicitly mention — nor does it even imply — the northern kingdom of Israel — and to nevertheless insist that it does is merely another example of begging the question.
In addition to that, it doesn’t make sense to ever interpret “the nations” as referring to Israelites who are scattered among the nations. “The nations” are not plots of land or countries — they are the actual peoples who trace their patrilineal desent back to their patriarchs — whether Genesis 10 patriarchs or some later patriarch. The entire point of Genesis 10 is to define who “the nations” actually are. To say “nations” without qualifying the statement in any way can never refer to Israelites in light of the distinction made by the Lord Jesus in Matthew 10:5-6.
Let’s recap the points we have covered so far:
- “Israel” always means the twelve tribes.
- Israelites are still Israelites regardless of their status regarding covenants.
- “Nations” — unless qualified — always refers to peoples with common ancestors — not countries or lands.
- The Lord distinguishes Israel from the nations and Samaritans (Matthew 10:5-6).
- “Divorced” northern kingdom tribes are found in Judea and are aware of their identity (Luke 2:36).
- The Lord ministers to what are likely “divorced” northern kingdom Israelites remaining in Samaria — who are also aware of their identity (John 4:12).
The only recourse we have is to take a consistent approach to our interpretation of Matthew 10 and 15. In both cases, the “Israel” in “lost sheep of the house of Israel” means Israel generally — all twelve tribes. If any Christians maintain that the Lord came to save only Israelites — and insist that the scope of the New Covenant would never extend further than “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” — then they must apply that standard consistently across the entire book of Matthew at the very least. Yet it cannot be applied consistently as we have already highlighted — at least not without begging the question.
The Lord Jesus did not want His disciples to go to the nations in Matthew 10:5-6 because He had not yet made the New Covenant by the shedding of His blood. After the Lord’s death and resurrection He says, “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations” (Matthew 28:19). This stands in stark contrast to, “Do not go on a road to the nations….but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 10:5-6) Indeed, now that He had died, the nations could be welcomed into the New Covenant.
But the New Covenant does not include every intelligent biped who resides within any country — but rather refers only to unmixed descendants of the Genesis 10 nations.
Does the phrase “lost sheep of the house of Israel” mean all twelve tribes — or does it mean only the tribes which make the majority constituent of the southern kingdom Israel?
If we insist that the statements in Matthew 10 and 15 prove that the Lord Jesus only ever came for Israel, then we must also conclude that He only ever came for the tribes of the southern kingdom — or else applying that same definition to Matthew 15:24 wouldn’t work.
If we conclude that it means all twelve tribes, then we must conclude that Matthew 10:5-6 also means all twelve tribes — otherwise we cannot use Matthew 15:24 as proof that the Lord Jesus only ever came for the twelve tribes of Israel.
Furthermore, if we conclude that it means all twelve tribes, then we must conclude that the Genesis 10 nations have indeed been included in the New Covenant — according to the distinction created between Israel and “the nations” in Matthew 10:5-6 — and cross-referenced with Matthew 28:19.
There’s just no way that Matthew 10:5-6 and Matthew 15:24 could prove that the scope of the New Covenant would never extend past Israel. Quite the opposite — adding in Matthew 28:19 proves that the scope of the New Covenant definitely includes the non-Israelite Genesis 10 nations. In order to conclude otherwise, we would have to knowingly interpret Matthew 10:5-6 and Matthew 15:24 with different standards — without really being able to prove why — unless we merely assumed why.
To clarify our own position more specifically, ultimately the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” does not even mean every Israelite according to the flesh who ever lived. In other words, not all Israelites are lost sheep — or even sheep to begin with — just as the Lord said to Israelites, “But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep.” (John 10:26)
Israel as a whole represents the children of the flesh, while the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” represents the children of the promise — according to Romans 9. The “lost sheep” come out of all twelve tribes of Israel, but they are not every individual from the twelve tribes of Israel — just as Revelation 7:4-8 specifies.
IMPLICATIONS ON PROPHECY CONCERNING ISRAEL
It’s not very difficult to prove that the scope of Christ’s work included only the twelve tribes of Israel during His time on earth — yet included all the Genesis 10 nations after His death. The Lord says in John 10:16,
And I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will listen to My voice; and they will become one flock, with one shepherd.
Matthew 25:31-33 refers to the one flock,
31 “But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. 32 And all the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, just as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; 33 and He will put the sheep on His right, but the goats on the left.
Those from the nations who are part of the other sheepfold — according to John 10:16 — are separated out from among their respective nations. Recall that these nations are not lands or countries — as we have explained in detail, “every tribe, language, people, and nation” (Revelation 5:9) are unmixed descendants of Noah grouped according to their common patriarchs. The Lord further qualifies the sheep as the righteous — and the goats as the unrighteous — in Matthew 25:34-46.
Yet some Christians may contend that John 10:16 necessarily refers to the bringing northern and southern kingdoms together under one ruler. After all, the Scripture says, “And the sons of Judah [the southern kingdom] and the sons of Israel [the northern kingdom] will be gathered together, And they will appoint for themselves one leader” (Hosea 1:11).
Yes, the northern and southern kingdoms will be united, but this regathering does not exclude the nations from the covenant promises. Just because the northern and southern kingdoms will be united, does not logically mean` that the nations cannot be united along with them. Simeon says in Luke 2:29-32,
29 “Now, Lord, You are letting Your bond-servant depart in peace, According to Your word; 30 For my eyes have seen Your salvation, 31 Which You have prepared in the presence of all the peoples: 32 A light for revelation for the nations, And the glory of Your people Israel.”
Yes, He will be “for the nations and….Israel.” In Romans 15:12 Paul quotes Isaiah 11:10 saying, “There shall come the root of Jesse, And He who arises to rule over the nations, In Him will the nations hope.” In Romans 15:10 Paul quotes Deuteronomy 32:43 saying, “Rejoice, you nations, with His people.”
The Lord has united the two kingdoms of Israel — and He has united those nations who have joined along with His people. They are all united together under the New Covenant — under the Lord Jesus.
Now a common practice among some Christians is to claim that when New Testament authors quote prophecy concerning Israel, it is proof that only Israelites are welcome in the New Covenant. For example, Jeremiah 31:31 says, “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.”
As we have mentioned, just because He made the “new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah” does not exclude the Genesis 10 nations from the new covenant. There’s no logical reason to make this claim — although we can certainly see how it might be appealing to someone who wanted to believe it — especially those who insist that every Israelite who ever lived will be saved unconditionally.
Yes, He did make the covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah — but where does Jeremiah 31:31 specifically exclude the nations?
Or as another example, if Paul quotes Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans 1:17 saying, “But the righteous one will live by faith,” it does not logically follow that the prophecy could only ever apply to Israelites. The nations who join Israel under the New Covenant must obviously live by the same teachings as the Israelites themselves. Paul said to Timothy — a non-Israelite (Acts 16:1) — in 2 Timothy 3:16-17,
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man or woman of God may be fully capable, equipped for every good work.
Therefore, one may quote Scripture or prophecy directed to Israelites because at the very least it will be beneficial for them. Although to take this further, the nations are literally joining Israel — thus everything which applies to Israel applies to them as well. We even have precedent for this concept as Exodus 12:49, Leviticus 24:22, Numbers 9:14, Numbers 15:16 and Numbers 15:29 all — in varying contexts — say that there must be “one law for the native among the sons of Israel and for the stranger who resides among them” (Numbers 15:29). Isaiah 56:6-8 says,
6 “Also the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord, To attend to His service and to love the name of the Lord, To be His servants, every one who keeps the Sabbath so as not to profane it, And holds firmly to My covenant; 7 Even those I will bring to My holy mountain, And make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar; For My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples.” 8 The Lord God, who gathers the dispersed of Israel, declares, “I will yet gather others to them, to those already gathered.”
Here we see explicit proof that foreigners may hold firmly to the covenant of the Israelites. The Lord will bring the nations to His holy mountain Israel — of which Ezekiel 20:40 says, “For on My holy mountain, on the high mountain of Israel…” According to Isaiah 56:8, these nations will be brought to His holy mountain over and above the gathering of the dispersed Israelites. Therefore, the gathering of the dispersed Israelites is not exclusive from the gathering of the nations to Israel. Isaiah 66:18-21 says
18 “For I know their works and their thoughts; the time is coming to gather all the nations and tongues. And they shall come and see My glory. 19 And I will put a sign among them and send survivors from them to the nations: Tarshish, Put, Lud, Meshech, Tubal, and Javan, to the distant coastlands that have neither heard of My fame nor seen My glory. And they will declare My glory among the nations. 20 Then they shall bring all your countrymen from all the nations as a grain offering to the Lord, on horses, in chariots, in litters, on mules, and on camels, to My holy mountain Jerusalem,” says the Lord, “just as the sons of Israel bring their grain offering in a clean vessel to the house of the Lord. 21 I will also take some of them as priests and Levites,” says the Lord.
If these “countrymen” from the nations are brought like a grain offering by Israelites, then these “countrymen” are something other than Israelites. After all, Israelites “were entrusted with the actual words of God” (Romans 3:2) — it is Israel’s job to bring the gospel to the nations and bring them in — just like the apostles actually did in Acts — hence why the nations are referred to as Israel’s children in Isaiah 49 and Revelation 12.
Furthermore, if the Lord will “take some of them as priests and Levites,” then this cannot be referring to Israelites. To make that statement about only Israelites would be entirely redundant — because Israel already contains priests and Levites.
Verily, everyone in the Kingdom of God — His holy mountain — whether Israelites or nations — will be priests (Revelation 1:6, 1 Peter 2:5).
As a final thought, it is never helpful in this matter to quote — out of context — Amos 3:2 which says, “You [Israel] only have I known among all the families of the earth.” Yes, He knew only Israel at that point — but then Isaiah 66:19 says,
“I will set a sign among them and will send survivors from them to the nations: Tarshish, Put, Lud, Meshech, Rosh, Tubal and Javan, to the distant coastlands that have neither heard My fame nor seen My glory. And they will declare My glory among the nations.”
In other words, here Isaiah 66:19 acknowledges that God saves those whom He had not previously revealed Himself to.
Clearly, the Genesis 10 nations as a whole — aside from a few individual exceptions like Noah, Abraham, and Issac — did not know Yahweh, the God of Israel — and He would be entirely new to them — as when Paul would witness Christ to these nations. As we have shown, the Scripture is full of prophecy showing that all the Genesis 10 nations would know God — despite not having known Him in the past.
To conclude then:
- The nations are joining Israel itself.
- The nations will serve the Lord Jesus united along with the house of Judah and the house of Israel.
- The nations will be gathered from their places over and above the regathering of the Israelites who are scattered among the nations.
- Prophecy concerning Israel is not limited to literal descendants of Israel under the New Covenant — the nations are joining Israel and therefore everything which applies to Israel applies to them as well.
- Just because God knew only Israel in the past, does not preclude Him knowing the nations in the future.
- The “nations” are unmixed descendants of Noah — not every intelligent biped who dwells in a particular country.
One variable I did not see discussed in the article or the forum is the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel. In Mark 1:15 Jesus declares the time is fulfilled and began his ministry after having been baptized in the Jordan by Juan the Baptist. The six items listed in 9:24 were fulfilled by Jesus ministry, death, and resurrection.
So, he came initially to the House of Judah and sent the disciples to them only as a fulfillment of Daniel, but quickly violated his own rule in John 4 with the Samaritan woman who was obviously a descendant of the House of Israel since she claimed the well was built by her father Jacob, and claimed knowledge of a coming Messiah that would make things right. In his ministering to both the woman and the village that invited him to stay for 3 days Christ fulfilled what Jeremiah 31:31-34 said would happen.
Subsequently, then all the nations were welcome by faith in the Gospel message.
Where does the 70 week prophecy say that Christ was supposed to come only to the house of Judah?
9th chapter of Daniel from verse 22 onward
Yes, Daniel 9:22-27 is the “70 week prophecy.” Now where in Daniel 9:22-27 does it specifically say Christ was only supposed to come for the house of Judah?
It doesn’t say anything on the subject. Just about the 70 weeks.
In Christianity alone, there were roughly 43,000 Christian denominations worldwide in 2012, and the number is expected to grow to 55,000 by 2025. Why? Because Christians can’t even agree amongst themselves who’s right and who’s wrong. Religious people suffer from the whole “I’m right and everybody else is wrong” mentality (i.e. it’s right because I believe it), which is why there are so many denominations, to begin with.
What about Judeo-Christianity, which groups Christianity and Judaism together, despite the fact that Judaism teaches that Jesus fornicated with his jackass, that his mother was a whore, and that he is now in hell being punished in boiling hot semen? What about Christian Identity, which thinks that the Anglo-Saxon, Nordic, and Aryan peoples are the descendants of the ancient Israelites? Religious people are always trying to make sense out of the nonsensical to make it fit their beliefs.
Also, keep in mind, that there are around 8 billion people on this planet, and over 5 and a half billion of them believe something different and aren’t Christians. Religion is like spiritual training wheels for children. Those much further along the spiritual path have already transcended the need for any of mankind’s petty religions.
The One is light, love, warmth, and the energy source that animates every living thing from the smallest microbe to the tallest tree. Everything comes from the One, and everything returns to the One. Or as the wisest man in the bible said: “For there is an eventuality as respects the sons of mankind and an eventuality as respects the beasts, and they have the same eventuality. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit, so that there is no superiority of the man over the beasts, for everything is vanity. All are going to one place. They have all come to be from the dust, and they are all returning to the dust. Then the dust returns to the earth just as it happened to be and the spirit itself returns to the One who gave it.” – Ecclesiastes 3:19,20 and 12:7
I think the fact that all these denominations exist among a lack of true spiritual fellowship just goes to show that we can do nothing without God.
Christ told us to follow him in spirit and truth. Anything short of that is negligable to Him, even with all biblical knowledge in our heads. Our curses don’t dissappear when we label ourselves Christians.
There are denominations that teach His ressurrection, that He is the son of God and God in the flesh, and yet perhaps in deed they do not satisfy God. Belief must be proven in ones deed and cleanness of character.
Even a denomination with great zeal and respect for law is nothing if they hate their brethren, or seek contention as a way of approving themselves.
Or shill for politicians and worldly norms. God will have His way.
You don’t realize that the situation you describe actually PROVES Christianity, rather than discrediting it.
Matthew 7,
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Matthew 24,
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
Luke 13
24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.
John 16,
2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
Yes, that’s exactly what we expect to see. Everything is going according to plan.
As I said, religious people are always trying to make sense out of the nonsensical to make it fit their beliefs. That’s exactly what you did in your reply. I wasn’t trying to prove or discredit Christianity, or any other religion. My spirituality lacks the necessary dogma that’s required to be associated with any religion. I’ve transcended religion, and therefore, have no dog in this fight. In short, not only did you completely miss the point I was making in my previous post but you also twisted it to fit your own personal religious beliefs. Also, the only reason I quoted those three particular verses from Ecclesiastes, is that out of the entire Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek scriptures, I consider those three verses to be the closest thing to the truth that the bible has to offer.
Perhaps, Robert, you might consider the difference between ‘religion’ and scripture.
Christ did not come to establish the denominations we see today. In fact, He would want us to transcend religion and follow Him in spirit. That is central to His gospel.
I urge you to give the Christian way a chance. Give yourself an ear to Christ without all the denominational baggage you have learned of clouding your conscience.
Those three verses have been given in the context of a greater argument and essay, but you’ve ripped them out of context and applied your own “truth” to them. Ecclesiastes 3:17-18,
17 I said to myself, “God will judge the righteous and the wicked,” for a time for every matter and for every deed is there. 18 I said to myself regarding the sons of mankind, “God is testing them in order for them to see that they are as animals, they to themselves.”
They are animals IF they don’t do according to the ways of God and His Logos, Christ Jesus. You’d do well to heed Solomon’s words if you insist on quoting them.
Psalm 49
12 But man in his splendor will not endure; He is like the animals that perish.
13 This is the way of those who are foolish, And of those after them who approve their words.
2 Peter 2,
12 But these, like unreasoning animals, born as creatures of instinct to be captured and killed, using abusive speech where they have no knowledge, will in the destruction of those creatures also be destroyed, 13 suffering wrong as the wages of doing wrong. They count it a pleasure to revel in the daytime. They are stains and blemishes, reveling in their deceptions as they feast with you, 14 having eyes full of adultery that never cease from sin, enticing unstable souls, having hearts trained in greed, accursed children;
The foolish and sinners will die the death of animals. That’s what Solomon was saying and David and Peter agree.
Who or what is this “One” that you speak of, Robert?
It sounds to me like you have “transcended religion” and created a religion for yourself with your own thoughts as the be all and end all. You have the knowledge, and you create the rules. Are you the “One”? That is a rather hubristic way of thinking, don’t you think?
We all must believe something. Even atheists believe something. I understand what you’re saying, and your points regarding all the denominations… however; I just want to say, and I mean this kindly: perhaps humble yourself, and ask the Lord God for help, for just coz you believe in the “One” doesn’t make the “One” true.
Now that you’ve admitted your previous error, are you going to let me comment again on this website after I denounced your error and was banned by you from this website?
That was a year ago.
I stated that the contention expressed on this website that only white people can be saved through faith in Jesus Christ is satanic, which is exactly what false teaching is.
I expect an apology and make sure you bow low.
Andrew, the article you took issue with was not necessarily our view; rather it was the view of one of Sheldon Emry’s ministers. We posted it, not because we agreed with all of it, but because it posed some important issues to consider and discuss. In fact, we have posted many articles by Sheldon Emry and Bertrand Comparet and have stated that we didn’t necessarily agree with all their points.
https://christiansfortruth.com/undoing-the-lies-of-judeo-christianity-taking-steps-back-to-reality/
To set the record straight, we left a comment explaining why you were banned. Here:
https://christiansfortruth.com/undoing-the-lies-of-judeo-christianity-taking-steps-back-to-reality/#comment-35247
To recap: you were banned not because you disagreed with any particular ideas. You were banned because you were insulting, obnoxious, hostile, and hateful toward those you disagree with. From this current comment, we can see that you have not changed, and so you are still not welcome to comment here.
I’m a little late to the thread but have a question for discussion.
Jehovah bestowed a blessing upon Israel in Gen 12:3
“I will bless those who bless you,
And the one who curses you I will curse.
And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.”
Jesus told a parable about heaven in which Jehovah separates the sheep from the goats. Throughout the old and new testament, there is only one people whom Jehovah refers to as his sheep: the Israelites. So, unless this parable is the one and only exception in the bible, the sheep referred to in the parable must be the Israelites. After separating them, this is what he says to the goats:
Matthew 25:
41 “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, you accursed people, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43 I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ 44 Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or as a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it for one of the least of these [the sheep], you did not do it for Me, either.’ 46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Is this the fulfillment of the blessing bestowed by Jehovah on Israel? It says that those people [goats] who do not aid the Israelites [sheep] when they are hungry, or thirsty, or naked, or sick, or in prison and so forth, are accursed (41) and sent into eternal punishment (46).
As with all metaphors and prophecies, just because they only applied to Israel in the Old Covenant doesn’t mean they preclude the nations in the New Covenant. Proving that prophecy only applied to Israel in the Old Covenant doesn’t actually prove anything at all. For example, obviously Israel were the only sheep of the Old Covenant — but that doesn’t preclude other sheep in the New Covenant.
Regardless, Matthew 25 is literally one such a parable where individuals from within the nations are referred to as sheep. Furthermore, we have John 10:16 — the “other fold” must be something other than Israelites.
Matthew 25:46 qualifies the sheep as “the righteous” — this cannot be referring to all Israel because Israel are mostly unrighteous. Matthew 10:40-42 offers some further insight:
For certain then, “these brethren of mine” (Matthew 25:40) will definitely include the Israelites who are righteous — the children of the promise. However, it will also include the sheep from the nations who were righteous and demonstrated love to their fellow righteous sheep. If the nations are joining Israel — which they are — then it definitely bears a Genesis 12:3 fulfillment.
If you’d like to see our views on this matter in more detail, we’d suggest starting with Will All Israel Be Saved — Or Just A Remnant? and then How Do I Know I’m An Israelite?
All of our studies can be found here: https://christiansfortruth.com/category/cft-original-studies/
Sometimes we approve comments immediately and sometimes we only get to it after a few hours. We ask for your patience in bearing with us please.
The recent comments page will give a neat feed of comments which have been recently approved: https://christiansfortruth.com/recent-comments/
You can also access it below the Latest Articles section on the home page.
John1:11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12But to all who did receive Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God—…
He came to his own. What people. The Jews (Ho Judaio) were Jesus people. Notice they did not receive Him.
Jesus was circumcised as they were base upon strictness of blood lines.
The difference between them was religious traditions and the pure word of God. the Pharisees and others followed the traditions nullifying the word of God. Jesus had no time for such even if they were flesh and blood kin. That is a great lesson for us all.
He came to His own.
To clarify a point for me, does this mean that the Centurion and his servant are acknowledged by Christ implicitly as Israelites?
Also, thanks for the bullet point recaps to reinforce what was just read in each section.
Quite the opposite — Luke 7:2-6 says,
The centurion knew the Lord Jesus would not grant him an audience because he was not an Israelite — so he sent Judean elders to ask on his behalf. The elders’ supplication tacitly admits the same. This is essentially the same situation as that of the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15.
We do plan to cover the supposed Israelite identity of Romans in depth soon.
I am confused about this, as was the concept of an Israelite known to the Centurion? Is the Centurion’s deference and comment about going under his roof due to the segregation laws that the conquering Romans allowed the Judeans to keep, as Peter mentions in Acts 10?
Is it possible that the Centurion, and even Cornelius, were Israelites? While Peter terms Cornelius a Gentile, and the Judean elders so label the Centurion by implication, would they know a member of the “Lost Tribes”?
The article mentions the woman of Asher, but she was known to be of there, and she knew the law. The line of Israelites who had gone into Europe from Asher all those centuries prior did not. If one of them had been shipped to Judea by the Romans, would Peter and the Judean Elders have been able to tell him from any other Gentile?
Acts 2:23 leaves me with the impression that they could not tell him apart as they judge a Gentile by his knowledge of the law.
I’m looking forward to the article on the Romans, thanks.
Your argument is based on what Scriptural writers are not saying — and by extension what you thought they should have been saying — or were too ignorant to say. There’s really no defense against this kind of argument, because the argument itself doesn’t prove anything in the first place.
We sincerely hope at some point you will come to realize the infinity you see between the lines of Scripture is hindering your understanding. Maybe the writers of the Scripture knew better than us — and not vice versa?
Unless you disagree on what they actually said — in which case you should quote what they said, instead of telling us what you think they didn’t say.
According to Josephus, the Romans under Titus were more grieved over what became of the temple than were the Judeans.
The temple was famous in the civilized world. Israel was known to the world.
So the centurion did not have to be an Israelite to have respect or admiration for Israel. In fact God had said “those who bless Israel are blessed.”
In Matthew 8:10, Christ compares the faith of the centurion to the faith he has found among His fellow Israelites, and He says that the centurion’s faith is greater than any among the Israelites:
“I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. 11And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.”
And then Christ goes on to prophesize that those from the nations, like Abraham and Issac, and Jacob, will join Israel. Remember at the time of his birth, Jacob was NOT yet an Israelite because if he were born an Israelite, then his twin brother Esau would have also been born an Israelite. So all three of these men were from the “nations” — the Shemitic nation — and eventually brought into the kingdom of Israel later established when Jacob’s name was changed to Israel (Matthew 8:11).
I’ve been mulling that over. The initial reading of that passage might suggest that Jesus performed a miracle on and for a Gentile to create a “teachable moment” for the Judeans he was ministering to, but that just doesn’t seem right to me as it seems to run counter to Christ saying that he was sent only unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Since he was not sent to Gentiles, would Gentiles have received a miracle from Him? That’s what I’m hung up on.
Is it possible that these Gentiles that Christ encountered were indeed Israelites by descent and Christ for whatever reason did not reveal that? On one hand, CFT has made me aware that the Spartans and Judeans were able to work together once the former discovered its lost Israelite heritage,however the Bible tells us that Peter was extremely reluctant to let go of his state-sanctioned prejudice against Gentiles, whom he seems to have defined as anyone ignorant of the laws of Judea.
Unless you’re going to argue that the Canaanite woman — who’s daughter Christ miraculously healed — was also an Israelite, then you needn’t be hung up on that point.
My question is the same for her as it is for the Centurion.
Of the 4 people in question (woman, daughter, Centurion, servant), which if any were Israelites?
If none, then why, and how do we know?
If none of them were, then why did Christ perform miracles for those 4 while largely avoiding the Gentiles otherwise?
There’s a difference between healing people and saving people, I suppose. The non-Israelites (people from the Genesis nations) whom Christ encountered, like the centurion and the Canaanite woman, wouldn’t have been saved or redeemed until after His death. Christ really doesn’t bring the gospel to these people either. He’s using these people to show His fellow Israelites that they need to up their game, as it were, because these non-Israelites show more faith in HIm than they do. His encounters with them are for completely different purposes from His commands to His apostles. I don’t see how He’s violating his own rules for His apostles here….
It’s important to understand that Judea at the time of Christ, and the entire Near East for that matter, was largely populated by people from the Genesis 10 nations. Israelites would have been a minority. So when the apostles received their commission to take the gospel first only to Israelites, it would have been impossible to avoid entirely non-Israelites in the process, just as Christ made clear to them with the examples of the Roman centurion and the Canaanite woman.
The apostles would have known which neighborhoods of Judea and surrounding towns were centers of Israelites, and which were not, just as in American cities 100 years ago, everyone knew which parts of the city were German, Polish, Jewish, Irish, etc. But it was never cut and dry by tribal affiliation. Wherever you went, you would have no choice but to interact with non-Israelite people.
A most thought provoking essay, CFT.
Question for all:
If Ekklisia translates to the called out ones, what are they called out from? The Nations of Gen 10, Israel, or both?
I was wondering as I’m sure a lot of people, like me, have family members and mates, that no matter how much hear God’s word, just don’t want to know. They are deaf to the Word. They may be good people and fit the criteria of a true Christian, but they just don’t follow Him. Are they not called out? Were they predestined from before they were born to never be called out?
Called out from the world to do His work in spirit.
I would make a bold statement: even the bible is not our authority. God is. Plenty of men study the word but as is clearly evident, the printed word fails to unify our folk in Christ. I am not saying the word is useless, just that the menu is not the meal, the map is not the beaten path we must walk.
God’s direct interaction with man is man’s beginning with Him.
Amen, there’s no doubt that God is our authority. Although Jesus said that he who is faithful in little is faithful in much; and he who is unrighteous in little is unrighteous in much (Luke 16:10). We are able to read God’s words, the words of His Son and the words of His apostles. That is a great gift… And it’s His direct words to us i.e. Direct interaction.
When Josiah found the book of the law, he made a covenant to keep the words of God (2 Kings 22-23). The Bible says in great darkness, punishment and apostacy, if we seek Him with all our heart, we will find Him (Deu 4:29, Jer 29:13). Although people can’t even muster the will to read the great gift we have in the Bible. Josiah would rise up against us in judgement, because we have a much greater book than what he did.
We can’t even give all of our time to God at a bare minimum, to study and to pray. We think to give God a little bit here and there is enough. We are unrighteous with little, so we would be unrighteous with much. So many of us are too busy with our lives, not being faithful with what we have. But we still want to FEEL righteous, we want to FEEL better than others, so we find a short-cut… A path around the Bible straight to God.
It’s like feminists who want to be like the judge and prophetess Deborah. They don’t consider the kind of woman Deborah was that God might have bestowed that honor on her. Was she a loving, meek and submissive wife to her husband? Every teaching in the Bible on women indicates that she must have been to have received that honor. Likely she was faithful with little, so God gave her more. But women of today don’t want to be faithful in their duty as women… They want to bypass that and get a quick fix of self-righteousness. They want to go straight to being judges and prophetesses just like Deborah without ever having been faithful with little… So they never even learn what it means to be a Godly woman.
We spend time watching tv, playing sports, socializing, enjoying our hobbies, etc. We haven’t been faithful with little. Time is the most basic thing we have to be faithful with and we should spend it with the gift that we have… The Bible. We have become lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God (2 Tim 3:4) If we want to be spiritual, prophets or teachers, we can’t jump straight there without the Bible, because we’ll never have learned what it means to be a Christian. We have to first show that we’re diligent to make the most we have with what we’ve got.
What we’ve got is the Bible. The Bible is the word of God. We can’t hope to have words from God outside of the Bible if we haven’t even mastered the Bible first. Paul said “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” (1 Cor 14:37) We can’t be prophets or spiritual if we can’t even call to mind the commandments of the Lord… The word of God. I find that those most likely to question the authority of the Bible are those who are most inconvenienced by the Bible’s words.
I propose then, that no-one may claim any failure on the part of the Bible unless they give all their time to its study. If we bypass the Bible without giving it the attention it deservers, we are bypassing the word of God. Yes, we must provide and care for ourselves and our families, but we all know just how much time we waste outside of those things.
I agree. I certainly did not mean to imply that the bible fails.
But it is as you pointed out. Man tries and yet in even a little he errs greatly. I think until Christ tries a man and takes from him – as He took everything from Paul for example – man is unable to truly be in His service.
It is no surprise then that so many denominations, sects etc exist and so little unity is found therein. It takes time and endurance of trials.
So i think I have erred in the past when i put the authority on my supposed knowledge of scripture, without realizing that God would try me more directly. That until He is satisfied that i am worthy of justification, all my knowledge is in vain.
Sometimes people have authority over themselves, but the authority is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. If only they could read the Bible without having their minds violated by the wolf, they could see the wolf for what it is.
Will we be justified before we stand before Him one day? Who can tell? There’s probably no way to tell in advance. We’re all going to annoy one another in the mean time. And we’re all going to have to put up with one another while ourselves and those around us are refined and tried. Problems happen when people see their own refinement as completed before such time as God justifies them, so they think everyone else needs to be refined… not themselves.
Peace and contentment is something we strive for… I don’t think it’ll be handed to us. We have to realize that the annoyance and anger bubbling inside us needs to take a back seat. We have to bite hard on the bit and let the word of God guide us… Like Romans 12. When we take nothing personally and we overlook personal issues with our brethren, we play a sanctifying work in their lives. We all need sanctification… and we all need to be the sanctifier.
I think it’s as simple as Isaiah 43:7,
Everyone who is called by My name, And whom I have created for My glory, Whom I have formed, even whom I have made.
God created Israel specifically to return the nations to worship him. These nations had been cast out to serve other gods at Babel. Israel sinned, failed their mission and except for a remnant of the House of Judah where dispersed among the nations. Jesus Christ was sent to atone for Israel’s sin and provide a way for Israel to complete their mission.
To know where the descendants of Israel have been ‘sifted’ for two millennium, we only have to study which people’s fulfilled the great commission to bring the gospel to the world – the mostly European nations of Christendom and their subsequent colonies.
Who does Jer 31:33,34 apply to?
I think the Lost Tribes were only scattered amongst “Shemites,” nations that were similar to them racially, but differed culturally, but I do not believe in this Adamic vs non-Adamic stuff.
In my opinion, if you do not have a united Israel, a physical “kingdom of God,” then no other nation can be grafted in to that promise. So the first step in the commission is to unite Israel as one nation, as was promised.
Dan wrote, “In my opinion, if you do not have a united Israel, a physical “kingdom of God,” then no other nation can be grafted in to that promise”
Interesting, but I thought we were interested in what the Bible says on this issue, not your “opinion”, unless your opinion can be supported with scripture. Please show us where your opinion is supported by scripture.
……but I do not believe in this Adamic vs non-Adamic stuff……..”
Be more specific Dan. Are you saying the 4 primary people groups — White, black, yellow and red —- all come from Adam and Eve?
If YES ……………. please explain.
Dan, its troubling that people that hold an fleshly view of the kingdom struggle to reconcile the following fact. Luke 17: 21. – Neither shall they say, Lo here: or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
The kingdom of God was in there midst and yet the fleshly Jews knew nothing of it. The time had come for true worshippers to worship in spirit and in truth. The shadow covenant was an example of the spiritual realities now present.
Jesus was equally clear My kingdom is not of this world. Yet it is present and a reality that cannot be seen with fleshly eyes.
To argue that the “gentiles” or “nations” are Israelites makes a complete mockery of the Bible, and completely ignores all the OT prophecies that clearly state that the nations will join Israel and share in the promises. Nowhere in the Old Testament does the term “nations” mean Israelites. Nowhere. Who believes this stuff? I feel sorry for them.
“And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.” ( Matthew 8:11)
So if only Israelites can be saved, how exactly do non-Israelites Abraham and Issac get into the kingdom of heaven?
This verse along disproves the specious notion that only Israel shall be saved.
Agreed.
And who is this other Nation?
“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.” Matthew 21:43
Although I was part of that “thinking” for a moment, the Matthew 21 verse made me very uncomfortable declaring it. I remember saying such to people and hoping they wouldn’t quote Matthew 21, as I had no reply.
The “Nations” (Gentiles) being the Genesis 10 Nations — Abraham’s cousins — makes perfect and total sense to me.
That’s right, Matthew 21:43 cannot possibly mean that the kingdom of God will be taken from Israelites and given to other Israelites. It makes even less sense if you foolishly believe that only Israelites will be in the kingdom. This verse shows 2 things: not all Israelites will make it into the kingdom, and those who are righteous among the nations will be in the kingdom. This isn’t rocket science.
They probably have some kind of answer for it, but the point is that they constantly have to give you some “explanation” why the verse means something other than what the plain words say.
I’d love to hear their explanation of how the Israelites are ever called “goyim” in the Bible….how can they make that case with a straight face?
This is a great question Westwins. The answer is very obvious.
1 Peter 2:
9But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, to proclaim the virtues of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light. 10Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.…
This says you were not a people. Its a people receiving mercy.
It calls them a holy nation.
Why that is the church – a priesthood of God.
Remember my kingdom is not of this world.
I think these ancient titles now applied to gentiles is proof that Gods holy nation is the true church.
Called out of darkness into light. A light shone in darkness and the darkness did not understand. Do you now understand.
Thanks confession.
But Matthew 21:43 is said, by Matthew 21:45, to be talking about taking the kingdom of God from the “chief priests and the Pharisees”.
It’s clear that the Pharisees were stripped of the kingdom of God. I would say that Christendom picked up that title, but then my question regarding Matthew 21:43 would be “What ‘nation’ from Genesis 10 is Christendom?”
My understanding is that Christendom is comprised of Israelites and whoever else from Genesis 10 has survived. It seems to me that not very many of those nations have endured. On that, does Isaiah 43:3 tell us that Mizraim/Egypt, Cush, and Seba were entirely wiped out?
Overall, I believe Matthew 21:43 is being taken beyond its context. But if we consider it in that expanded context, what nation was given the kingdom of God and if/when was the kingdom of God transferred in turn from them to Christendom?
Can the writers at CFT give a hint or tell us as to who these “Some Christian circles hold the position that the Lord Jesus came to save only the twelve tribes of Israel” might be? Such a broad statement. Thanks
A simple Google search will probably answer your question — there are a number of people and groups who hold these views in one form or another. As we’ve said in the past, we do not want our work to be a cult of personality. We prefer people to focus on the ideas and judge them as such, on their own terms.
It doesn’t really matter who believes or promotes certain doctrines — we are interested only in scrutinizing the doctrine rather than the personalities associated with them, as people all too often end up engaging in ad hominem arguments or false appeals to authority. Arguments should stand or fall based on their own merit — and that should be our focus.
I understand all that. But you still did not answer my. Who are these people/circles you are referring to? Going into along dissertation does my pointed question. “We prefer people to focus on the ideas and judge them as such, on their own terms”. Then for those who want a complete picture to arrive at their own conclusion/judgement, then please tell me who these circles are. Is that such an unreasonable request?
Our experience with this doctrine comes from Dual Seedline Christian Identity.
As CFT said, Duel Seedline Christian Identity hold the ALL ISRAEL IS SAVED doctrine. Kingdom Identity is sometimes another name for the same groups, I think.
Basically, anyone who supports the notion that todays jews come from Cain, and the Edomites, and are a direct line from the devil himself, hold the ideas CFT are talking about.
You will know DSCI when you find it as they’re always full of hate, and anyone who crosses them is called a “JEW!” You’ll also know when you’ve found DSCI because everything has to be analyzed and explained in minute detail to make all the pieces fit together and make some vague form of sense.
Unfortunately for them, they place themselves in the hands of select men who decide what everyone is to believe.
More grievous still, said men seem to be shameless enough to steer many in the 2sl camp away from this and other sites proposing alternate takes on scripture, by claiming that sites like this one, and others, advocate universalism.
Despite olive branches and explanations to the contrary, they persist.
It is one thing to disagree, but it is another thing to falsify a brother for position. I only hope those still under 2sl doctrine make the initial effort to do better than those men whom they have put trust in, and instead trust their own conscience. If they did I think many would realize how obvious the views expressed in this article are in light of scripture, and that there is no universalism being advocated.
Problem is it is hard to reach a man locked in a room, so to speak.