the fact is that God repeatedly committed genocide against other nations in the OT, and suddenly had a change of heart in the NT. This is where the phrase "Old Testament-style" derives from, obviously.
The only “change of heart” was God’s attitude towards Christians because their punishment was placed upon Jesus on the cross, but there is still a future “genocide” coming for those who are not part of the family of God.
So, you’ve missed the point of the genocides within the Old Testament – they represent the destiny of the ungodly on the Day of Judgment.
---
The definition of "nation" obviously changed, though, because God actually held your geneology against you in the OT (I'll cite examples if need be), whereas anyone was allowed into God's kingdom in the NT. I don't see why anyone born outside of the Jews before 10 AD gets such an unfair shake.
Didn’t Israel also incur God’s wrath in the Old Testament? Weren’t whole generations of Jews killed off in the Old Testament? Didn’t God send nations to devour and carry off Israel into captivity?
As far as splitting hairs over the definition of “nations”, the bible, both Old Testament and New Testament, clearly states that the entire earth will have the wrath of God poured out on it. Therefore, “nations” is meant to be all encompassing.
You are missing that point that Jesus himself is pictured as both judge and executioner, so obviously this is not a departure from the Old Testament.
---
But all that time before the commandments were there, humans still did not have any Messiah, nor were they perfect or not sinful. How did they attain salvation during this period? Actually, how did they attain salvation during the time in which the commandments were in place, given how it would be virtually impossible to follow them 100% perfectly? And why would God use 1,500 years of people to make an example for the people that followed?
The path of salvation has always been the same: “The righteous will live by faith”. And salvation has always been based upon God’s grace, not upon the merit of human actions (take the example of God choosing between Jacob and Esau BEFORE they had done anything good or bad).
430 years before the Old Covenant commandments, God prophesied to Abraham that the Gentiles would be justified by faith through the message of gospel: "All nations will be blessed through you." The blessing of the gospel to the whole earth came “through Abraham” because Jesus was a descendent of Abraham. That is why Abraham is called “the father of the faithful”, because we become children of Abraham in the eyes of God when we receive Christ into our hearts, so we become identified with Christ, who is Abraham’s heir and promised seed.
---
You missed my point entirely. Nobody will ever be able to agree 100% on an interpretation of the Bible. For example, many of the Christians on this board seem to disagree with your opinion on who God's chosen people are (you say it is still the Jews, IIRC), and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Actually, I agree with the other members in that the Christians are God’s chosen people…but my point is that Christians are just a PART of God’s people since Israel has NOT been forever discarded by God because the scripture clearly states that the Jews will turn to Christ just prior to his return.
Rom 9:25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers so that you may not be
conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part
UNTIL the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: ‘The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. 27And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins.’
---
Given this problem, how are we supposed to know which interpretation is correct, given that two interpretations of the Bible can yield wildly different viewpoints?
Well…you certainly have a point - it is difficult to judge between two opinions when only one side is willing to provide an explanation for their beliefs.
![Wink](https://talkelections.org/FORUM/Smileys/classic/wink.gif)
We’ll have to wait to hear from those attempting to boast over the rejection of the Jews….In reality, my view of Israel’s future redemption is in line with the vast majority of biblical commentaries. Heck, even Judaism holds the view that Israel will turn their hearts to God at the time of the coming of the Messiah because it is clearly prophesied within the Old Testament (OT), which is why Paul quoted from the OT while making the point that Israel’s rejection is only temporary.
The way I weigh different biblical interpretations is:
1) Does the opinion humble itself to the authority of scripture.
2) Does the opinion force contradictions within scripture.
So, in the matter of Israel’s rejection, the question becomes: Which opinion is in agreement with the whole of scripture?
---
Remind me again where he stated scripture is without flaw? In the scripture itself? This is certainly a logical fallacy, since you cannot rely on the same source you are using to prove something as proof that the source itself is valid. If I don't think scripture is without flaw, why would I trust Jesus when he says that it is without flaw in the scripture itself?
I totally agree - scripture can not stand if the sum of its parts were simply the testimony of one witness. Yet scripture is NOT the testimony of one witness; rather it is a compiled testimony of dozens.
John 10:35 Jesus answered them, ‘…
the Scripture cannot be broken’
There are many other places throughout the gospels where Jesus pointed to the authority of scripture by stating states that “the Scripture must be fulfilled” and “the Scriptures testify about me”.