Those who believe that all Israelites according to the flesh are saved — and only Israelites according to the flesh are saved — always use Amos 3:2 to support their arguments,
You only have I known among all the families of the earth; Therefore I will punish you for all your wrongdoing.
They will argue that at the time of the prophecy of Amos — about 750 BC — the Lord had known only Israel among all the families of the earth — therefore, the Lord will only ever know Israel among all the families of the earth. According to their argument, this verse constitutes “smoking gun” evidence of their doctrinal beliefs.
However, just a cursory critique of this line of reasoning will suffice to debunk the view: Why is it that the Lord having known only Israel at that point in history necessarily means He will ever know only Israel forevermore? Since there is no logical reason to believe this within the verse itself, Amos 3:2 does not at all constitute prima facie evidence that God will ever save only Israelites.
For this reason, this usage of Amos 3:2 appeals only to those who wanted to believe that only Israel will be saved in the first place. When we accept erroneous logic based only on what we want to believe, we tend to suspend and disable the logical faculties of our reasoning towards that end.
That being said — having addressed the central point — and the matter all but resolved — we will continue to study Amos 3:2 in more detail and provide a counterargument. In other words, what does Amos 3:2 really mean within the context of the New Covenant and other peoples whom the Lord didn’t previously know?
PROVOKED TO ANGER WITH A FOOLISH NATION
First, let us reinforce our critique above by considering the grammar of the verse. In the Hebrew Masoretic text, “have I known” was written in the perfect tense. Now ancient Hebrew tenses did not relate to time — as with modern English — but rather they related to whether an action was completed or not. Perfect tense means the action was completed — while imperfect tense means the action is incomplete — or ongoing.
In the Greek Septuagint, “have I known” was written in the indicative mood and aorist tense. When rendered as such, the verb becomes past tense — such as “knew.” Most translations acknowledge this and render it in the past tense in English.
Thus we can be perfectly sure that Amos 3:2 does not mean, “You only will I ever know” — except to those who want it to say that. The verb for “know” definitely refers to a past event at the time Amos received his prophecy. Now let’s consider what it means to “have known” Israel out of the families of the earth. Amos 3:1-2 says,
1 Hear this word which the Lord has spoken against you, sons of Israel, against the entire family which He brought up from the land of Egypt: 2 “You only have I known among all the families of the earth; Therefore I will punish you for all your wrongdoing.”
Amos 3:1 qualifies what it means to have known Israel in verse 2 when it said, “the entire family which He brought up from the land of Egypt.” Likewise, Deuteronomy 4:34-35 says,
34 Or has a god ventured to go to take for himself a nation from within another nation by trials, by signs and wonders, by war, by a mighty hand, by an outstretched arm, and by great terrors, just as the Lord your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes? 35 You were shown these things so that you might know that the Lord, He is God; there is no other besides Him.
God knew Israel by taking them out of Egypt and giving them the Law of Moses in the wilderness — making them His personal cherubim — or the executors of His will. Now we see a causal link found in Amos 3:2: considering God knew Israel by taking them out of Egypt and giving them the Law of Moses in the wilderness, He will therefore punish them accordingly for all of their wrongdoing.
The Law of Moses specifically warns Israel of many punishments if they do not keep that law. We can see one such punishment in Deuteronomy 32:21,
They have made Me jealous with what is not God; They have provoked Me to anger with their idols. So I will make them jealous with those who are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation
In Israel’s relationship with God, He is their God and they are His people — just as Exodus 6:7 says, “Then I will take you as My people, and I will be your God…” In this rather poetic punishment, the logic goes that Israel would make God jealous and provoke Him to anger with idolatry — something which should not be considered God or actual gods. Moreover, God should have been their god — not other gods.
Therefore, in order to bring Israel back to Him, God will make Israel jealous and provoke them to jealousy with a people who should not be considered a people — and who shouldn’t have been God’s people. According to Deuteronomy 32:21, God would specifically punish Israel by making “them jealous with those who are not a people” and provoking “them to anger with a foolish nation.”
EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD
Paul quotes this very verse in Romans 10:19, but let’s start a little earlier with Paul’s words in verses 12-13,
12 For there is no distinction between Judean and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13 for “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Paul has established the context of his own argument — he means to prove that there is no distinction between Judean and Greek — Israelites and non-Israelites — and that “the same Lord is Lord of all.” When he says that there is no distinction between Judean and Greek, he qualifies the statement by saying that “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
When he says “everyone,” we take him to actually mean “everyone.” Those who believe that only Israelites are saved would interpret this as saying, “everyone out of Israel who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Yet they are begging the question — and they presume the verse means something other than what the words actually say. The Bible never actually says that only Israel would be saved. Conversely, we are content to merely accept it for what it says — “everyone” means all legitimate descendants of Adam and Eve.
In verse 13 Paul was quoting Joel 2:32,
And it will come about that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord Will be saved; For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem There will be those who escape, Just as the Lord has said, Even among the survivors whom the Lord calls.
Those who believe that only Israelites are saved would argue that Joel 2:32 was written only to Israelites — therefore, Paul must be talking to only Israelites — a logical error we have addressed in the past. Furthermore — as we have also explained previously, we must always consider Obadiah 1:15-17 when we read Joel 2:32,
15 “For the day of the Lord is near for all the nations. Just as you have done, it will be done to you. Your dealings will return on your own head. 16 For just as you drank on My holy mountain, All the nations will drink continually. They will drink to the last drop, And become as if they had never existed. 17 But on Mount Zion there will be those who escape, And it will be holy. And the house of Jacob will possess their property.
Obadiah relates to us the destruction of the Genesis 10 nations — calling them “all the nations.” Then it says that they will become as if they had never existed — meaning the nations will cease to exist. After telling us they will cease to exist, it says that there will be those of the nations who escape to Mount Zion.
Verse 17 makes clear to us that “those who escape” are the nations — not the Israelites — because Obadiah says that “the house of Jacob will possess their property.” If “the house of Jacob” — meaning all twelve tribes of Israel — will “possess their property,” then that same “their” must refer to something other than Israel. That conclusion is simply inescapable.
The passage already referred to “all the nations” more than once — therefore, from two distinct angles within the same passage we can conclude that “those who escape” are “all the nations” — not “the house of Jacob.”
We’d also like to note the thought-for-thought translation in the NASB above — as opposed to the more literal translation of Obadiah 1:16-17 in the KJV,
16 For as ye have drunk upon my holy mountain, so shall all the heathen drink continually, yea, they shall drink, and they shall swallow down, and they shall be as though they had not been. 17 But upon mount Zion shall be deliverance, and there shall be holiness; and the house of Jacob shall possess their possessions.
More modern translations render “deliverance” as “those who escape” for good reason — although they really mean the same thing. If the nations will become “as though they had not been” (v16), then the “deliverance” (v17) which follows could only be deliverance from that destruction. Moreover, verse 16 is literally addressing the nations when it says, “For as ye have drunk…” In other words, the nations may escape from — or be delivered from — their due punishment and destruction if they place themselves on mount Zion in holiness.
We now have three reasons to believe that Joel 2:32 was not referring only to Israel:
- Paul said that there is no distinction between Judean and Greek
- “Everyone” is a term which does not exclude anyone
- Cross-referencing Obadiah 1:17, some of the survivors — or those delivered — on Mount Zion in Joel 2:32 would definitely not be Israelites
Therefore — given Paul’s use of Joel 2:32 — and his own wording in Romans 10:12 — we can say for sure that Paul’s discourse which followed in Romans 10:14-21 — including his quote of Deuteronomy 32:21 in verse 19 — was definitely not limited to Israel itself. Paul was definitely talking about Israel and the Genesis 10 nations.
When Paul continues in his argument, we must remember that when he refers to “they,” he is referring to “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord” (Romans 10:13).
Then Paul says in Romans 10:14-15,
14 How then are they to call on Him in whom they have not believed? How are they to believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? 15 But how are they to preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!”
Here Paul gives us a syllogistic string to support his argument in verses 12-13:
- For anyone to call on God, they must first believe the message
- For anyone to believe a message, they must first hear the message
- For anyone to hear the message, there must be a preacher to preach it
- For there to be a preacher to preach it, a preacher must be sent
Then Paul quotes Isaiah 52:7 — “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things” — and we should briefly point out that Isaiah 52:10 says,
The Lord has bared His holy arm In the sight of all the nations, So that all the ends of the earth may see The salvation of our God.
The very scope of Isaiah 52 includes salvation to the ends of the earth — in the sight of all the nations. Paul continues in Romans 10:16-17,
16 However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
Here we find further context for Paul’s syllogism: “The word of Christ” was the preacher who was sent. Christ preached the message and so they were able to hear it. Some believed Christ and so they called on God in faith from hearing the word of Christ.
Yet Paul uses Isaiah 53:1 — “Lord, who has believed our report” — to prove that merely hearing Christ’s word does not guarantee that one would call on God in faith. In other words, some people heard the report and didn’t believe it. Not everyone calls on God in faith — despite having heard the Preacher — proving again that not all Israelites are saved.
Romans 10:18-19,
18 But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? On the contrary: “Their voice has gone out into all the earth, And their words to the ends of the world.” 19 But I say, surely Israel did not know, did they? First Moses says, “I will make you jealous with those who are not a nation, With a foolish nation I will anger you.”
Here Paul specifically argues that “they” — “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord” — could not possibly be limited to Israel. Paul asks a rhetorical question — “surely they have never heard, have they?” He implies that the reader may suspect that “they” might include a portion of people who had in fact not heard the message of the Preacher. To answer his own question, Paul then quotes Psalm 19:4 showing that everyone must hear the message, because it must go “out into all the earth” and “the ends of the world.” Therefore, there cannot be anyone of the “generations of Adam” who has never heard.
If Paul meant us to take “they” in verse 18 as only Israel, then why would he say “surely Israel did not know, did they”? If “they” meant only Israel, then he could just as well have continued to say “surely they did not know, did they?” Thus Paul creates a distinction between “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord” and Israel by virtue of specifically naming Israel in verse 19.
Paul begins verse 19 with the Greek word “alla” (Strong’s G235) — which, according to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon means, “other things namely, than those just mentioned.” Strong’s Concordance says, “otherwise, on the other hand, but.” Therefore, Paul’s logic in verse 19 is referring to something other than what was just mentioned.
In other words, when Paul says “Israel did not know,” he means to say that the message having gone out into all the world was something other than what Israel knew. If Israel did not know, then he must be referring to a message which went out to something other than Israel. Thus when Paul quotes Deuteronomy 32:21, the “foolish nation” could refer only to something other than Israel.
Moreover, “Israel” could not refer to only a subset of Israelites — because the term “Israel” — unless it is specifically qualified — refers to all twelve tribes. Therefore again, when Moses says “I will make you jealous,” he could be referring only to all Israel — because Paul preceded the quote by saying, “surely Israel did not know.” If the jealousy belongs to the twelve tribes of Israel, then those who are “not a nation” must be something other than Israel or a subset of Israel.
NOT A PEOPLE
Those who claim that only Israelites are saved may turn to Hosea 1:11 which says,
Yet the number of the sons of Israel Will be like the sand of the sea, Which cannot be measured or counted; And in the place Where it is said to them, “You are not My people,” It will be said to them, “You are the sons of the living God.”
They conflate “sons of Israel” (Hosea 1:11) with the “house of Israel” (Hosea 1:6). Thus they believe that Hosea 1:11 is a prophecy about the house of Israel specifically. They will say that though the house of Israel will be like the sand of the sea after their deportations by Assyria, they will still be call God’s people later.
First — and most clearly — the “sons of Israel” and the “house of Israel” do not refer to the same thing. The “sons of Israel” represents all twelve tribes of Israel — not merely the northern kingdom house of Israel. If that were the case, verse 11 would have actually said “house of Israel.” Furthermore, God said to Abraham in Genesis 22:17 and Genesis 32:12 that He would multiply Abraham’s descendants — all twelve tribes of Israel, not just the northern kingdom — as the sand of the seashore. We have further witness in Isaiah 10:21-22,
21 A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God. 22 For though your people, Israel, may be like the sand of the sea, Only a remnant within them will return; A destruction is determined, overflowing with righteousness.
Here Isaiah prophecies to all twelve tribes of Israel — the remnant of Jacob — that they will be as the sand of the sea. The sand of the sea prophecy always refers to all Israel — and Hosea 1:11 speaks of the “sons of Israel” — not the “house of Israel.”
Next they will claim that the phrase “not My people” could refer only to the allegedly divorced northern kingdom of the house of Israel — as opposed to the Genesis 10 nations . They will then say that “not a people” in Deuteronomy 32:21 could refer only to the house of Israel, because “not My people” refers to the house of Israel.
Given that “sons of Israel” refers to all twelve tribes, this interpretation has already been cut short of proceeding to this point — however, let’s continue under hypothetical concession that “sons of Israel” could mean the same thing as the “house of Israel.”
The error in this reasoning lies in incorrectly interpreting the meaning behind Hosea’s third child — “Lo-ammi” — or “not my people.” Hosea 1:6-9 says,
6 Then she conceived again and gave birth to a daughter. And the Lord said to him, “Name her Lo-ruhamah, for I will no longer take pity on the house of Israel, that I would ever forgive them. 7 But I will take pity on the house of Judah and save them by the Lord their God, and will not save them by bow, sword, battle, horses, or horsemen.” 8 When she had weaned Lo-ruhamah, she conceived and gave birth to a son. 9 And the Lord said, “Name him Lo-ammi, because you are not My people, and I am not your God.”
They have assumed that when Hosea 1:9 says, “you are not My people, and I am not your God,” that the passage is referring specifically to the northern kingdom house of Israel. Yet where does it say that? According to Hosea’s second child — “Lo-ruhamah” — God would not pity the house of Israel while He would pity the house of Judah.
There’s nothing to logically suggest that “not being pitied” necessarily means that they would become “not a people.” Jeremiah 13:14 says of Judah and Jerusalem, “I will not have compassion nor be troubled nor take pity so as to keep from destroying them.” Does that mean that God will make Judah “not a people” because He didn’t pity them? No, not pitying the house of Judah (Jeremiah 13:14) and the house of Israel (Hosea 1:6) means simply that they would be conquered.
The house of Israel was conquered in the Assyrian invasions (2 Kings 17) while the house of Judah was spared (2 Kings 18-19) — fulfilling Hosea 1:6-7. Sometime after the Assyrian invasions, God no longer had pity on the house of Judah — and so they were conquered by the Babylonians. If we were to conclude that the house of Israel were divorced due to Hosea 1:6-7, then we must conclude that the house of Judah was also divorced according to Jeremiah 13:14.
Therefore, we must conclude that Hosea’s third child — who represents “not My people” — symbolizes something other than the house of Israel and the house of Judah — because at no point did either of them become “not My people.” In other words, those who believe that only Israelites are saved have concluded the logical opposite of what they should have.
What we can then logically conclude is that if Paul quoted Hosea 1:10 — and “not My people” couldn’t refer to any Israelites — then Paul simply couldn’t have been talking about Israelites. This conclusion harmonizes with the rest of our interpretation because — as we have already shown in Romans 10:19 — Paul was literally comparing Israelites with non-Israelites.
If the matter weren’t sure enough, Romans 10:20-21 continues,
20 And Isaiah is very bold and says, “I was found by those who did not seek Me, I revealed Myself to those who did not ask for Me.” 21 But as for Israel, He says, “I have spread out My hands all day long to a disobedient and obstinate people.”
Here Paul quotes Isaiah 65:1 in verse 20 and Isaiah 65:2 in verse 21. Those who believe that only Israelites are saved argue that both verses must be referring to Israelites — despite the fact that Paul emphatically tells us that each verse speaks of a different people when he opens verse 21 with, “But as for Israel”. If he had to qualify verse 21 as addressed to Israel, then it logically follows that verse 20 simply could not addressed to Israel.
Moreover, the context of Isaiah 65:1-2 alone shows us that verses 1 and 2 must have been referring to different peoples. In the midst of God’s exasperation and pronounced judgments against Israel (Isaiah 65:1-7), He permitted himself to be found by those who didn’t seek Him.
How could God spread His hands out to an obstinate people yet simultaneously let Himself be found by them? The prophecy simply doesn’t make any sense if verses 1 and 2 refer to the same people.
According to Paul, God allowed Himself to be found by those who did not seek Him specifically because He had spread His “hands all day long to a disobedient and obstinate people.” This perfectly aligns with Deuteronomy 32:21 which we’ll quote again,
They have made Me jealous with what is not God; They have provoked Me to anger with their idols. So I will make them jealous with those who are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation,
Yes, He made Israel jealous and provoked them to anger specifically because they made Him jealous and provoked Him to anger with their idols — a direct violation of the first and second Commandments.
As the final nail in the coffin, Paul follows his argument in Romans 11:1 by saying, “I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He?” Yet those who believe that only Israelites are saved claim Paul’s entire argument in Romans 10 was all about God bringing the house of Israel back into the covenants — because He had indeed rejected His people.
If that were the case, why in the world would Paul feel the need to reassure his audience that Israel had not been rejected?
It should be clear by now that’s simply not the case. Paul needed to reassure his audience — whom we have previously identified as both Israelites and non-Israelites — that Israel had not been rejected because he had just made the argument that God brought in the Genesis 10 nations because of Israel’s own failure. Just as Paul says in Romans 11:11,
I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? Far from it! But by their wrongdoing salvation has come to the nations, to make them jealous.
Ultimately, then, we can conclude that if Israel were to be punished according to the Law of Moses (Amos 3:2) — then that punishment necessarily means that God would have to know other non-Israelite people according to Deuteronomy 32:21.
CONCLUSION — PAUL’S WITNESS
That being said, we will leave off with something to consider in Paul’s works from Acts 14:16-17:
16 In past generations He permitted all the nations to go their own ways; 17 yet He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good and gave you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness.
Note how here Paul says “all the nations” — meaning all of the Genesis 10 nations — and those who believe only Israelites are saved will readily acknowledge this fact. Why then did God leave Himself a witness for them if His goal was never to know them? What could that witness possibly have been for?
If He had known only Israel (Amos 3:2) — yet specifically planned to bring the Genesis 10 nations in as punishment for Israel’s failure (Deuteronomy 32:21) — then doesn’t it stand to reason that He would leave a witness to those nations?
Now those who claim only Israelites are saved will surprisingly claim that Paul didn’t preach Christ to the nations in Acts 14:16-17. Yet in verse 15 — immediately prior — Paul says to them,
Men, why are you doing these things? We are also men, of the same nature as you, preaching the gospel to you, to turn from these useless things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything that is in them.
If those who say that only Israelites are saved admit that Paul spoke with the nations in Acts 14 — and Paul definitely preached the gospel to them according to verse 15 — then they tacitly admit that the gospel must have come to non-Israelites — thus contradicting their own premise. If the gospel came to non-Israelites, then it came to them despite God having known only Israel at a prior point in time (Amos 3:2).
At my age the words ‘Judean as well as Greek’ reads as ethnically the same people. Nations means the same thing, lost children of Israel.
I’m having a slight hangup with Hosea 1:11.
How is its promise of innumerable descendants reconciled with the Bible telling us of censuses taken on these descendants (Numbers 1:2 etc), and with us today knowing through modern censuses that the possible amount of Israelites on Earth today is <=11.5% of the world's population?
There are a few instances in the OT where the promises were already considered to have been fulfilled (Deu 1:10, 10:22, 28:62, 1 Kings 3:8, 4:20).
Though Isaiah says, “Though the number of the sons of Israel may be like the sand of the sea, only the remnant will be saved” (Isa 10:22, Rom 9:27).
Abraham’s “seed” is reckoned in Christ (Galatians 3:16) as well as all those who have a true faith in Him (Galatians 3:14).
In the end, the nations who follow Christ are without number (Revelation 7:9). In its final fulfillment, this reconciles Hosea 1:11 and Isaiah 10:22/Romans 9:27.
You cannot prove the macro from one or more micros. I admit to pulling this crap myself in the past, but the longer I live and the more I connect the dots of overall content and especially context, the picture gets clearer and clearer.
I recently began and now am almost done with a systematic re-reading starting with Isaiah – through the rest of the OT prophets and then concluding with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – it becomes quite clear who the Pharisees are – the children of DaFather of Lies!
John said that the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has been sinning from the beginning… By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God. (1 John 3)
Christ said in John 8:44, “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father.”
So anyone who practices sin is a child of the devil, not just a few specific Pharisees whom Christ addressed in John 8, right?
Everyone is a sinner. But to repent and to avoid new sins is a duty.
Luke 15:7 (KJB):
Pharisees preach duties regarded as a sin in itself according to the Christ.
Matthew 23:13, 36 (KJB):
Indeed, and if we don’t see it as our duty to avoid sin and purify ourselves just as He is pure, then we are children of the devil. If we continue to PRACTICE SIN, then we are children of the devil.
The way certain (not all) Pharisees taught and acted, if people followed their teaching they would become children of hell. They would join them in becoming children of the devil, because the Pharisees would nullify the laws of God with their teaching.
Modern Pharisees will also turn us from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ, which is to purify ourselves just as He is pure and to love our brethren.
What the Christ said in Matthew 23:13, 36 is that, in itself, the moral preached by Pharisees is a moral preaching sin. As I understand it (and I wish I’d been explained how it would be understood in a different way), a Pharisee can avoid sins only by rejecting Pharisees’ preachings. By being no more a Pharisee.
Also : I don’t remember a locus where the Christ said that any sinner becomes by his sins the son of the devil; I understand from everything I can remember that the Pharisees, according to Jesus, were a sin-preaching sect (and thus, I assume, special sinners; from that only can be understood he called them, and them only, sons of the devil).
So it’s because of their moral, their hypocrite moral (Jesus used the word hypocrite), that they were to be sinners from the very fact they respected the Pharisees’ teachings. If they didn’t, they weren’t Pharisees anymore.
Where is it written else, please? And on what point?
“a Pharisee can avoid sins only by rejecting Pharisees’ preachings. By being no more a Pharisee.”
“Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.” (1 John 3:4) “through the Law comes knowledge of sin.” (Romans 3:20) We sin if we break the Law, because the Law is how we identify sin. A Pharisee would do well to reject their teaching, but rejecting Pharisaical teaching would not mean rejecting sin itself. They would have to let go of their own teaching which nullifies the Law (Mark 7:13), then take a knew teaching according to the true knowledge of Christ.
“I don’t remember a locus where the Christ said that any sinner becomes by his sins the son of the devil”
That’s why I quoted 1 John 3 in my original reply: https://christiansfortruth.com/does-amos-32-prove-god-will-ever-only-know-israelites-and-only-israelites-can-be-saved/#comment-83194
John said that “the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has been sinning from the beginning…” (1 John 3:8) “By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God.” (1 John 3:10)
We know who are children of the devil and who are children of God, because we look at who practices sin and who does not practice sin. That is the principle which John gives us.
Christ said in John 8:44, “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning”. Same thing as Satan was a sinner from the beginning (1 John 3:8). They want to do the desires of their father the devil. They want to practice sin. Therefore they are of their father the devil.
What made Pharisees children of the devil is the same thing which makes anyone else children of the devil. The Pharisees were practitioners of sin.
I was wrong and you are right: the wording of 1 John 3:8 is exactly yours.
But on the other point, yet I don’t understand why you say this: « What made Pharisees children of the devil is the same thing which makes anyone else children of the devil. The Pharisees were practitioners of sin. » Jesus said (cf. supra: Mat. 23:13, 36) that they taught a moral preaching sin. So, what I understand is that they can’t avoid sin if they remain in the Pharisees’ sect.
Re-reading your comment, I see you almost answered there my question: « A Pharisee would do well to reject their teaching, but rejecting Pharisaical teaching would not mean rejecting sin itself. They would have to let go of their own teaching which nullifies the Law (Mark 7:13), then take a knew teaching according to the true knowledge of Christ. »
I think it’s not only that he’d do well to reject the Pharisees’ teachings, but rather that he can’t avoid to sin without rejecting that traditional means to counter the Law.
But to do so is to leave that sect.
Furthermore, everyone is a sinner. To repent and to avoid new sins is the duty. What is, according to Jesus, a means to seem righteous in breaking the Law, is not only what makes easier to commit sins, but also what prevents from repenting.
“I think it’s not only that he’d do well to reject the Pharisees’ teachings, but rather that he can’t avoid to sin without rejecting that traditional means to counter the Law.
But to do so is to leave that sect.”
Yes, I think we are agreed. Their teachings nullified the word of God (or the law), so it inevitably led to sin. If they wanted to stop sinning, they had to first reject their own teaching.
“Furthermore, everyone is a sinner. To repent and to avoid new sins is the duty.”
Agreed. “26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries.” (Hebrews 10)
“What is, according to Jesus, a means to seem righteous in breaking the Law, is not only what makes easier to commit sins, but also what prevents from repenting.”
Hah, indeed! Like old wineskins they burst with the new wine…
Well, thank you, but…
In fact, I think that the wineskins comparison would fit the Sadducees, who remained faithful to the Old Testament. Not the Pharisees, who did not.
The comparison for the Pharisaical sect is (Revelation 2:9 – KJB):
To which you’ll answer by 1 John 3:8: sins makes from you the son of the devil.
Yes.
But as I understand it, there is a difference between the lack of perfection and the preaching of a moral breaking the known Law.
That’s what I understand in « ye serpents, generations of vipers » – to the Pharisees. For the Pharisaical teaching is not an incomplete law, but the breaking of the Law, said Jesus.
Thanks anyway. I deeply think there is a difference between what you said and what I meant, and I think you know it. But it is so uncommon to comment about religious matters without anger that I can’t do else than praising your comments for that; and of course for your knowledge.
“In fact, I think that the wineskins comparison would fit the Sadducees, who remained faithful to the Old Testament. Not the Pharisees, who did not.”
I think it’s the other way around, no? See Josephus’ commentary in Chapter 8: https://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/war-2.html
But I wasn’t referring to either in my reply. There are people even in this modern day who your comment made me think of: “a means to seem righteous in breaking the Law, is not only what makes easier to commit sins, but also what prevents from repenting.”
“The comparison for the Pharisaical sect is (Revelation 2:9 – KJB): (…) I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. To which you’ll answer by 1 John 3:8: sins makes from you the son of the devil.”
I read a commentary somewhere that there were actual Judaizer’s pretending to be Israelites, but they actually weren’t. This supposedly happened in Smyrna (Rev 2:9) and Philadelphia (Rev 3:9). Most interpretations assume the letters of Revelation 2 and 3 had an immediate interpretation, but also greater lessons for the churches in the millennia to come. For these greater lessons of Rev 2:9 and Rev 3:9, I see modern day Jews in these passages. The Jews cannot rest unless they teach white people to sin.
“But as I understand it, there is a difference between the lack of perfection and the preaching of a moral breaking the known Law.”
Agreed.
“Thanks anyway. I deeply think there is a difference between what you said and what I meant, and I think you know it. But it is so uncommon to comment about religious matters without anger that I can’t do else than praising your comments for that; and of course for your knowledge.”
Indeed… Thank you as well!
Josephus was a member of the Pharisaical sect: his bias is easy to see I think. And Jesus said the opposite: who was the Christ? Jesus or Josephus?
That’s right. I did refer to the Pharisees in the comment to which you replied. And your reply was the comparison with wineskines.
For sure you’re right. And in fact I wonder if anyone is free from such a bias? But the point is that regarding the Pharisees, Jesus didn’t say there were people among them who did so (there is everywhere, I agree!), but that it was the teaching of that sect.
I am everything but a prophet and prefer to avoid any comment about all the possible second or third meanings of such a difficult text. But I know history enough to understand that, in the time where it was written, the first meaning of the synagogue of Satan was the Pharisaical sect which, after the destruction of the Temple, which had ruined the kohanim (among whom the Sadducees were the majority), by the scribes and the doctors of the Law (among whom the Pharisees were the great number) through the synagogues ruled the Judaic faith. That was the end of the Old Testament judaism (the Sadducees and a branch of them, the karaits, are just a few today). The Pharisees being the first form of what was to become the Talmudic judaism, your conclusion is in my opinion perfectly true.
“Josephus was a member of the Pharisaical sect: his bias is easy to see I think. And Jesus said the opposite: who was the Christ? Jesus or Josephus?”
Fair point that Josephus was biased. Although Paul even considered himself in his capacity as a Pharisee to blameless according to the Law (Phil 3:6). Christ also commanded to do as they say but not as they do (Matt 23:3). This would indicate to me that they attempted to keep the Law, but they failed to do so. When their teaching actively broke the Law, it probably wasn’t intentional… although no less real and sinful.
So they intended to keep the Law, and they thought they were keeping the Law, but they failed. Keeping the Law must be done in the Spirit, not the flesh, just like Paul explained in Romans 7. When we keep the Law in the flesh, then that flesh brings about sin through a desire to keep the Law (Romans 7:11).
“And in fact I wonder if anyone is free from such a bias?”
I think that goes back to the Romans 7:11 point. Maybe we aren’t, but if we seek the Spirit instead of the flesh, then maybe we can begin to be cured of that bias.
May I ask what sources you’ve been using for your historical knowledge on the Pharisees and Sadducees? I wouldn’t mind having a look for myself.
In fact, regarding the Sadducees and the Pharisees, I think the best thing you can do is first reading a few articles (encyclopedias, printed or on line). Then, on a special point, it would be possible to ask accurate questions, and thus to be answered. For I can’t see what you know about it. Maybe wikipedia first, or this?
https://www.bible-history.com/pharisees/phariseestradition.htm
Jesus said Pharisees respected the external shape of the Law, but, as « serpents, generation of vipers », as « hypocrites, made it only to break what is most important in the Law (intentionally or in effect: I let it out, for now). He accused them of pure ritualism. For exemple: Mark 2:18, 28, where they respect formally the Law on the sabbat, but make out of it a means of making things more difficult for the faithful, whereas the sabbat is intended to make them easier.
Mark 2:27:
That was such a ritualism which, in the Pharisaical teaching, was supposed to be the Law. That was what a Pharisee meant when he said the Law.
Of course this was not only true for the sabbat but also for the most essential matters.
The Pharisees are (spiritually) the ancestors of the talmudic Judaism: read any encyclopedia on it; read any scholar on it. The Mishnah is a part of the Talmud. For the talmudic Jews (today we simply call them the Jews), the Talmud had been given with the Ten Commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai (and, for that part of talmudic Judaism which is the kabbalistic one, the Kabbalah was also given on the same occasion). For Jesus, it was just human tradition, and its effect was to clean the outside of the cup, but left the inside dirty.
In fact, the Talmud was written between the fith and the eight century A.D., but from that traditional jurisprudentia rejected by Jesus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanhedrin/#Herodian_and_early_Roman_rule
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadducees
These are fundemental facts about that subject.
And so are these:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/pharisees-sadducees-and-essenes
So a person who drinking and driving often is a child of satan? Anyone who use to watch porn is from their father the devil and is forever condemned? I can go on and on….and these are just sins. Thats a pretty broad statement you made about ” anyone who practices sin is a child of the devil” According to this statement and belief, everyone in the world now and in the past are ALL children of satan. ?♂️?
Yes Daniel, someone drinking and driving often is a child of Satan. No, someone who used to watch porn is not necessarily a child of Satan.
That was not a statement I myself made, “anyone who practices sin is a child of the devil”. I literally quoted 1 John 3:8 and I’d encourage you to look it up that you may understand what the Bible says. I would hate for you to be in the awkward position of mocking the words of the Bible. John didn’t say “the one who used to practice sin” is a child of the devil. He said “the one who practices [continually, present tense] sin”.
Yes, everyone in the world now and in the past at the very least have been children of Satan. “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23) The only exception is Christ Jesus, who might cleanse us of sin through faith in Him. “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous, so that He will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9)
Ephesians 5,
6 See that no one deceives you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not become partners with them; 8 for you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light 9 (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness, and truth), 10 as you try to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. 11 Do not participate in the useless deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them;
1 Corinthians 6,
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor those habitually drunk, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
Colossians 3,
5 Therefore, treat the parts of your earthly body as dead to sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry. 6 For it is because of these things that the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience, 7 and in them you also once walked, when you were living in them. 8 But now you also, rid yourselves of all of them: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene speech from your mouth. 9 Do not lie to one another, since you stripped off the old self with its evil practices, 10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created it— 11 a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, and free, but Christ is all, and in all.
I know what you’re saying, but Clear and Furious Frog quote the scripture and the scripture is correct: if you remain in your sins, you are indeed a child of the devil. If you repent of your sins, and put your faith in Jesus Christ, He offers you the gift of forgiveness, and you become a child of God. If that sounds too simple, it’s because it really is. 🙂
There is no serpent seedline of actual people descended from the devil. Today’s jews are a mixed up bunch from many stock… asian, arab, White, black, etc… they’re for the most part very intelligent, and very cunning. They have a big flaw collectively however – hubristic boasting.
The good Lord is useing the jews of today as a tool to shape and correct Christians to see who has the mettle to really set aside their sins and say that they are the true children of God.
Think about this: in one short breath Jesus gives Peter the keys to the kingdom, and then calls him Satan. Why would he give the keys if Peter was a blood descendant of the devil?
Crush, are you suggesting that the Pharisees were not Israelites? We know from Acts 4:5-7 that the high priests, scribes and Pharisees were related by blood, and were called the leaders of “Israel”, so it would be disingenuous to try to claim they were not Israelites:
“And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and elders, and scribes, and Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem. 7And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this? 8Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel.”
It looks to me like the significance of the commas in that Scripture is being discounted.
That would be some extreme nepotism of indeed all of the elders, rulers, and scribes were familial kin of the high priest.
“Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel”
Does this comma signal to us that “rulers of the people” & “elders of Israel” are two separate groups in Peter’s audience?
The priests (kohen / pl. kohanim) were taken in one of the twelve tribes (that of Levi) of what had been known as Israelites. So were the levites (a kind of “sub-priests”).
All the other ones (scribes, elders, a. s. o.) could came from other tribes of the same people (and tribalism parly allowed conversions: the converted forget his roots and considered himself as the true son of the tribe).
Jesus made a distinction between false jews and true jews when he said that a True jew is one who has been circumcised of the heart (Which is a spiritual circumcision that comes from believing on Yeshua)
“Therefore I will punish you for all your wrongdoing.”
Punishing someone doesn’t sound like God is happy with their ways. Besides, as a DNA testing sample of Israel proved a number of years back, most Israelis who claim to be Juden are not, they’re from eastern Europe & western Russia, where the old Khazar Empire once stood.
Further proof that they are Khazarian is that their rabbis like to slobber on baby boy penis & the Khazars were phallus worshipers.
I confess that at one time I did believe that Amos 3:2 was proof that God loved only Israelites, and that only Israelites would be saved. Looking back, I can honestly say that I had very little experience with the Bible, and did not have a comprehensive understanding of it. I had only superficially studied the Bible, and didn’t understand how many of the major prophets, including Daniel, Isaiah, and Ezekiel all contradict this idea of exclusivity. All of these prophets state that “the nations” will be brought into the fold with Israel. It’s foolish to try to argue otherwise. Nowhere in the Old Testament does the term “the nations” ever refer to the “lost” northern tribes of Israel.
I used to use Amos 3:2 as a trump card in doctrinal disputes, but in reality I relied on the ignorance of the other person to not know how to respond to it. Had anyone brought up the prophecies of Daniel in regard to the nations, I would have ignored it or just quoted Paul’s verse, “all of Israel shall be saved.” I really had no idea what I was talking about, and I pray that I did not lead any well meaning Christians astray. Looking back now, I can see I had accepted a strong delusion about scripture, and I spread my delusion with others, becoming a stumbling block to them.
But eventually, through many years of tenacious study, I saw the error of my ways and repented of it. Such an over-simplified view of scripture is very seductive to those who have only a superficial knowledge and understanding of the Bible. Amazingly, even after reading the Bible cover to cover, I still believed this error. I had blinders on, and had too much pride and was too puffed up in my “knowledge” to admit my error. Part of me simply wanted to believe it, wanted it to be true.
When I finally admitted my error, it came as a relief. And the Bible became an entirely new book for me, and I was able to read it with a deeper understanding, and it challenged me to become a better Christian, which is the whole point of all of it.
Great testimony Zane. I share the same in many ways. I think the model that hit me to this topic, is in regards to the Levites and the other brothers. The Levites were chosen to keep the candles on in the tabernacle and to serve God as a witness to their brothers who were no better or worse. The Israelites of today seem to have this same pattern/role of being a light toward God to guide their brothers to point only to King Jesus (God). This doesn’t mean we should accept poor obedience and water down our service/obedience by lowering God’s standards. We are called to walk to the walk, above the waters of the adversary, to the truth of God—candles lit. only Christ is Alpha (and Omega).
Blessings in King Jesus brother,
C
> Great write up CFT!
Good on you, Zane! It takes courage to testify like that. God bless you.
One has to be blind to not see our gifts….