Casting Out the Bondwoman--Part 4

When we refuse to cast out the bondwoman, we set ourselves up to be placed into bondage or captivity. This applies both individually and nationally, as well as spiritually and physically.

Conversely, when we cast out the bondwoman, we establish the patterns by which God will work to set us free.

When the religious leaders in Jerusalem voted to remain under the Old Covenant ("bondwoman") and reject the Mediator (Jesus) of the New Covenant ("free woman"), they confirmed their own captivity. Daniel's 70 weeks had been completed (458 B.C. to 33 A.D.) that very month, dating from Ezra's commission to Jerusalem (Ezra 7:9) in the seventh year of Artaxerxes (7:7).

The time was therefore ripe for deliverance, for it was the end of a 490-year cycle ("Blessed Time"). But instead, they rejected the Deliverer in favor of the bondwoman. The Old Covenant was given in "Mount Sinai in Arabia" (Gal. 4:25), which is not the traditional site, but is located in Saudi Arabia at Jabal al Lawz. The point is that Mount Sinai (Arabia) is the inheritance of the original bondwoman, Hagar, and her son.

Thus, in rejecting Jesus and the New Covenant ("Sarah"), they placed Jerusalem under the jurisdiction and authority of Sinai/Arabia. In effect, they GAVE that land to Arab people--not intentionally, of course, but insofar as the Divine Court is concerned. Hence, in later history God hired the Roman army to drive them out and ultimately gave it to the people of the bondwoman.

Whose land is it, then? Conventional Christian Zionist teaching agrees with Judaism that the land belongs to the Jews. The Apostle Paul would disagree. The religious leaders of Jesus' day essentially gave it to "Mount Sinai in Arabia." One might argue that God had originally given the land to Jews, but that argument does not apply if they sell it to others.

The only possible way that they might have gotten the land back would be if they had repented of their rejection of Jesus, and if they had accepted the New Covenant to replace the Old. In other words, they have no right today to cast out the physical children of the bondwoman, if they have not first cast out the bondwoman on a spiritual level.

The laws of tribulation (Lev. 26 and Deut. 28) state specifically that God will "remember My covenant" only when the people repent of their hostility toward Him (Lev. 26:40-42). Since they still have a common practice of spitting on Christians and burning New Testaments, it is quite obvious that they have not fulfilled the conditions of the law by which their captivity might be turned.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=487412&contrassID=2&subContrassID=5&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y&itemNo=487412

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-05-21-jewish-new-testament_N.htm

Zionism, therefore, involves a conflict, where the legal children of the bondwoman (i.e., Jews) are fighting against the physical children of the bondwoman (Arabs/Islam) as well as the spiritual children of the bondwoman (Saul Christianity). All three desire Jerusalem as their "mother," and all expect to inherit the old Jerusalem in the end. Christian Zionists, however, normally believe that they should assist the Jews in inheriting the Old Jerusalem, as they are content to be bondslaves to the Jews in the age to come. They assume, of course, that by this time the 144,000 surviving Jews will have accepted Jesus as the Messiah, whose home will be a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, and whose food will be animal sacrifices served up by Levites.

When this belief system was presented in the mid-1800's by Darby, popularized by the early 1900's by Scofield, and appeared to be confirmed in 1948 by the Israeli state, with the rise of this view came also the great captivity of the 20th century. When American Christians gave their Birthright to the Jews calling themselves "Israel" in 1948, they came under the dominion of the bondwoman and lost the right to become manifested sons of God.

The right to become the sons of God is inherent in the Birthright, given to Joseph, the "fruitful son" (Gen. 49:22, lit. transl.). After 1948 the Jews held this right, but they refused to fulfill the terms by which they might become manifested sons of God. Thus, the event did not happen as so many Christians expected. Christians thought that 1948 was the beginning of the Tribulation, and that Jesus would either come immediately or after 3-1/2 years (by 1952), or certainly by 1955.

It did not happen, of course, because they did not understand the bigger picture. They all thought that the "fig tree" sprouting more leaves (Matt. 24:32) indicated that the Zionist nation would bring forth the fruits of the Kingdom--that is, they would recognize Jesus as Messiah. They forgot Jesus' earlier fig-tree prophecy in Matt. 21:19, "No longer shall there ever be any fruit from you."

And so, the Christian Zionists and Dispensationalists entrusted the Birthright to those who had no intention of fulfilling the Joseph ministry work of Sonship. They wanted to be considered "chosen" and "sons of God" without repenting of their hostility against Jesus. Just as they had usurped Jesus' throne in the first encounter, now they have usurped Jesus' birthright.

When Jeremiah prophesied of the house of Israel (18:1-10), He gave them hope. When he prophesied of Judah and Jerusalem from 18:11 to the end of chapter 19, there was not one word of hope or restoration. The great key is to understand that the house of Israel were the northern 10 tribes, which had Samaria as its capital; and that the house of Judah was comprised of the 2 southern tribes with Jerusalem as its capital.

Most Jews know this distinction, and they know that they are NOT the biblical Israelites. Yet they were able to take the name "Israel" after sponsoring Scofield in writing the notes for his new Bible in the early 1900's. Scofield was a friend of Samuel Untermeyer, the Jewish head of the Lotus Club, who gave Scofield the use of a house (free rent) for close to 20 years. Untermeyer was also one of the lawyers who framed the Federal Reserve Act that was signed into law in February 1914.

Though Scofield was by no means a literary scholar, Oxford University Press sought him out to produce his Scofield Bible. The contract was signed on June 5, 1907.

"Informed patriots know the important part played by Oxford University in the promotion and spreading of Fabian Socialism in both England and America. The fact that a university so saturated with the ideology of Godless collectivism should have published, and should continue to publish even today, a Bible which purports to uphold fundamental Christanity, should provide any Americanist with food for thought. Scofield, who apparently had never before published anything except one small book and some pamphlets and tracts, seems to have amazingly easy entree into one of the most prestigious and exclusive publishing houses in the English-speaking world." (The Incredible Scofield and His Book, p. 201)

Obviously, there is more to the Scofield Bible than meets the eye. It was in the interest of the Zionist Jewish lawyer, Samuel Untermeyer, to promote him and his Bible, along with the Federal Reserve Act, which brought America into captivity to the bondwoman.

To resolve this problem, we need to cast out the bondwoman as Paul says.