PDA

View Full Version : Please Help Replacement Theology



ears2hear
Apr 19th 2009, 09:55 PM
Does anyone know what this is and how it fits into the Israel/Gentile relationship? How old is it and is it biblical??:help:

Tomlane
Apr 19th 2009, 10:01 PM
I found this on the net. Maybe it will answer some of your questions.

Answer: Replacement theology essentially teaches that the church has replaced Israel in God’s plan. Adherents of replacement theology believe the Jews are no longer God’s chosen people, and God does not have specific future plans for the nation of Israel. All the different views of the relationship between the church and Israel can be divided into two camps: either the Church is a continuation of Israel (replacement theology / covenant theology), or the Church is completely different and distinct from Israel (dispensationalism / premillennialism).

Replacement theology teaches that the Church is the replacement for Israel and that the many promises made to Israel in the Bible are fulfilled in the Christian Church, not in Israel. So, the prophecies in Scripture concerning the blessing and restoration of Israel to the Promised Land are "spiritualized" or “allegorized” into promises of God's blessing for the Church. Major problems exist with this view, such as the continuing existence of the Jewish people throughout the centuries and especially with the revival of the modern state of Israel. If Israel has been condemned by God, and there is no future for the Jewish nation, how do we explain the supernatural survival of the Jewish people over the past 2000 years despite the many attempts to destroy them? How do we explain why and how Israel reappeared as a nation in the 20th century after not existing for 1900 years?

The view that Israel and the Church are different is clearly taught in the New Testament. In this view, the Church is completely different and distinct from Israel, and the two are never to be confused or used interchangeably. We are taught from Scripture that the Church is an entirely new creation that came into being on the Day of Pentecost and will continue until it is translated to heaven at the Rapture (Ephesians 1:9-11; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17). The Church has no relationship to the curses and blessings for Israel. The covenants, promises, and warnings are valid only for Israel. Israel has been temporarily set aside in God's program during these past 2,000 years of dispersion.

After the Rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18), God will restore Israel as the primary focus of His plan. The first event at this time is the Great Tribulation (Revelation chapters 6-19). The world will be judged for rejecting Christ, while Israel is prepared through the trials of the Great Tribulation for the Second Coming of the Messiah. Then, when Christ does return to the earth at the end of the Tribulation, Israel will be ready to receive Him. The remnant of Israel which survives the Tribulation will be saved, and the Lord will establish His kingdom on this earth with Jerusalem as its capital. With Christ reigning as King, Israel will be the leading nation, and representatives from all nations will come to Jerusalem to honor and worship the King—Jesus Christ. The Church will return with Christ and will reign with Him for a literal thousand years (Revelation 20:1-5).

Both the Old Testament and the New Testament support a premillennial / dispensational understanding of God's plan for Israel. The strongest support for premillennialism is found in the clear teaching of Revelation 20:1-7, where it says, six times, that Christ's kingdom will last 1,000 years. The Church has not replaced Israel in God's plan. While God may be focusing His attention primarily on the church in this dispensation of grace, God has not forgotten Israel and will one day restore Israel to His intended role for the nation He has chosen (Romans chapter 11).

pekoe
Apr 19th 2009, 10:19 PM
Hi ears2hear.
Replacement theology is a term made up by who knows who that says believers in Jesus have replaced Jews a as Gods chosen people. I have no idea how old it is, but there are many people within christiandom today who believe that Jewish people are Gods chosen people, even though many Jewish people do not believe in Jesus.

markedward
Apr 19th 2009, 10:41 PM
I believe there is a sense of "replacement" in Scripture... but not in the idea of "the church replaces Israel".

In the parable of the vineyard (Matthew 21), the wicked tenants are replaced with righteous tenants. In the parable of the wedding feast (Matthew 22), the original invitees prove to be wicked, and are replaced with new invitees. In both of these parables, the narration makes it plainly clear that the wicked tenants/invitees are allegorical for the unrighteous Jews (specifically, the Pharisees, the scribes, the elders, etc.) who rejected Christ.

The New Covenant replaces the Old Covenant.

Christ's one-for-all sacrifice replaces the daily sacrifices of the temple.

Christ as the High Priests replaces the temple priests.

Paul allegorizes the account of Hagar and Sarah, depicting Hagar as the earthly Jerusalem, and the Old Covenant, and she represents the enslavement to sin, and Sarah as the heavenly Jerusalem, and the New Covenant, and she represents the freedom we have in Christ. He specifically cites the historical example of Hagar and Sarah as corresponding to his present time, "'Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free.' So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman." In essence, the New is replacing the Old.

In the Revelation, Babylon the Great is destroyed and is after this we see the New Jerusalem. Babylon the Great is identified with Jerusalem ("Babylon the Great" [14.8, 17.5] is "the great city" [14.20, 16.19, 17.18, 18.10, 18.16, 18.18, 18.21], which is identified as "where also our Lord was crucified" [11.8]), and upon Babylon's/Jerusalem's destruction the wedding feast takes place, and we see the New Jerusalem arrive. This directly aligns with the wedding feast parable, in which the wicked invitees are killed "and their city burned" [Matthew 22.7] upon which they are replaced by new invitees. It also directly aligns with the above-mentioned allegory Paul gives regarding the earthly "present Jerusalem" being replaced by the heavenly "Jerusalem from above".

But, I don't take this as "the church replaces Israel". Paul extensively shows that the followers of Christ (i.e., "the church") is Israel, and that Israel consists of Jews and Gentiles. What I'm showing above is that the New replaces the Old, and the righteous replace the wicked. What I am not showing is the idea that the Gentiles replace the Jews, for it is explicitly stated in Christ "their is neither Jew nor Gentile".

Partaker of Christ
Apr 19th 2009, 11:15 PM
Glad this thread has come up.

Can anyone help with this verse?

Rev 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

Why would some make a false claim to being a Jew, and why would that be counted as blasphemy?

Could it be that some said they were Jews, to avoid the persecution by the Jews?

ears2hear
Apr 20th 2009, 04:33 AM
Glad this thread has come up.

Can anyone help with this verse?

Rev 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

Why would some make a false claim to being a Jew, and why would that be counted as blasphemy?

Could it be that some said they were Jews, to avoid the persecution by the Jews?

Could this be referring to those who see that God has forgotten the Jews? I don't know. This is all very new for me and I was shocked when a friend brought this up.

Tomlane
Apr 20th 2009, 05:05 AM
Anyone who thinks the church is Spiritual Israel would be an excellent contender for making a false claim to Israel since there is no such thing and some may even think they are God's answer to the Jews. Something to think about.

Tomlane

markedward
Apr 20th 2009, 07:02 AM
Do you mean to say that "Israel" only consists of Jews? Even though Paul says that Gentiles who believe in Christ are "grafted" on to the same promises that God gave to Israel, and that Jews who do not believe are broken off of those promises?

Do you mean to say that God has only taken up the New Covenant temporarily, and that after the thousand years he will reinstate the Old Covenant? Even though the book of Hebrews extensively describes how everything in the Old Covenant were merely shadows of the fullness that Christ brought with the New Covenant and that the Old Covenant was made obsolete by the New Covenant?

As Paul said, "I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin."

He was using this to show that God did not forsake or replace the Jews... and his proof of this is that he, a Jew, entered the New Covenant. Romans 11 is not about placing the Jews above the Gentiles; it is about Jews rejecting the initial call of Christ (in general terms they rejected it, though a remnant did not, which included the apostles and Paul), the Gentiles taking up the call of Christ where the Jews failed to do so (again, in general terms, though not all individuals), and that the Jews would return to the call of Christ. And together, Jews and Gentiles who follow the call of Christ and enter into the New Covenant, comprise true Israel, and in Christ and his New Covenant only are the promises of the Old Testament fulfilled.

As Paul said: "But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel."

Not all of true Israel consists of descendents of the twelve tribes of Israel.


So, the prophecies in Scripture concerning the blessing and restoration of Israel to the Promised Land are "spiritualized" or “allegorized” into promises of God's blessing for the Church. Major problems exist with this view, such as the continuing existence of the Jewish people throughout the centuries and especially with the revival of the modern state of Israel. If Israel has been condemned by God,While I agree with this author that God has not condemned the Jewish people, I sincerely believe he over-reacts and shoots too far in the opposite direction of "replacement theology".


and there is no future for the Jewish nation, how do we explain the supernatural survival of the Jewish people over the past 2000 years despite the many attempts to destroy them?This question assumes "supernatural" prevention is involved in the Jewish peoples' survival, but couldn't "supernatural" protection be ascribed to (I refer to these races in general terms, not in stereotypes) Arabs, and Indians, and Russians, and Chinese, and Japanese, and Africans because they all still exist despite the fact that many of them are Muslims, Hindis, Buddhists, atheists, Taoists, etc.? Or could it be that God intends to preserve all peoples, regardless of what race?


How do we explain why and how Israel reappeared as a nation in the 20th century after not existing for 1900 years?This author also ignores the consistency of Scripture.

Scripture consistently shows prosperity for the Hebrew nations only when the people as a whole are faithful to God. When the Hebrew nations as a whole sin against God, they are usually subjected to invasion of foreign nations, and when the Hebrews nations as a whole outright reject God, they are dispersed.

The author fails to note that the modern state of Israel is


not a kingdom (it has no king)
not under Torah law (it is under a secular law)
not even following the Old Covenant (so they reject God's New Covenant, yet they fail to keep the obsolete one they cling to)

Scripturally, the modern state of Israel is not a nation of Jews under God's favor.


The view that Israel and the Church are different is clearly taught in the New Testament. In this view, the Church is completely different and distinct from Israel, and the two are never to be confused or used interchangeably. We are taught from Scripture that the Church is an entirely new creation that came into being on the Day of PentecostThe author is claiming that the Church is absolutely distinct from Israel, and that the Church was formed on Pentecost.

Then why is it that a majority of the first people in the Church were people of Israel? All of the apostles were Jews. On Pentecost, three thousand "men of Israel" became became followers of Christ. The author fails to admit that the first people of "the Church" were people of "Israel".


and will continue until it is translated to heaven at the Rapture (Ephesians 1:9-11; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17).Ephesians 1.9-11 makes zero mention of the "rapture", and 1 Thessalonians 4.13-17 says nothing about the Church being raptured for the purpose of Israel


The Church has no relationship to the curses and blessings for Israel. The covenants, promises, and warnings are valid only for Israel.Problems with this:


Hebrews 8 explicitly quotes Old Testament Scripture to explain how the Old Covenant was "made obsolete" (8.13) and that it was "about to disappear" (8.13), and that the Old one was replaced by a New Covenant (8.7, 8.8-10, 8.13).
Hebrews 8 explicitly quotes Old Testament Scripture that says the New Covenant was made for "the house of Israel" and "the house of Judah". The book of Hebrews extensively shows that this New Covenant consists of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Christ outright said that his blood being shed was the Covenant. And the entire New Testament shows the Church is founded on this New Covenant. How can this author claim that "the covenants" and "promises" aren't valid for the Church and that the Church "has no relationship" with Israel, when we're outright shown that the New Covenant, prophesied in the Old Testament, directly linked with Israel and Judah, is imparted to both Jews and Gentiles?
The author claims that the Church has no part in the Old Testament promises. Then how is it that God told Abraham that through his children (Israel), all nations would be blessed? The Church consists of people from all nations (including from the people of Israel), so how is it that the Church has "no relationship to Israel" when it is founded upon these promises? Hebrews 11 cites how the Old Testament patriarchs died "in faith, not having received the things promised", and goes on to say "God [has] provided something better for us [the Church], that apart from us [the Church] they [people of Israel] shall not be made perfect". Apart from the Church, Israel shall not be made perfect. And then Hebrews says that Jesus is "the founder and perfector of our faith". Jesus' sacrifice was the foundation of the Church. Christ is the perfector of the Church's faith.


Israel has been temporarily set aside in God's program during these past 2,000 years of dispersion.Wait, what? The author has completely contradicted himself here!

"Israel has been temporarily set aside"?
... meaning...
Israel has been temporarily replaced? How isn't that "replacement theology", even if only "temporary"?


After the Rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18), God will restore Israel as the primary focus of His plan. The first event at this time is the Great Tribulation (Revelation chapters 6-19). The world will be judged for rejecting Christ, while Israel is prepared through the trials of the Great Tribulation for the Second Coming of the Messiah. Then, when Christ does return to the earth at the end of the Tribulation, Israel will be ready to receive Him. The remnant of Israel which survives the Tribulation will be saved, and the Lord will establish His kingdom on this earth with Jerusalem as its capital. With Christ reigning as King, Israel will be the leading nation, and representatives from all nations will come to Jerusalem to honor and worship the King—Jesus Christ. The Church will return with Christ and will reign with Him for a literal thousand years (Revelation 20:1-5).What is interesting to note here is that the authors is only able to provide Scripture when he references the "rapture", the "great tribulation", and the "thousand years".

Notice that the author does not provide any Scripture when he claims Israel will receive Christ at the end of the tribulation, or when he claims that Israel will lead the nations during Christ's kingship. The entire chunk of this paragraph that specifically deals with Israel is completely devoid of Scriptural references. If the claims this author makes are so clearly found in Scripture, why doesn't he provide any here to back up the claims he is making?

The author's premise is that Israel is "temporarily set aside" to make way for the Church (i.e., Israel is temporarily replaced by the Church). For one, the fact that the author claims Israel is "set aside" to make way for the Church, even temporarily, is an admission that Israel is temporarily replaced by the Church. Just because it's temporary doesn't mean the author isn't teaching "replacement theology". His "replacement theology" is just temporary!

Second, wouldn't this mean that the Church is some sort of contingency "Plan B", as if God wasn't expecting Israel to reject Christ?

Third, the book of Hebrews repeatedly states that the Old Covenant is made obsolete, and replaced by the New Covenant. The daily sacrifices were replaced by Christ's once-for-all sacrifice. The temple is replaced by Christ's body. The priesthood is replaced by Christ as High Priest. That isn't "the Church replaces Israel" theology. But it is a type of "replacement theology" in essence.

Fourth: The Old Testament prophesied the New Covenant. The Old Testament prophesied the coming of the Messiah. The Old Testament prophesied the sacrifice of the Messiah. These are all promises made by Israel and for Israel. Scripture shows that the Church is a part of the New Covenant over and over and over. That means that the Church is a part of promises made for Israel.

Fifth, the New Testament repeatedly says that Christ and the New Covenant make us "perfect". The Church, again, is a part of the New Covenant. For the author to claim that the Church has "no relationship" to Israel or its covenants and promises requires that Israel have "no relationship" to the New Covenant that the Church takes part in. In which case, wouldn't that mean that Israel has "no relationship" to that which makes us perfect? So when, as the author asserts, the Church finishes its job and Israel is brought back to God's focus, that God is essentially returning to the things that are not perfect? Why would God's plan for Israel involve returning back to the shadows and imperfect things?

This author's article is filled with Scriptural holes.

Acts 28.20 "For this reason, therefore, I have asked to see you and speak with you, since it is because of the hope of Israel that I am wearing this chain."

It's kind of hard for the Church to have "no relationship" to Israel and Israel's promises and covenants when Paul was proclaiming Christ's sacrifices, the New Covenant (the one that Hebrews 8 specifically says was prophesied for Israel), that Paul was arrested for preaching the gospel, and then Paul outright says he was arrested because of "the hope of Israel".

And again:

Ephesians 2.12-13 ... remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

Note how Paul says "you [the Gentiles who comprise the church in Ephesus] were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise". But then Paul says "now ... you who once were far off have been brought near". Paul is explicitly saying that the Gentiles in the Church have been brought into the "commonwealth of Israel" and "the covenants of promise". This is an outright contradiction to the author's claim that "The Church has no relationship to the curses and blessings for Israel. The covenants, promises, and warnings are valid only for Israel."

Yet the author above claims that the perfect New Covenant that the Church has a part in is only "temporary" and has "no relationship" to Israel, and that it is revoked after the tribulation to make way for a non-perfect covenant with national Israel again. The author above claims that the New Covenant, which is allows for any person of any nation to take part, is permanently replaced with another covenant in which the Israelite people are superior to every other nation of peoples. Why in the world would God do this? Start off with an imperfect [Hebrews 8.7] Old Covenant exclusive to the Israelites, switch up to a perfect New Covenant that is inclusive to all nations and all peoples, then return to an imperfect covenant exclusive to the Israelites again?

Paul stated that the distinction of Jews and Gentiles was abolished under the gospel of the grace of Christ. If another covenant is established that places the Israelites above all other races of people again, wouldn't this be, in fact, contradicting the gospel of the grace of Christ?

The New Covenant that the Church has a part in is, in fact, the Covenant of Christ's sacrifice. For anyone claim that this Covenant will be replaced by an Israel-exclusive covenant again would have to claim that that covenant is better than the Covenant of Christ's sacrifice.

Tomlane
Apr 20th 2009, 11:43 AM
markedward, I don't understand how you can see The Church as replacing Israel, if I understood you correctly. I believe part of the answer is found in Romans 11 where it describes Israel as the natural olive branch having been torn our to be grafted back in, after the time of the Gentile {the church}. When the natural olive branch was torn out the wild olive branch {The Gentiles} was grafted into the olive tree {Christ}

God did this to make Israel Jealous. I think it helps one to understand the differences between Israel and the Church [which by the way is not the Protestant or Catholic system of religion] is that when God deals with Israel as a nation, God does it with physical blessings and curses and with physical laws and ceremonal washings. When God deals with the church, it is with individuals and does so mainly with spiritual blessings. That is the letter of the new, and both Jew and gentile are a new creation that is neither Jew or Gentile.

I also believe all in the church are under the coverant God made with Abraham and not the new coverant that Israel will be under when the times comes.

To keep a proper perseptive it helps if we keep in mind the church came as a mystery and dropped down in the middle of everything God had promised Israel and there was a transition period when Irsael was still a nation and under law and Paul was still getting insperation concerning the Church and that it never all came at once. Even today people confuse Israel and the church as being one and the same when they are not. The book of Hebrews was Paul expaling how they were now under grace and not under any kind of ordinancs no longer or of any ceremonal laws either.

Thats my two cents worth and also I reaslize this is not a full explaination.

Tomlane

9Marksfan
Apr 20th 2009, 11:49 AM
I believe there is a sense of "replacement" in Scripture... but not in the idea of "the church replaces Israel".

In the parable of the vineyard (Matthew 21), the wicked tenants are replaced with righteous tenants. In the parable of the wedding feast (Matthew 22), the original invitees prove to be wicked, and are replaced with new invitees. In both of these parables, the narration makes it plainly clear that the wicked tenants/invitees are allegorical for the unrighteous Jews (specifically, the Pharisees, the scribes, the elders, etc.) who rejected Christ.

The New Covenant replaces the Old Covenant.

Christ's one-for-all sacrifice replaces the daily sacrifices of the temple.

Christ as the High Priests replaces the temple priests.

Paul allegorizes the account of Hagar and Sarah, depicting Hagar as the earthly Jerusalem, and the Old Covenant, and she represents the enslavement to sin, and Sarah as the heavenly Jerusalem, and the New Covenant, and she represents the freedom we have in Christ. He specifically cites the historical example of Hagar and Sarah as corresponding to his present time, "'Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free.' So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman." In essence, the New is replacing the Old.

In the Revelation, Babylon the Great is destroyed and is after this we see the New Jerusalem. Babylon the Great is identified with Jerusalem ("Babylon the Great" [14.8, 17.5] is "the great city" [14.20, 16.19, 17.18, 18.10, 18.16, 18.18, 18.21], which is identified as "where also our Lord was crucified" [11.8]), and upon Babylon's/Jerusalem's destruction the wedding feast takes place, and we see the New Jerusalem arrive. This directly aligns with the wedding feast parable, in which the wicked invitees are killed "and their city burned" [Matthew 22.7] upon which they are replaced by new invitees. It also directly aligns with the above-mentioned allegory Paul gives regarding the earthly "present Jerusalem" being replaced by the heavenly "Jerusalem from above".

But, I don't take this as "the church replaces Israel". Paul extensively shows that the followers of Christ (i.e., "the church") is Israel, and that Israel consists of Jews and Gentiles. What I'm showing above is that the New replaces the Old, and the righteous replace the wicked. What I am not showing is the idea that the Gentiles replace the Jews, for it is explicitly stated in Christ "their is neither Jew nor Gentile".

Great post - very clearly put.

9Marksfan
Apr 20th 2009, 11:57 AM
God did this to make Israel Jealous. I think it helps one to understand the differences between Israel and the Church [which by the way is not the Protestant or Catholic system of religion]

So are you saying that the Protestant Reformation was nothing to do with God?


is that when God deals with Israel as a nation, God does it with physical blessings and curses and with physical laws and ceremonal washings. When God deals with the church, it is with individuals and does so mainly with spiritual blessings. That is the letter of the new, and both Jew and gentile are a new creation that is neither Jew or Gentile.

I also believe all in the church are under the coverant God made with Abraham and not the new coverant that Israel will be under when the times comes.

So what new covenant would that be? A different one from the one Jesus instituted at the last supper? A different one from the one referred to in Heb 8 (quoting Jer 31)?


To keep a proper perspective it helps if we keep in mind the church came as a mystery and dropped down in the middle of everything God had promised Israel

Of course! A sudden afterthought! Plan B! Nowhere prophesied in the OT! Why didn't I realise that! :idea:


and there was a transition period when Israel was still a nation and under law and Paul was still getting inspiration concerning the Church and that it never all came at once. Even today people confuse Israel and the church as being one and the same when they are not.

I'm afraid it's you who are the confused one, my friend...


The book of Hebrews was Paul

:confused Where does it say Paul wrote Hebrews?


explaining how they were now under grace and not under any kind of ordinances no longer or of any ceremonal laws either.

Thats my two cents worth and also I reaslize this is not a full explaination.

Tomlane

I'm more confused than ever! It's well seeing that Dispensationalism is a new system that didn't appear until the 19th century....

And please don't tar non-dispensationalists with the "replacement" brush - to be frank, I don't know ANYONE who thinks that God has NO future plans for Israel - that's NOT what non-dispensationalists believe!

kay-gee
Apr 20th 2009, 12:26 PM
Great post Markedward! Concise and well put.

To be a premillenialist (IMO) you need to buy a special Bible with the book of Hebrews missing.

70 AD Jerusalem...was the end of NATIONAL Israel forever!

Arise of National Israel in 1948 was hardly the "Restoration" of Israel. This is 2009 and they hold a mere fraction of the land they had in Solomons day, and they have to fight tooth and nail to hold even that.

A "generation" has almost come and gone since 1948...no temple! no return to Biblical Judaeic worship including animal sacrifices.

It's over.

all the best...

keck553
Apr 20th 2009, 03:36 PM
Whew....It's a good thing God's promises are eternal and not subject to false teachings.

keck553
Apr 20th 2009, 03:41 PM
Great post Markedward! Concise and well put.

To be a premillenialist (IMO) you need to buy a special Bible with the book of Hebrews missing.

70 AD Jerusalem...was the end of NATIONAL Israel forever!

Arise of National Israel in 1948 was hardly the "Restoration" of Israel. This is 2009 and they hold a mere fraction of the land they had in Solomons day, and they have to fight tooth and nail to hold even that.

A "generation" has almost come and gone since 1948...no temple! no return to Biblical Judaeic worship including animal sacrifices.

It's over.

all the best...

The Bible disagrees with you. God's plan isn't built in your image.

RogerW
Apr 20th 2009, 04:23 PM
Do you mean to say that "Israel" only consists of Jews? Even though Paul says that Gentiles who believe in Christ are "grafted" on to the same promises that God gave to Israel, and that Jews who do not believe are broken off of those promises?

Do you mean to say that God has only taken up the New Covenant temporarily, and that after the thousand years he will reinstate the Old Covenant? Even though the book of Hebrews extensively describes how everything in the Old Covenant were merely shadows of the fullness that Christ brought with the New Covenant and that the Old Covenant was made obsolete by the New Covenant?

As Paul said, "I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin."

He was using this to show that God did not forsake or replace the Jews... and his proof of this is that he, a Jew, entered the New Covenant. Romans 11 is not about placing the Jews above the Gentiles; it is about Jews rejecting the initial call of Christ (in general terms they rejected it, though a remnant did not, which included the apostles and Paul), the Gentiles taking up the call of Christ where the Jews failed to do so (again, in general terms, though not all individuals), and that the Jews would return to the call of Christ. And together, Jews and Gentiles who follow the call of Christ and enter into the New Covenant, comprise true Israel, and in Christ and his New Covenant only are the promises of the Old Testament fulfilled.

As Paul said: "But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel."

Not all of true Israel consists of descendents of the twelve tribes of Israel.

While I agree with this author that God has not condemned the Jewish people, I sincerely believe he over-reacts and shoots too far in the opposite direction of "replacement theology".

This question assumes "supernatural" prevention is involved in the Jewish peoples' survival, but couldn't "supernatural" protection be ascribed to (I refer to these races in general terms, not in stereotypes) Arabs, and Indians, and Russians, and Chinese, and Japanese, and Africans because they all still exist despite the fact that many of them are Muslims, Hindis, Buddhists, atheists, Taoists, etc.? Or could it be that God intends to preserve all peoples, regardless of what race?

This author also ignores the consistency of Scripture.

Scripture consistently shows prosperity for the Hebrew nations only when the people as a whole are faithful to God. When the Hebrew nations as a whole sin against God, they are usually subjected to invasion of foreign nations, and when the Hebrews nations as a whole outright reject God, they are dispersed.

The author fails to note that the modern state of Israel is


not a kingdom (it has no king)
not under Torah law (it is under a secular law)
not even following the Old Covenant (so they reject God's New Covenant, yet they fail to keep the obsolete one they cling to)
Scripturally, the modern state of Israel is not a nation of Jews under God's favor.

The author is claiming that the Church is absolutely distinct from Israel, and that the Church was formed on Pentecost.

Then why is it that a majority of the first people in the Church were people of Israel? All of the apostles were Jews. On Pentecost, three thousand "men of Israel" became became followers of Christ. The author fails to admit that the first people of "the Church" were people of "Israel".

Ephesians 1.9-11 makes zero mention of the "rapture", and 1 Thessalonians 4.13-17 says nothing about the Church being raptured for the purpose of Israel

Problems with this:


Hebrews 8 explicitly quotes Old Testament Scripture to explain how the Old Covenant was "made obsolete" (8.13) and that it was "about to disappear" (8.13), and that the Old one was replaced by a New Covenant (8.7, 8.8-10, 8.13).
Hebrews 8 explicitly quotes Old Testament Scripture that says the New Covenant was made for "the house of Israel" and "the house of Judah". The book of Hebrews extensively shows that this New Covenant consists of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Christ outright said that his blood being shed was the Covenant. And the entire New Testament shows the Church is founded on this New Covenant. How can this author claim that "the covenants" and "promises" aren't valid for the Church and that the Church "has no relationship" with Israel, when we're outright shown that the New Covenant, prophesied in the Old Testament, directly linked with Israel and Judah, is imparted to both Jews and Gentiles?
The author claims that the Church has no part in the Old Testament promises. Then how is it that God told Abraham that through his children (Israel), all nations would be blessed? The Church consists of people from all nations (including from the people of Israel), so how is it that the Church has "no relationship to Israel" when it is founded upon these promises? Hebrews 11 cites how the Old Testament patriarchs died "in faith, not having received the things promised", and goes on to say "God [has] provided something better for us [the Church], that apart from us [the Church] they [people of Israel] shall not be made perfect". Apart from the Church, Israel shall not be made perfect. And then Hebrews says that Jesus is "the founder and perfector of our faith". Jesus' sacrifice was the foundation of the Church. Christ is the perfector of the Church's faith.
Wait, what? The author has completely contradicted himself here!

"Israel has been temporarily set aside"?
... meaning...
Israel has been temporarily replaced? How isn't that "replacement theology", even if only "temporary"?

What is interesting to note here is that the authors is only able to provide Scripture when he references the "rapture", the "great tribulation", and the "thousand years".

Notice that the author does not provide any Scripture when he claims Israel will receive Christ at the end of the tribulation, or when he claims that Israel will lead the nations during Christ's kingship. The entire chunk of this paragraph that specifically deals with Israel is completely devoid of Scriptural references. If the claims this author makes are so clearly found in Scripture, why doesn't he provide any here to back up the claims he is making?

The author's premise is that Israel is "temporarily set aside" to make way for the Church (i.e., Israel is temporarily replaced by the Church). For one, the fact that the author claims Israel is "set aside" to make way for the Church, even temporarily, is an admission that Israel is temporarily replaced by the Church. Just because it's temporary doesn't mean the author isn't teaching "replacement theology". His "replacement theology" is just temporary!

Second, wouldn't this mean that the Church is some sort of contingency "Plan B", as if God wasn't expecting Israel to reject Christ?

Third, the book of Hebrews repeatedly states that the Old Covenant is made obsolete, and replaced by the New Covenant. The daily sacrifices were replaced by Christ's once-for-all sacrifice. The temple is replaced by Christ's body. The priesthood is replaced by Christ as High Priest. That isn't "the Church replaces Israel" theology. But it is a type of "replacement theology" in essence.

Fourth: The Old Testament prophesied the New Covenant. The Old Testament prophesied the coming of the Messiah. The Old Testament prophesied the sacrifice of the Messiah. These are all promises made by Israel and for Israel. Scripture shows that the Church is a part of the New Covenant over and over and over. That means that the Church is a part of promises made for Israel.

Fifth, the New Testament repeatedly says that Christ and the New Covenant make us "perfect". The Church, again, is a part of the New Covenant. For the author to claim that the Church has "no relationship" to Israel or its covenants and promises requires that Israel have "no relationship" to the New Covenant that the Church takes part in. In which case, wouldn't that mean that Israel has "no relationship" to that which makes us perfect? So when, as the author asserts, the Church finishes its job and Israel is brought back to God's focus, that God is essentially returning to the things that are not perfect? Why would God's plan for Israel involve returning back to the shadows and imperfect things?

This author's article is filled with Scriptural holes.

Acts 28.20 "For this reason, therefore, I have asked to see you and speak with you, since it is because of the hope of Israel that I am wearing this chain."

It's kind of hard for the Church to have "no relationship" to Israel and Israel's promises and covenants when Paul was proclaiming Christ's sacrifices, the New Covenant (the one that Hebrews 8 specifically says was prophesied for Israel), that Paul was arrested for preaching the gospel, and then Paul outright says he was arrested because of "the hope of Israel".

And again:

Ephesians 2.12-13 ... remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

Note how Paul says "you [the Gentiles who comprise the church in Ephesus] were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise". But then Paul says "now ... you who once were far off have been brought near". Paul is explicitly saying that the Gentiles in the Church have been brought into the "commonwealth of Israel" and "the covenants of promise". This is an outright contradiction to the author's claim that "The Church has no relationship to the curses and blessings for Israel. The covenants, promises, and warnings are valid only for Israel."

Yet the author above claims that the perfect New Covenant that the Church has a part in is only "temporary" and has "no relationship" to Israel, and that it is revoked after the tribulation to make way for a non-perfect covenant with national Israel again. The author above claims that the New Covenant, which is allows for any person of any nation to take part, is permanently replaced with another covenant in which the Israelite people are superior to every other nation of peoples. Why in the world would God do this? Start off with an imperfect [Hebrews 8.7] Old Covenant exclusive to the Israelites, switch up to a perfect New Covenant that is inclusive to all nations and all peoples, then return to an imperfect covenant exclusive to the Israelites again?

Paul stated that the distinction of Jews and Gentiles was abolished under the gospel of the grace of Christ. If another covenant is established that places the Israelites above all other races of people again, wouldn't this be, in fact, contradicting the gospel of the grace of Christ?

The New Covenant that the Church has a part in is, in fact, the Covenant of Christ's sacrifice. For anyone claim that this Covenant will be replaced by an Israel-exclusive covenant again would have to claim that that covenant is better than the Covenant of Christ's sacrifice.

Greetings Markedward,

Let me concur with Nigel...excellent post, clearly expressed! I enjoyed it thoroughly...Thank You!

Many Blessings,
RW

markedward
Apr 20th 2009, 04:39 PM
markedward, I don't understand how you can see The Church as replacing Israel, if I understood you correctly.Unfortunately, you have not understood me correctly. Here are three things I have said that you may have missed:


I believe there is a sense of "replacement" in Scripture... but not in the idea of "the church replaces Israel".
I don't take this as "the church replaces Israel".
That isn't "the Church replaces Israel" theology. But it is a type of "replacement theology" in essence.

John146
Apr 20th 2009, 05:59 PM
markedward, I don't understand how you can see The Church as replacing Israel, if I understood you correctly. I believe part of the answer is found in Romans 11 where it describes Israel as the natural olive branch having been torn our to be grafted back in, after the time of the Gentile {the church}. When the natural olive branch was torn out the wild olive branch {The Gentiles} was grafted into the olive tree {Christ}Where does it speak of Israel as the natural olive branch? I only see that it speaks of the natural branches (plural) which refers to individual Israelites.

Romans 11
17And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; 18Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.
20Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

There is no mention of a natural branch in all of Romans 11. Only natural branches, which refers to individual unbelievers. That can clearly be seen in verse 20. Some of them, a remnant, still believed and were not broken off the olive tree (Romans 11:5). Those who did not believe were broken off. It doesn't say the entire nation of Israel was broken off, as you seem to think. Believing Gentiles are grafted in with believing Jews in the good olive tree, which represents the church.

Notice that no one is replaced. Some were broken off and some are grafted in. Believers, whether Jew or Gentile, continue to be grafted in today. It doesn't say anything about anyone being replaced.

Eben
Apr 20th 2009, 06:16 PM
Having read all the fors and the against I would like to ask how do we read Ezek 37 and the rest of the prophecies. I dont understand the meaning of the bones getting flesh and they being called Israel in the land Israel. Has this happened or is it still future. This Israel that is mentioned in this prophecy is it spiritual or is it physical.
In Christ

9Marksfan
Apr 20th 2009, 09:11 PM
Having read all the fors and the against I would like to ask how do we read Ezek 37 and the rest of the prophecies. I dont understand the meaning of the bones getting flesh and they being called Israel in the land Israel. Has this happened or is it still future. This Israel that is mentioned in this prophecy is it spiritual or is it physical.
In Christ

Spiritual - the Israel of God.

keck553
Apr 20th 2009, 10:22 PM
There is nothing spiritual about Messiah reigning in the millenial Temple, or the offerings He gives in it.

markedward
Apr 20th 2009, 10:39 PM
So... Christ said that he was greater than the temple buildings... the Revelation says he is the new temple... and yet he's going to re-institute an inferior mode of worship with a temple building?

Again, what sense does it make for God to create the imperfect Old Covenant, at long last replace it with the perfect New Covenant, and then return to an imperfect Old-style covenant?

keck553
Apr 20th 2009, 10:51 PM
I'm sorry, Ezekiel is an accepted prophet in cannon. Just because we may fall short of understanding the fullness of it doesn't make it go away.

markedward
Apr 20th 2009, 10:54 PM
I'm sorry, Ezekiel is an accepted prophet in cannon.Where did anyone say he wasn't? May I recommend viewing this thread (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=165512)?

keck553
Apr 20th 2009, 11:01 PM
Where did anyone say he wasn't? May I recommend viewing this thread (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=165512)?

What for? When you edited out the context of my statement, you changed the meaning. We are discussing God's Word, and when an inconsistancy creeps up, we point it out. No reason to avoid the issue, that's just denial.

markedward
Apr 20th 2009, 11:13 PM
And your statement is intended to convey the implication that the people you are disagreeing with are dismissing Ezekiel, as if the book isn't "an accepted prophet in canon".

9Marksfan
Apr 20th 2009, 11:14 PM
There is nothing spiritual about Messiah reigning in the millenial Temple, or the offerings He gives in it.

What is this millennial temple? What offerings will Christ be giving?

kay-gee
Apr 20th 2009, 11:22 PM
So... Christ said that he was greater than the temple buildings... the Revelation says he is the new temple... and yet he's going to re-institute an inferior mode of worship with a temple building?

Again, what sense does it make for God to create the imperfect Old Covenant, at long last replace it with the perfect New Covenant, and then return to an imperfect Old-style covenant?

This remains a real puzzle to me too, markedward. What an absolute insult to the blood of Christ, to preach that God is going to revert back to the blood of goats and bulls!

all the best...

keck553
Apr 20th 2009, 11:41 PM
What is this millennial temple? What offerings will Christ be giving?

Start with chapter 38 and read to about 40 or so.

keck553
Apr 20th 2009, 11:44 PM
And your statement is intended to convey the implication that the people you are disagreeing with are dismissing Ezekiel, as if the book isn't "an accepted prophet in canon".

Ok, then please explain it to me.

Watchmen
Apr 20th 2009, 11:58 PM
Replacement theology was a term created by the detractors of the Covenant theology Which does not teach that the Church has replace Israel but that the Believing Gentile have been grafted into Israel while the unbelieving Jews have been cut off. Therefore all believers regardless of blood line are citizens of the true Israel of God. Now as for what else the covenant theology teaches I am not sure but the belief that all believers in Christ has become Citizens of the true Israel of God regardless of blood line is 100% Biblical.

Romans 2:28-29
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Romans 10:12 For there is no difference between Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord is rich unto all that call upon his name.

Romans 11:16-24
16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partake of the root and fatness of the olive tree:
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19 Thou wilt say then, the branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.
20 Well: because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standeth by faith. Be not high minded but fear.
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou shall also be cut off.
23 And they also if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree that is wild by nature, and were grafted in contrary to nature into the good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branched be grated into there own olive tree?

Romans 12:5 So we being many, are one body in Christ, and every one member one of another.

Galatians 3:28-29
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if you be Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Galatians 6:15-16
15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

Ephesians 2:11-19
11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in times past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands.
12 That at times past you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonweath of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For He is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandment in ordinances; for to make in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you that were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God.

Ephesians 4:4-6
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of us all, who is above all, and through us all, and in you all.

Butch5
Apr 21st 2009, 02:14 AM
Glad this thread has come up.

Can anyone help with this verse?

Rev 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

Why would some make a false claim to being a Jew, and why would that be counted as blasphemy?

Could it be that some said they were Jews, to avoid the persecution by the Jews?

I believe what Jesus is referring to hear are people who are national Jews claiming to be saved (Spiritual Jews) but in reality they are not.

markedward
Apr 21st 2009, 03:39 AM
(Sorry, this post is kind of long. The "First", "Second", "Third", etc. points are things I mentioned before, but I believe should be mentioned again just so they are kept in mind when reading the second half of my post.)

First
It needs to be recognized that the Church is not a temporary "replacement" for Israel. As Watchmen pointed out, "the believing Gentile have been grafted into Israel while the unbelieving Jews have been cut off". This is what Paul describes in Romans. What is it that the Gentiles are being grafted onto? What is it that the Jews are being broken off of? The most obvious answer is Israel. Yet Paul is distinctly referring to the New Covenant, which the Church is founded upon. The Church is Israel.

Yet the author would claim that the Church and Israel are in no way related to each other, despite the fact that the New Testament authors consistently quote Old Testament prophecies regarding Israel as having been fulfilled in events regarding the Church.

Second
It needs to be recognized that the New Testament explicitly declares that the New Covenant - the grace found in the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ - is better than the Old Covenant. Hebrews 8 states it multiple times. Hebrews 9 and 10 go into elaborate detail on why the New Covenant is superior to the Old Covenant.

Yet the author of that article from the first page of the thread would claim that God will remove the superior New Covenant and return to the inferior Old Covenant. What is the point of returning to the inferior covenant-style when God purposefully made a superior covenant in Christ?

Third
God's promise to Abraham was that all nations would be blessed through his descendents. The New Covenant, as prophesied by the prophets, would unite the people of Israel with the Gentiles. Paul talks about this multiple times, and he explicitly says "there is neither Jew nor Gentile".

Yet the author of the article claims that God is going to divide the Jews and Gentiles again, and build up the barriers he intentionally broke down. What is the point of recreating the segregating people again when God went out of his way to unite them?

Fourth
Scripture states that the old, earthly temple and priesthood and daily sacrifices were shadows of their true things. Scripture states that everything regarding Christ was the fulfillment of those shadows, that Christ's sacrifice (his death), Christ's High Priest (himself), and Christ's temple (himself) were the true things.

Yet the author of the article claims that God is going to re-establish the shadows, that God is going to re-institute daily sacrifices, a Levitical priesthood, and a physical temple building. What is the point of returning to the shadows when God brought us the true light?

Fifth
The Church is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, Old Covenant promises. The author of the article insists that the Church, that is, the community of the followers of Christ who are under his once-for-all sacrifice, the New Covenant, "has no relationship" to Israel's promises and covenants. This is a flatout contradiction of Scripture:

Galatians 3.28-29 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

So who is Paul saying is "Abraham's offspring"? The Jews [the people of Israel] and the Gentiles. Who does Paul say are "heirs according to the promise"? Again, the Jews [the people of Israel] and the Gentiles. And what is the "promise" being referred to? Contextually, it is an Old Covenant, Old Testament promise made to Abraham and his descendents. And Paul says this about Jews and Gentiles, not just Jews.

And again:

Ephesians 2.12-13 ... remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

Note how Paul says "you [the Gentiles who comprise the church in Ephesus] were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise". But then Paul says "now ... you who once were far off have been brought near". Paul is explicitly saying that the Gentiles in the Church have been brought into the "commonwealth of Israel" and "the covenants of promise". What "covenants of promise" is Paul referring to? The ones made to Israel! Paul is outright saying that the Gentile church in Ephesus had "been brought near" to "the commonwealth of Israel".

Christ's once-for-all sacrifice replaced daily sacrifices. Christ's priesthood replaced the Levitical priesthood. Christ's temple (himself) replaced the temple buildings. Christ's New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant. This is not Israel being replaced by the Church. It is the Old system being replaced by a New system, both of which revolve around God's relationship with Israel. But in the New system, Israel is not just Jews, it is Jews and Gentiles. The Old way of things, right down to the segregation of Jews from Gentiles, is done away with. "Obsolete", according to the book of Hebrews. There will not be physical temple buildings again. There will not be a Levitical-style priesthood again.

If God is going to re-build the temple buildings, and re-institute the temple sacrifices and temple priests... wouldn't that mean that God is re-instituting the things that Scripture outright says are inferior to what Christ accomplished? Yet Hebrews called those things "shadows" of Christ. There will not be a return to the shadows.

In the first few chapters of the book, before the first temple of Jerusalem was destroyed, Ezekiel prophesied the destruction of the first temple (often called "Solomon's temple"), and in the last chapters, after the first temple's destruction, but before the construction of the second temple (often called "Herod's temple"), Ezekiel prophesied the building of another temple.

Since Ezekiel prophesied a temple's destruction while the first temple was still standing, it easily makes sense to conclude he was prophesying the first temple's destruction. So, since Ezekiel prophesied a temple's construction in the time after the first temple's destruction but before the second temple's construction, would it not make sense to, at the least, consider that Ezekiel was prophesying about the building of the second temple (and not a third/fourth/whichever "millennial temple")?

Again, temple sacrifices did not take away sin (Hebrews 10.1, 10.4, 10.11), but only serve to remind people of their sins (10.3). Yet Christ came, and his once-for-all sacrifice does take away sins (10.10, 10.12), and put a permanent end to the daily sacrifices (10.2), perfecting "for all time" those who believe in him (10.14). So... why would God return to the Old Covenant-style sacrifices that cannot take away sin? The answer is, he wouldn't. Hebrews 10 directly states that the sacrifice that takes away sins (i.e., Christ's once-for-all sacrifice) puts an end to the daily sacrifices (10.2). So the temple that Ezekiel prophesied the construction of must be interpreted as either referring to a pre-Christ physical temple, or it must be interpreted, in some manner or another, as being a symbolic or figurative prophecy of Christ and the New Covenant Church.

A careful reading of Ezekiel's prophecies shows that the people are led by a "prince", and not a "king". The only time-frame this corresponds to is that which followed the return from the Babylonian Exile: Zerubbabel, a prince of the house of Judah, was appointed as the governing authority ("governor", essentially) over the people of Israel, and he was in power when the second temple was built.

So, Ezekiel, during the Exile when there was no temple, prophesied the building of a temple, and the leading of a prince, and lo and behold, after the Exile, there was a temple built and prince leading. Was the second temple built according to Ezekiel's plans?

Assuming a "yes" answer, it is possible that the second temple was originally built according to Ezekiel's plans, but that, during Herod's extensive reconstruction to the temple buildings, during which the temple building itself was taken down and rebuilt entirely (however, the temple sacrifices and temple priesthood did not cease during this time), so that what it appeared as after Herod was done with it was not recognizable to what Ezekiel describes. Hence, it is possible that Ezekiel's plans were followed, but after Herod's reconstruction, the temple appeared nothing like what Ezekiel's plans describe.

Assuming a "no" answer, it is possible that Ezekiel's plans were never utilized in the building of the second temple, based on the verse of Ezekiel 43.11. Scripture is replete with conditional events, for example, if the people of God are faithful, or repentent, then God will bless them, but if they are not faithful, or unrepentent, then God will take away those blessings. These if-then statements I just described are the typical example, but there are several others. One such conditional event is found in Ezekiel 43.11: "... if they [the people returning from the Exile] are ashamed of all that they [Israel, collectively] have done, make known to them the design of the temple..."

Meaning, if the people are ashamed, Ezekiel will show them his temple-plans... so, if the people were not ashamed, Ezekiel was supposed keep the plans a secret to them. If Ezekiel hid these plans, it doesn't automatically contradict the fact that a temple was built... it would simply mean that the temple was not built according to Ezekiel's plans, and that his prophecies were [still] entirely fulfilled.

Regardless of whether the answer is yes or no, both answers are possible and compatible with the fact that Christ's once-for-all sacrifice that takes away sins put a permanent end to the daily temple sacrifices that do not take away sins (as well as a permanent end to the Levitical temple priests and the temple itself).

9Marksfan
Apr 21st 2009, 08:28 AM
Start with chapter 38 and read to about 40 or so.

OK - I'm guessing you mean Ezekiel - well the modern state of Israel has been in existence for over 60 years now and I don't see any evidence of God's Spirit being poured out - as a whole, the Jews are still rejecting the true Messiah and are waiting for a false one to make his FIRST appearance - when God pours out His Spirit on the Jewish people, they will come in repentance and faith to Jesus Christ in their droves - did you think I didn't believe that? I think the question is - do YOU believe that? Or do you think they will just be really zealous Jews?

9Marksfan
Apr 21st 2009, 08:30 AM
I believe what Jesus is referring to hear are people who are national Jews claiming to be saved (Spiritual Jews) but in reality they are not.

I agree - in rejecting Jesus Christ, their worship is false and unacceptable to God - therefore they are a synagogue of Satan and have no claim to be real Jews - for real Jews accept Jesus Christ NOW as Messiah.

Psalms Fan
Apr 22nd 2009, 04:24 AM
I don't have much to add that has not already been said, so I'll say the following (if it's already been said, please forgive my oversight):

-"Replacement Theology" is a straw man, and doesn't represent the theology of the people that it is supposing to represent. To be sure, there may be a small minority of non-dispensationalists who hold to such a teaching. But the vast majority, at the very least, of people who are accused of believing in "replacement theology" believe in no such thing.

-Consider what the word "church" means and what it meant two millennia ago. The Old Testament often used terminology such as "the assembly", referring to the assembly of God's people. When the Greek-speaking Israelites translated the Scriptures from Hebrew to Greek, they chose to use the word "ekklesia". So the Greek-speaking readers of the Scriptures were familiar with the term "ekklesia" as being the assembly of God's people.

The apostolic writers of the New Testament used the same word throughout their writings. So when we read the New Testament and see the word "church", we ought to see it as the word "assembly" as we would read in the Old Testament. We are the assembly of God's people. In the days of the Old Covenant, the assembly primarily consisted of ethnic Israelites, with some gentiles who became partakers of the covenant by being circumcised. After Christ, the assembly still consisted primarily of ethnic Israelites, albeit significantly fewer. And over time, more and more gentiles became part of the assembly, along with those who are ethnically Israelites.

There has always been an assembly of God's people. There was never one assembly being replaced by another assembly. At different times the number of those who were truly part of the assembly by faith was greater or smaller (during the days of Elijah...or was it Elisha?... there were only a couple thousand...or was it fewer?). During the days just after Jesus' ascension, there was a very small handful. Day by day the number grew larger and larger.

So by and large (with some possible exceptions), replacement theology just doesn't exist. So it really is pretty dishonest to use the term, no matter what popular TV preachers use it (I can think of one in particular who throws the term around left and right almost every time I hear him preach).

Emanate
Apr 22nd 2009, 06:28 PM
This remains a real puzzle to me too, markedward. What an absolute insult to the blood of Christ, to preach that God is going to revert back to the blood of goats and bulls!

all the best...


You mean like Paul did under the instruction of the Church in Acts 21?

Seriously though, I understand your confusion. Goats and Bulls were sacrificed for Yom Kippur. This is the sacrifice referred to in Hebrews. Though Paul did agree to sacrifice in Acts 21, it had nothing do do with a goat or a bull.

John146
Apr 22nd 2009, 06:42 PM
Replacement theology was a term created by the detractors of the Covenant theology Which does not teach that the Church has replace Israel but that the Believing Gentile have been grafted into Israel while the unbelieving Jews have been cut off. Therefore all believers regardless of blood line are citizens of the true Israel of God. Now as for what else the covenant theology teaches I am not sure but the belief that all believers in Christ has become Citizens of the true Israel of God regardless of blood line is 100% Biblical.

Romans 2:28-29
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Romans 10:12 For there is no difference between Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord is rich unto all that call upon his name.

Romans 11:16-24
16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partake of the root and fatness of the olive tree:
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19 Thou wilt say then, the branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.
20 Well: because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standeth by faith. Be not high minded but fear.
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou shall also be cut off.
23 And they also if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree that is wild by nature, and were grafted in contrary to nature into the good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branched be grated into there own olive tree?

Romans 12:5 So we being many, are one body in Christ, and every one member one of another.

Galatians 3:28-29
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if you be Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Galatians 6:15-16
15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

Ephesians 2:11-19
11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in times past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands.
12 That at times past you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonweath of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For He is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandment in ordinances; for to make in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you that were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God.

Ephesians 4:4-6
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of us all, who is above all, and through us all, and in you all.I agree. Very well said.

markedward
Apr 22nd 2009, 08:27 PM
You mean like Paul did under the instruction of the Church in Acts 21?

Seriously though, I understand your confusion. Goats and Bulls were sacrificed for Yom Kippur. This is the sacrifice referred to in Hebrews. Though Paul did agree to sacrifice in Acts 21, it had nothing do do with a goat or a bull.Hebrews doesn't refer to just the yearly sacrifices:

Hebrews 7.27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.

Hebrews 10.11-12 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God...

keck553
Apr 22nd 2009, 08:38 PM
These are sin offerings. What about the other offerings?

Emanate
Apr 22nd 2009, 08:48 PM
Hebrews 7.27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.

Hebrews 10.11-12 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God...


I will give an approximate answer and say that 95% of the sacrificial system had absolutely nothing to do with sin, which is why Saul agreed to continue therein (at least I 'spose)

kay-gee
Apr 22nd 2009, 09:53 PM
In Christ, it is over, Finished!, Kaput! The time for transition were the years from Pentecost to 70 AD. the year the Romans sacked Jerusalem and the Hebrew system (including Levitical priesthood, the temple and sacrifices) were finished forever. Since that time (Pentecost) the only acceptable sacrifice is the one Christ made on the cross. Salvation is Him alone. When someone is in Christ, they are added to His body which is the Church. Simple case of adding two and two together.

all the best...

Emanate
Apr 27th 2009, 08:42 PM
In Christ, it is over, Finished!, Kaput! The time for transition were the years from Pentecost to 70 AD. the year the Romans sacked Jerusalem and the Hebrew system (including Levitical priesthood, the temple and sacrifices) were finished forever. Since that time (Pentecost) the only acceptable sacrifice is the one Christ made on the cross. Salvation is Him alone. When someone is in Christ, they are added to His body which is the Church. Simple case of adding two and two together.

all the best...


I think you may be referring to the wrong pentecost. The sacrificial system became official at the first pentecost.

keck553
Apr 27th 2009, 08:50 PM
OK - I'm guessing you mean Ezekiel - well the modern state of Israel has been in existence for over 60 years now and I don't see any evidence of God's Spirit being poured out - as a whole, the Jews are still rejecting the true Messiah and are waiting for a false one to make his FIRST appearance - when God pours out His Spirit on the Jewish people, they will come in repentance and faith to Jesus Christ in their droves - did you think I didn't believe that? I think the question is - do YOU believe that? Or do you think they will just be really zealous Jews?

The Hebrews lived in Goshen for 400 years. All I know is not to get impatient with God. The outcome is very disappointing. 60 years is nothing in God's perspective. I suggest based on the Genesis story of Joself many more Jews will recognize the Holy One than Christians will.

Rom 11:24
(24) For if you were cut out of what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree!

The very things that make Messiah recognizable to Jews will make Him look foreign to a lot of Christians.

Sojourner
Apr 28th 2009, 12:30 AM
A Refutation of Replacement Theology

Read through 1 Peter 1. Looks pretty Christian, huh? Exactly what does that really mean though? Most Christians have been taught as though the Old Testament is Jewish and the New Testament is Christian. There's a sharp dividing line between what's Christian and what's Jewish. In the beginning of the church, the dividing line was not so sharp however, because the early Christian church was Jewish.

Not only do most churches fail to recognize the Jewishness of the gospel, and the Jewishness of the new Testament, but some churches even teach that Jews no longer have a place in God's plan of salvation. Their theology is that before Christ, the Jews were God's chosen people; after Christ, the church replaced them.

Read 1 Peter 2:1-10. Verses 9 and 10 read, "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy."

These verses are often used to support something called "Replacement Theology". Replacement theology is the belief that the church has replaced Israel in God's plan of salvation. It's the belief that Israel is no longer God's chosen people, because the church now is. It's the belief that God is no longer with Israel, because they rejected Christ as their messiah.

However, if we look back at verses 1:1 - 2, then ahead to verse 2:12, we can see that Peter was writing primarily to messianic Jews. First, let's compare various translations of 1 Peter 1:1 - 1.

RSV Translation
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who have been chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit to be obedient to Jesus Christ and to be sprinkled with his blood: May grace and peace be yours in abundance.

NAS Translation
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens,scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with the his blood: My grace and peace by yours in fullest measure.

NKJ Translation
1 Peter, an apostle of Christ, to the pilgrims of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied.

The Jewish New Testament
From: Kefa, an emissary of Yeshua the Messiah. To: God's chosen people, living as aliens in the Diaspora - inPontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, the province of Asia, and Bithynia - chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father and set apart by the Spirit for obeying Yeshua the Messiah and for sprinkling with his blood: Grace and shalom be yours in full measure.

Notice that Peter is writing to members of the Diaspora, or Dispersion, described in Acts 8:1 - 4. This group consisted of the new Christians who found themselves persecuted for their belief in Jesus as the messiah. Since the church originally consisted of mostly Jews, this means that Peter's audience was mostly a Jewish one. However, since Gentiles were coming to believe in Jesus as well, they were also part of the Diaspora, and so are intended to be part of Peter's audience as well.

That said, Peter then used the word eklektos (meaning select, chosen, or elect, implying favorite) to describe his audience. Since eklektos implies "favorite", we can infer that Peter is referring to Jews. It is true that the Gentiles are now "chosen" as well, but the Jews are God's first love (Jer. 31:31-34, Rom. 1:16, 2:9, 2:10 - "to the Jew first, and also to the Greek"), hence Peter's choice of word.

Please understand that Peter is not excluding the Gentiles by using eklektos, but he is acknowledging the makeup of his audience as being primarily Jewish. It must now be clear that Peter is certainly not excluding the Jews. Not only is he writing to Jews, but by using eklektos, Peter is reaffirming the place of the Jews as God's chosen race.

Now go back to 2:9 - 10, "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy."

Now look at 2:12: "Conduct yourselves honorably among the Gentiles, so that, though they malign you as evildoers, they may see your honorable deeds and glorify God when he comes to judge."

Given that the church was mostly Jewish, Peter wouldn't have used words to identify them as Jews unless he wanted them think of themselves as Jews. Instead, he would have thought of them as "the church", and instead of contrasting his audience with "Gentiles" (the vast majority of the unbelieving world), he would have simply contrasted them with "unbelievers".

Reading the audience as Jewish makes for a much more straight forward reading of the scripture, and better acknowledges the true history of the church.

Another stumbling block of many churches is that they only read from the New Testament. When they read verses that quote the Old Testament, they just let it stand. They don't mention that the quote is from the Old Testament or they mention it without turning to it. Either way, they're losing out.

For example, consider 1 Peter 1:3-9 (NAS), "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ; and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls."

Most Christians would simply let these verses stand as they are. However they constantly beg the question, "When?":

v. 3 - When will my hope be fulfilled?
v. 4 - When will I get my inheritance?
v. 5 - When is "the last time"?
v. 6 - When will my trials end?
v. 7 - When is the revelation of Jesus Christ?
v. 8 - When will I see Jesus?
v. 9 - When will I be in Heaven?

Notice Peter's response in verses 10-12, "As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful search and inquiry, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven things into which angles long to look."

Notice that these questions are questions that all Christians have. Notice that Old Testament prophets had exactly the same questions. As they were prophets, we know that their diligence was rewarded. We can see proof of this when we read Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, and others. Yet look again at what verse 12 says. It says that they were seeking and writing to us, and that what is being presented to us as the gospel is the same as what they wrote. The prophets were writing the gospel to us! Since the prophets were writing the gospel, and they were writing it to us, we must read it!

This conclusion begs one more question. Exactly who was Peter saying the prophets were writing to? They were writing to Peter's audience. But I just got finished saying that Peter's audience was Jewish, didn't I? Not exactly. What I said is that he was writing to the Diaspora, and that his language acknowledges that the Diaspora consisted mostly of Jews at that time. However, Peter was writing to everyone in the Diaspora, and the Diaspora did include gentiles. Therefore, the prophets, too, were writing to gentiles.

Paul sums up everything we've talked about in Romans 11:11 - 24 (Stern),

In that case, I say, isn't it that they [the Jews] have stumbled with the result that they have permanently fallen away? Heaven forbid! Quite the contrary, it is by means of their stumbling that the deliverance has come to the Gentiles, in order to provoke them to jealousy. Moreover, if their stumbling is bringing riches to the world - that is, if Israel's being placed temporarily in a condition less favored than that of the Gentiles is riches to the latter - how much greater will Israel in its fullness bring them!

However, to those of you who are Gentiles I say this: since I myself am an emissary sent to the Gentiles, I make known the importance of my work in the hope that somehow I may provoke some of my own people to jealousy and save some of them! For if their casting Jesus aside means reconciliation for the world, what will their accepting him mean? It will be life from the dead!

Now if the bread offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole loaf. And if the root is holy, so are the branches. But if some of the branches were broken off, and you - a wild olive tree - were grafted in among them and have become equal sharers in the rich root of the olive tree, then don't boast as if you were better than the branches! However, if you do boast, remember that you are not supporting the root, the root is supporting you. So you will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." True, but so what? They were broken off because of their lack of trust. However, you keep your place only because of your trust. So don't be arrogant; on the contrary, be terrified! For if God did not spare the natural branches, he certainly won't spare you! So take a good look at God's kindness and his severity: on the one hand, severity toward those who fell off; but, on the other hand, God's kindness toward you - provided you maintain yourself in that kindness! Otherwise, you too will be cut off! Moreover, the others, if they do not persist in their lack of trust, will be grafted in; because God is able to graft them back in. For if you were cut out of what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own live tree!

A reminder of Israel's Role in the Plan of Salvation (http://www.geocities.com/israeltour/20000114RepTheo.html) (or "Jesus Married an Olive Tree")

[Sorry, I had to post the whole thing as I didn't have the URL.]

bagofseed
Apr 28th 2009, 02:17 AM
Does anyone here believe in replacement theology?

I think it is being outlined here as the church replacing spiritual Israel?

Physical fleshly Israel was always broken off because of sin.

I believe that because of physical Israels sins the promise of faith in the messiah Jesus was extended to the world to make the Jealous.

That it was always through faith in the promise of Gods salvation to come in the OT
It will always be through faith in the promise of God fulfilled in the NT.

Spiritual Israel and the church have always been the same, those of faith in Gods promise of salvation.

As to what was replaced, it was only that which was replaced by the promise, by Jesus Himself. The embodiment of the way the truth and the life. the only High Priest who lives forever.

The earthly things pertaining to the priesthood are gone, because they always where in heaven.

The OT laws that resulted in blessing or cursing or death to men of flesh are still (I think) ruling over men of flesh who have not died.

But all who are in Christ Jesus have died, and have become alive to the true heavenly version of the former earthly things.

Love.

markedward
Apr 28th 2009, 05:12 AM
Does anyone here believe in replacement theology?Like Psalms Fan said,

"'Replacement Theology' is a straw man, and doesn't represent the theology of the people that it is supposing to represent. To be sure, there may be a small minority of non-dispensationalists who hold to such a teaching. But the vast majority, at the very least, of people who are accused of believing in "replacement theology" believe in no such thing."

bagofseed
Apr 28th 2009, 05:58 AM
Good to know.

So whenever the topic comes up I will just ask does anybody actually believe in this?

markedward
Apr 28th 2009, 06:49 AM
That would be the best thing to do.

Everyone take note:
The distinguishing characteristic between "replacement theology" and "covenant theology" is this:

Replacement theology teaches that Israel and the Church are separate groups of people, and that ever since the days of the apostles, the Church has existed alongside Israel, but the Church replaced Israel as God's people.

Covenant theology teaches that the Church is Israel. The Old Covenant was replaced by the New Covenant, but Israel in and of itself was not replaced, it only grew to include Christ-following Gentiles alongside the Christ-following Jews. No replacement of Israel took place.

brakelite
Apr 28th 2009, 10:13 AM
Hi . I posted this as a response to a question on another thread, but thought readers here might benefit also.
The name "Israel" first appears in the Bible in Genesis 32:28 After a night of wrestling with the heavenly visitor (who I personally believe to be Christ Himself) Jacob prevails in his efforts and his name is changed from Jacob, the deceiver or supplanter, to Israel, meaning he will rule. Jacob has prevailed with God and overcome.

At the time of this event, Jacob was reluctant to face Esau after 20 years of exile and was quite simply terrified of him. His former deception of his father and claim to be Esau was now playing on his conscience and he desired God's blessing and forgiveness before proceeding. So the 'Angel' asks Jacob his name, to which he truthfully replies 'my name is Jacob'. In this he was confessing his guilt, and God then knew he was a changed man, so gave him a new name that celebrated so to speak his victory over sin, self and his night of wrestling in prayer, the 'Angel' saying "for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed."
Israel, as a name therefore represents spiritual victory over sin.

In Exod 4:22,23 Moses is instructed on how he is to speak to Pharaoh in order that Israel's descendants may be freed from slavery. God says to Moses "and thou shalt say unto Pharaoh 'Thus saith the Lord,Israel is My son, my firstborn and I say unto thee let My son go to serve me..."
This is the first time Israel is used in a corporate sense for the entire nation. Before it applied only to an individual, but here we see it being applied to his descendants. First to a victorious man, then to his people.
Did Israel live up to that name? What was God trying to accomplish in establishing Israel in the first place? Was it not that He would have a people to represent Him on the earth? Before God had His champions, but all failed. Sin interposed and no longer was any of God's chosen able to fulfil the true destiny that God intended for them. Adam failed over appetite. So did Noah. Abraham also, but God was determined to establish a people after His own heart and show the gentiles His law, His mercy and grace and power. Interesting that Adam, Noah, and Israel all failed on points of appetite. (Gen 9:20,21; Exodus 16:27-29.)

It wasn't until Jesus came on the scene in person that the title "Israel" in it's truest spiritual sense and power could be rightly bestowed. And Mathew in particular showed this time and time again how Jesus was the fulfilment of the OT prophecies which may have originally applied to the nation, but now, according to Mathew's inspired writings, applied in fact to Jesus. Examples are Hosea 11:1 ; Isaiah 41:8,42:1-3 .
Paul followed the same idea and reasoning by paralleling Coll 1:15 with Ex 4:22, Gal 3:16 with Isaiah 41:8 and elsewhere.

Jesus Himself proclaimed Himself as the true vine, in fulfilment of Ps 80:8 which applied to the nation.
So now the mantle and authority once bestowed upon the nation has been given to Jesus. Jesus is the essence of true Israel. He only has the right to bear the name for He only has prevailed with sin and overcome. Jesus walked over the same ground that Israel walked, but came through victorious. In His temptations in the wilderness, it was appetite that came under particular scrutiny.

What Paul does in Romans and other writers in the NT however is extend that idea and show how the name Israel also now applies to Jesus' descendants, just as it did to Jacob's descendants. Peter also showed this when he compared the church to Exodus 19:6.(1 Peter 2:9).
So as Paul says, immediately after saying that Jesus is the 'seed' of Abraham, Gentile converts in Galatia were now also Abraham's seed because they are Christ's. They are also heirs according to the promise.
This is not 'replacement ' theology. It is merely a revelation of who true Israel always was and who Israel is now. It is those people, of whatever nation kindred tongue and people, who by faith in the mercy grace and power of God overcome sin and receive Christ's righteousness and forgiveness as a gift and are willing to share that gift with the lost. True Israel was always exclusively those who "as princes had power with God and men and prevailed".

Naphal
Aug 6th 2009, 07:41 AM
A "generation" has almost come and gone since 1948...no temple! no return to Biblical Judaeic worship including animal sacrifices.

It's over.

all the best...


Such a hard truth to swallow. Everything has to change. Great post.

Naphal
Aug 6th 2009, 07:54 AM
So... Christ said that he was greater than the temple buildings... the Revelation says he is the new temple... and yet he's going to re-institute an inferior mode of worship with a temple building?

Again, what sense does it make for God to create the imperfect Old Covenant, at long last replace it with the perfect New Covenant, and then return to an imperfect Old-style covenant?

Amen. There is NO scripture that declares such a thing. Ezek. Chapters do not say anything remotely close to that.

Naphal
Aug 6th 2009, 07:57 AM
This remains a real puzzle to me too, markedward. What an absolute insult to the blood of Christ, to preach that God is going to revert back to the blood of goats and bulls!

all the best...


Super Amen!

............................................

Naphal
Aug 6th 2009, 08:09 AM
I suggest based on the Genesis story of Joself many more Jews will recognize the Holy One than Christians will.
.

That makes no sense. Christians by definition include Jews AND all other races which BY FAR out number Jews.

Naphal
Aug 6th 2009, 08:11 AM
Does anyone here believe in replacement theology?

I think it is being outlined here as the church replacing spiritual Israel?

Physical fleshly Israel was always broken off because of sin.



Amen!


.................................................. ..................

Naphal
Aug 6th 2009, 08:16 AM
That would be the best thing to do.

Everyone take note:
The distinguishing characteristic between "replacement theology" and "covenant theology" is this:

Replacement theology teaches that Israel and the Church are separate groups of people, and that ever since the days of the apostles, the Church has existed alongside Israel, but the Church replaced Israel as God's people.

Covenant theology teaches that the Church is Israel. The Old Covenant was replaced by the New Covenant, but Israel in and of itself was not replaced, it only grew to include Christ-following Gentiles alongside the Christ-following Jews. No replacement of Israel took place.

Your posts are usually great but don't you see a contradiction here?


"Replacement theology teaches that Israel and the Church are separate groups of people"

"Covenant theology teaches that the Church is Israel."

How can the church be separate from Israel yet the church IS Israel??

sheina maidle
Aug 9th 2009, 05:10 AM
Your posts are usually great but don't you see a contradiction here?


"Replacement theology teaches that Israel and the Church are separate groups of people"

"Covenant theology teaches that the Church is Israel."

How can the church be separate from Israel yet the church IS Israel??
Those two statements certainly DO contradict themselves. Israel (the nation) is NOT the Church/Body of Christ and the Church/Body of Christ is not Israel (the nation). Replacement theology does teach that the Church is "New" or "spiritual" Israel. Covenant Theology teaches the same.

Naphal
Aug 9th 2009, 06:46 AM
Israel (the nation) is NOT the Church/Body of Christ and the Church/Body of Christ is not Israel (the nation).

I'd have to disagree with that based on scripture. :)

Romans 11 deals with how Israel has been pruned of her unbelievers and has been enlarged by believing gentiles, all because of their unified belief in Jesus. Its partially the same Israel of old but pruned and with new additions. Still Israel whether known as the church, or the body of Christ or what have you.

sheina maidle
Aug 9th 2009, 07:33 AM
I'd have to disagree with that based on scripture. :)

Romans 11 deals with how Israel has been pruned of her unbelievers and has been enlarged by believing gentiles, all because of their unified belief in Jesus. Its partially the same Israel of old but pruned and with new additions. Still Israel whether known as the church, or the body of Christ or what have you.
The Greek word for church is ekklesia and it refers to God’s CALLED OUT assembly. God is visiting the nations taking out of them a people for His Name. Who are these people? They are God’s CALLED-OUT ones, His church!

Acts 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

The Church is not grafted into Israel! What do you mean by "partially the same Israel of old"? The Church is an entirely new group of people (Jews and Gentiles) who have been born again by the Spirit of God. They are members of the Body of Christ, not Israel.

Since you made reference to Romans 11, here are some study notes on vs. 17, 18, 23, & 24 from Middletown Bible Church:


Romans 11:17

God must have branches in keeping with the root. Unbelieving Jews bear no resemblance to father Abraham who "believed God" (Gen. 15:6). The natural branches refer to Israel. The wild branches refer to the Gentiles. The cultivated olive tree refers to the place of God’s blessing. The wild olive tree is not the place of blessing (cf. Eph. 2:11-13) but branches from the wild olive tree are grafted into the cultivated olive tree and are then able to partake of the root and fatness of the olive tree (Rom. 11:17). Some of the natural branches were "broken off," and verse 20 gives the reason why ("because of unbelief"). Wild branches were "grafted in among them" because of faith in Christ--compare Rom. 9:30-32--and thus are in the place of blessing. Believing Gentiles are able to enjoy God’s salvation and God's righteousness and God's Spirit--see Gal. 3:14--that the blessings of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, that we might receive the Spirit through faith.

Romans 11:18

"Boast not against the (natural) branches!" Paul is here addressing the Gentiles and giving them a strong warning. They did not support the root but the root supported them, and they needed to realize this. They were in the place that they were in, not because of any merit or goodness on their part, but only because of their relationship to Abraham due to their faith in Abraham’s God (Rom. 4:12,16).

Romans 11:23-24

Paul now gets back to his main point about the future restoration of the nation Israel (compare verses 12 and 15). "They" refers to Israel (the Jews). Today the Jews are in unbelief (the majority of them, though not all of them), and this is the reason they are not part of the olive tree. But if they do not remain in unbelief (that is, if they trust Christ as Saviour), then they shall be grafted in to the olive tree and once again will be in the place of blessing, partaking of the root and fatness of the olive tree (compare v.17). They were put out because of unbelief (v.20) and they can get back in by believing (v.23). The God who removed them and broke them off is certainly able to graft them in again. In fact, the grafting in of the natural branches is less remarkable than the grafting in of unnatural, wild branches. What God has done to the Gentiles is "contrary to nature." How much more will the Jews (the natural branches) be grafted into their own olive tree? After all, that’s where they belong!

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/romans/romans11.htm

Romans 11 concerns the question of "God has not cast away His people, the Israelites"...not how Israel is being pruned of her unbelievers and has been enlarged by believing Gentiles.

As you can see, Romans 11 does not teach that the Church is Israel.

Naphal
Aug 9th 2009, 07:53 AM
The Greek word for church is ekklesia and it refers to God’s CALLED OUT assembly. God is visiting the nations taking out of them a people for His Name. Who are these people? They are God’s CALLED-OUT ones, His church!

Sure but that's only one of many names they are known by which includes Israel.




Acts 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

The Church is not grafted into Israel!



Of course not. The church IS Israel and Israel IS the church. The only ones grafted onto Israel/the church are gentiles and any Jews that return in faith and are re-attached. That is all in Romans 11 that I mentioned above.



What do you mean by "partially the same Israel of old"?

Israel consists of ethnic Jews that have accepted Christ so ethnic Jews are still there and of course there are gentile additions.



The Church an entirely new group of people (Jews and Gentiles) who have been born again by the Spirit of God. They are members of the Body of Christ, not Israel.

Again,. Romans 11 makes it very clear that gentile Christians join in the same tree as the natural branches. The natural branches are Jews who are of Israel and gentiles join them! That's how we know all of them together, under the name of Christ, are all Israel. Gods people are not two groups. He has one people! Since Christ God's people are Christians from every ethnicity. God's people are always known as Israel and other names.



Since you made reference to Romans 11, here are some study notes on vs. 17, 18, 23, & 24 from Middletown Bible Church:

Nothing there contradicts what I have said. They simply do not name the olive tree as representing the commonwealth of Israel but does recognize that its branches are the people of Israel.



Romans 11 concerns the question of "God has not cast away His people, the Israelites"...not how Israel is being pruned of her unbelievers and has been enlarged by believing Gentiles.

Romans 11 speaks of Israel "being pruned of her unbelievers and has been enlarged by believing Gentiles."

Please read it for yourself:


Romans 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

""being pruned of her unbelievers"

Romans 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

"enlarged by believing Gentiles"


Note here that the gentiles are graffed "in among them" meaning in with the Jews! In what with the Jews? What exactly did the gentiles join "in among" Christian Jews? The answer is the gentiles became new members of Israel. Israel is not an exclusive club by ethnicity! Its open to all who follow Christ.


Romans 11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
Romans 11:19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
Romans 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:


"being pruned of her unbelievers"





As you can see, Romans 11 does not teach that the Church is Israel.

I see that it does. You see that it does not :( I am sad we do not see the same things.

sheina maidle
Aug 9th 2009, 01:31 PM
Of course not. The church IS Israel and Israel IS the church. The only ones grafted onto Israel/the church are gentiles and any Jews that return in faith and are re-attached. That is all in Romans 11 that I mentioned above.
Since you believe that the Church IS Israel, try doing this when you read the NT Scriptures (from Acts to Revelation). Every time you see the word "Israel", substitute the word "Church in it's place.

For instance:

Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel (the Church) is, that they might be saved.

Basically this is what you do when you say that the Church IS Israel.

If God had meant that the Church is Israel, then that verse, and all the others in the NT would say Church, not Israel.

Naphal
Aug 9th 2009, 08:04 PM
Since you believe that the Church IS Israel, try doing this when you read the NT Scriptures (from Acts to Revelation). Every time you see the word "Israel", substitute the word "Church in it's place.

For instance:

Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel (the Church) is, that they might be saved.

Basically this is what you do when you say that the Church IS Israel.



There are times when Israel can be the literal nation of unsaved Jews so you must understand context when a word like Israel is used.


James 5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

Here you could substitute Israel for "the Church" and it would make sense but you can't always interchange the terms because they have multiple meanings. Sometimes a church is a literal building, other times it speaks of Christians corporately just as sometimes Israel speaks of Christians corporately.

Instead of finding verses where we can't substitute one word for another, how about just discussing the verses supplied earlier that show those in Christ are members of the commonwealth of Israel, meaning all are Israelites regardless of ethnicity.

sheina maidle
Aug 10th 2009, 01:47 AM
There are times when Israel can be the literal nation of unsaved Jews so you must understand context when a word like Israel is used.


James 5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

Here you could substitute Israel for "the Church" and it would make sense but you can't always interchange the terms because they have multiple meanings. Sometimes a church is a literal building, other times it speaks of Christians corporately just as sometimes Israel speaks of Christians corporately.

Instead of finding verses where we can't substitute one word for another, how about just discussing the verses supplied earlier that show those in Christ are members of the commonwealth of Israel, meaning all are Israelites regardless of ethnicity.
There is only ONE Israel....that Israel is the NATION. The Church and Israel are SEPARATE.

. Nowhere in scripture does the word Israel mean the Church! The Church is never called, and is not, a “spiritual Israel” or a “new Israel.” The term “Israel” is either used of the nation or the people as a whole, or of the believing remnant within. It is never used of the Church in general or of Gentile believers in particular.

The term “Israel” is used a total of 73 times in the New Testament. There is not ONE time where Israel is used when it means "the Church". Here are some of those verses where the term Israel does not, nor cannot mean the Church. Since scripture interprets scripture, Israel cannot be substituted for the Church nor can the Church be substituted for Israel...not even in Romans 9-11 which Covenant Theology uses as "proof texts".


Acts 5:31: Peter offers “repentance to Israel.” Israel is in unbelief at this point and so is obviously not the Church.

Acts 5:35: Gamaliel addressing his fellow members of the Sanhedrin states, “Ye men of Israel,” none of whom were believers.

Romans 9:6: Paul draws a contrast of two Israels: Israel the whole, and believing Israel within Israel the whole. Both Israels comprise Jews only. While some Covenant Theologians wish to make the believing Israel the Church, other Covenant Theologians agree that this verse contrasts Jews who believe and Jews who do not.

Romans 9:27: Another contrast between unbelieving Israel and the believing remnant.

Romans 9:31: A reference to unbelieving Israel who “did not arrive at that law.”

Romans 10:21: God’s hands are stretched out to unbelieving Israel still.

Romans 11:1: Paul refers to himself as an “Israelite” nationally and ethnically.

Romans 11:2: Paul makes an historical reference to the fact that “Elijah pleaded with God against Israel” because of Israel’s unbelief.

Romans 11:7: Paul again draws a contrast between Israel the whole that failed to obtain what she was seeking for with the remnant, “the election,” that did.

Romans 11:25: Paul speaks of the blindness that had befallen Israel.

Romans 11:26: The prophecy that all Israel will be saved. Covenant Theologians are split on the meaning of this verse. Generally speaking, Covenant Amillennialists see this as a reference to the Church, while Covenant Postmillennialists and Covenant Premillennialists see it as a reference to national ethnic Israel.

Ephesians 2:12: The “commonwealth of Israel” is contrasted with the Gentiles and with the “one new man” which is the Church.

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/israelaf.htm

BTW, all believers are members of the Body of Christ....not members of the "commonwealth of Israel"

James 5:14 is not a good example where "Israel" can be substituted for "the Church". The term Israel in the NT (or OT) never means Church and is never substituted as such:

Strong's Greek Dictionary
1577. ekklesia

ekklesia ek-klay-see'-ah
from a compound of 1537 and a derivative of 2564; a calling out, i.e. (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both):--assembly, church.
_____________________________________________
Strong's Greek Dictionary
2474. Israel

Israel is-rah-ale'
of Hebrew origin (3478); Israel (i.e. Jisrael), the adopted name of Jacob, including his descendants (literally or figuratively):--Israel.

Strong's Hebrew Dictionary
3478. Yisra'el

Yisra'el yis-raw-ale'
from 8280 and 410; he will rule as God; Jisrael, a symbolical name of Jacob; also (typically) of his posterity: --Israel.
______________________________________

Strong's Greek Dictionary
4174. politeia

politeia pol-ee-ti'-ah
from 4177 ("polity"); citizenship; concretely, a community:--commonwealth, freedom.
______________________________________

Naphal
Aug 10th 2009, 02:08 AM
There is only ONE Israel....that Israel is the NATION. The Church and Israel are SEPARATE.

And as you know I disagree.

.
Nowhere in scripture does the word Israel mean the Church!

I've showed in Ephesians 2:12 that Christians are a part of Israel and if Christians also make up the church then the church and this Christian Israel are one in the same.



The Church is never called, and is not, a “spiritual Israel” or a “new Israel.” The term “Israel” is either used of the nation or the people as a whole, or of the believing remnant within. It is never used of the Church in general or of Gentile believers in particular.

I disagree, see above.



The term “Israel” is used a total of 73 times in the New Testament. There is not ONE time where Israel is used when it means "the Church".


Ephesians 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

It does here.





Here are some of those verses where the term Israel does not, nor cannot mean the Church.

As I said in my last post, not every use of Israel refers to Christians but at times it does.





BTW, all believers are members of the Body of Christ....not members of the "commonwealth of Israel"

They are members of Israel according to this verse:


Ephesians 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

The persons he is speaking to had been gentiles before they became Christians as 2:11 shows.


Ephesians 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;





James 5:14 is not a good example where "Israel" can be substituted for "the Church". The term Israel in the NT (or OT) never means Church and is never substituted as such:

Strong's Greek Dictionary
1577. ekklesia

ekklesia ek-klay-see'-ah
from a compound of 1537 and a derivative of 2564; a calling out, i.e. (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both):--assembly, church.
_____________________________________________
Strong's Greek Dictionary
2474. Israel

Israel is-rah-ale'
of Hebrew origin (3478); Israel (i.e. Jisrael), the adopted name of Jacob, including his descendants (literally or figuratively):--Israel.

Strong's Hebrew Dictionary
3478. Yisra'el

Yisra'el yis-raw-ale'
from 8280 and 410; he will rule as God; Jisrael, a symbolical name of Jacob; also (typically) of his posterity: --Israel.
______________________________________

Strong's Greek Dictionary
4174. politeia

politeia pol-ee-ti'-ah
from 4177 ("polity"); citizenship; concretely, a community:--commonwealth, freedom.
______________________________________



Ok, lets involve Thayer's as well:

1577 ekklesia {ek-klay-see'-ah}
from a compound of 1537 and a derivative of 2564; TDNT - 3:501,394; n f
AV - church 115, assembly 3; 118
1) a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some
public place, an assembly
1a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the
council for the purpose of deliberating
1b) the assembly of the Israelites
1c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance,
tumultuously


Here we see that the word for CHURCH can refer to the assembly of the Israelites AND...


1d) in a Christian sense
1d1) an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a
religious meeting



...and it can refer to Christians gathering. Church simply means people gathered together and so when Christians are together they are not aliens from the commonwealth of Israel because they have Christ so they are the church, Israel, and the body of Christ.


1d2) a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for
eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own
religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and
manage their own affairs, according to regulations
prescribed for the body for order's sake
1d3) those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a
company and are united into one body
1d4) the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
1d5) the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and
received into heaven

Sirus
Aug 10th 2009, 04:34 AM
A "generation" has almost come and gone since 1948...no temple! no return to Biblical Judaeic worship including animal sacrifices.

It's over.

all the best...:rofl:
almost?
good one!
:rofl:

It ain't over til it's over ;)

CommanderRobey
Aug 10th 2009, 05:34 AM
The Church is not Israel. It has never been Israel, nor will it ever be.

Look at the following verse:

Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

Now, let's change 'Israel' to 'the Church' :

Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Church is, that they might be saved.

Now, to change Israel to the Church is ridiculous. The Church is the Body of Christ.

Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

The Body of Christ does not need to be saved. It is already saved, for it is a part of Christ.

Lets look at Colossians 1:18 changing 'the Church' to 'Israel,' shall we?

Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, Israel: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Now we know that Israel is the land and the people that live therein according to God's Holy Word. So if we were to say that the Church was Israel, that would mean that no Gentiles living outside of Israel's boundaries can ever be saved, for they do not meet the requirements to officially be called Israelites.

Nowhere in the Word of God is the Church called Israel. Why add to the Word of God saying it is? The Church is the Body of Christ and is comprised of believers from all over the world.

I did not become an Israelite when I placed my faith in Christ Jesus; neither naturally or spiritually. My flesh remained the same. I carry the same Gentile blood I was born with, my skin continues to bear the same resemblance it did before I was saved. What changed was my spirit. I had a heart for God; a desire to learn of Him and to serve Him. But even my spirit did not become Israel. There is no Scripture whatsoever in the Word of God that says I as an individual, or the Church as a whole became Israel...nowhere!

Naphal
Aug 10th 2009, 05:53 AM
I did not become an Israelite when I placed my faith in Christ Jesus; neither naturally or spiritually. My flesh remained the same. I carry the same Gentile blood I was born with, my skin continues to bear the same resemblance it did before I was saved. What changed was my spirit. I had a heart for God; a desire to learn of Him and to serve Him. But even my spirit did not become Israel. There is no Scripture whatsoever in the Word of God that says I as an individual, or the Church as a whole became Israel...nowhere!

Oops...

Ephesians 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

Paul says they used to be a gentile!

Ephesians 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

And in the past being a gentile there were without Christ (this is before they converted) and were aliens to the commonwealth of Israel.

Alien means to be a foreigner, someone that doesn't belong and not a part of Israel. That makes sense! A non-believing gentile wouldn't be part of Israel but if you do have Christ and are a gentile you can be part of Israel, an Israelite! How? Romans 11 shows that God attaches gentiles to Israel to be among natural born Israelites. Its an amazing blessing to the gentiles and one that should be honored and enjoyed. I am shocked by the reactions of Jews and gentiles alike that this would be done. It's a wonderfully beautiful act by God.

Sirus
Aug 10th 2009, 06:01 AM
There's only One Body that is Christ, One Spirit, One Faith, One Baptism, One People of God, Congregation, Church.
Isa 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
Eph 2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
Eph 2:17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
Eph 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Eph 2:21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
Eph 2:22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Sirus
Aug 10th 2009, 06:03 AM
Romans 11 shows that God attaches gentiles to Israel to be among natural born Israelites.No. Both are in the root, which is Christ.

Naphal
Aug 10th 2009, 06:05 AM
No. Both are in the root, which is Christ.

Pardon? I know who the root is but it doesn't change that Gentiles have been grafted to the tree.

Naphal
Aug 10th 2009, 06:08 AM
Eph 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;



That's another good verse which proves that gentiles in Christ are fellowcitizens (in the commonwealth of Israel) with the saints who naturally were Jews.

If you are a fellowcitizen with natural born citizens of Israel then you are also Israel!

Sirus
Aug 10th 2009, 06:20 AM
I'm sorry, and the tree supports the root? Or does the root support the tree? Israel and Gentile are branches, not the tree. There are not two trees.

Rom 11:17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, I read your individualistic interpretation and I'm baffled as to how you came to such a conclusion. Don't buy it. :o You cannot graft a tree into a tree. :B

Sirus
Aug 10th 2009, 06:23 AM
That's another good verse which proves that gentiles in Christ are fellowcitizens (in the commonwealth of Israel) with the saints who naturally were Jews.

If you are a fellowcitizen with natural born citizens of Israel then you are also Israel!Like this?

Eze 47:21 So shall ye divide this land unto you according to the tribes of Israel.
Eze 47:22 And it shall come to pass, that ye shall divide it by lot for an inheritance unto you, and to the strangers that sojourn among you, which shall beget children among you: and they shall be unto you as born in the country among the children of Israel; they shall have inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel.
Eze 47:23 And it shall come to pass, that in what tribe the stranger sojourneth, there shall ye give him his inheritance, saith the Lord GOD.

:D

Naphal
Aug 10th 2009, 06:38 AM
I'm sorry, and the tree supports the root? Or does the root support the tree?


Roots support the tree of course.


Israel and Gentile are branches, not the tree.

Yes, we are all aware of this.


There are not two trees.

And where did the grafted branches come from? Did you forget this verse?


Romans 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;


There is the olive tree (Israel) and the wild olive tree (gentiles)



I read your individualistic interpretation and I'm baffled as to how you came to such a conclusion. Don't buy it. :o You cannot graft a tree into a tree. :B

No one here has said such a thing. Branches were taken off a wild tree and grafted onto another non-wild tree.

Naphal
Aug 10th 2009, 06:42 AM
Like this?

Eze 47:21 So shall ye divide this land unto you according to the tribes of Israel.
Eze 47:22 And it shall come to pass, that ye shall divide it by lot for an inheritance unto you, and to the strangers that sojourn among you, which shall beget children among you: and they shall be unto you as born in the country among the children of Israel; they shall have inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel.
Eze 47:23 And it shall come to pass, that in what tribe the stranger sojourneth, there shall ye give him his inheritance, saith the Lord GOD.

:D


That's a similar concept but to be a fellowcitizen, grafted right to the very same tree that the natural branches grow from is different in that all are equal in Christ but in the OT example the equality is not the same. They remain strangers rather than fellow Israelites.

sheina maidle
Aug 10th 2009, 06:45 AM
Oops...

Ephesians 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

Paul says they used to be a gentile!

Ephesians 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

And in the past being a gentile there were without Christ (this is before they converted) and were aliens to the commonwealth of Israel.

Alien means to be a foreigner, someone that doesn't belong and not a part of Israel. That makes sense! A non-believing gentile wouldn't be part of Israel but if you do have Christ and are a gentile you can be part of Israel, an Israelite! How? Romans 11 shows that God attaches gentiles to Israel to be among natural born Israelites. Its an amazing blessing to the gentiles and one that should be honored and enjoyed. I am shocked by the reactions of Jews and gentiles alike that this would be done. It's a wonderfully beautiful act by God.
Which scripture says that the Gentiles attach themselves to Israel? When I got saved (I'm a Jew ethnically) I became a MEMBER of the Body of Jesus Christ....not the commonwealth of Israel! The promises God made with the Church are heavenly (we are seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus..Eph. 1).

Ephesians 2:12: The “commonwealth of Israel” is contrasted with the Gentiles and with the “one new man” which is the Church.

Seems as though your focus is "earthy"...not "heavenly". God promises Israel an earthly Kingdom...the Church, however, has been delivered from the "power of darkness" into the "kingdom of His dear Son"...the Lord Jesus Christ.

Colossians 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

Alien means a foreigner...period, not just of the nation of Israel. Gentiles remain gentiles, even after salvation. There is no such thing as a "spiritual" Jew. That is an entirely different topic...but I've known Gentiles who, after salvation, "converted" to Judaism, so they could become Jews. News flash!! They are still Gentiles.

Naphal
Aug 10th 2009, 06:58 AM
Which scripture says that the Gentiles attach themselves to Israel?

No verse says that.

But God does it. "Romans 11 shows that God attaches gentiles to Israel " verse 17


Romans 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;







When I got saved (I'm a Jew ethnically) I became a MEMBER of the Body of Jesus Christ....not the commonwealth of Israel!

I am also a Jew ethnically but I was born into Christianity because my family had been Christians for generations. However, being a non-Christian Jew you would have been of those natural branches "broken off" of Israel but when you became Christian you were reattached! Its mentioned in this verse!


Romans 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

Its so amazing to see the scriptures come to life in people you meet! :)





Gentiles remain gentiles, even after salvation.

They may be earlthy-ethnically gentiles but since you speak so much of heavenly concepts please look at their conversion in that way as well. They are not gentiles in the spiritual sense anylonger.




There is no such thing as a "spiritual" Jew.

Naturally there is.



That is an entirely different topic...but I've known Gentiles who, after salvation, "converted" to Judaism, so they could become Jews. News flash!! They are still Gentiles.

There is no spiritual change when someone enters in a non-Chjristian religion but when they become Christian there is a spiriual change. Christian gentiles are grafted in with Christian Jews and become fellowcitizens with the saints. It happens whether they realize it or not and agree with it or not ;)

Sirus
Aug 10th 2009, 07:06 AM
And where did the grafted branches come from? Did you forget this verse?

Romans 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

There is the olive tree (Israel) and the wild olive tree (gentiles)


No one here has said such a thing. Branches were taken off a wild tree and grafted onto another non-wild tree.Then who cares about the old gentile tree? There is only one tree to be concerned with here.

Sirus
Aug 10th 2009, 07:11 AM
That's a similar concept but to be a fellowcitizen, grafted right to the very same tree that the natural branches grow from is different in that all are equal in Christ but in the OT example the equality is not the same. They remain strangers rather than fellow Israelites.Hardly
"they shall be unto you as born in the country among the children of Israel; they shall have inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel."
Oh, and just how many 'concepts' are there in truth?

Naphal
Aug 10th 2009, 07:12 AM
Then who cares about the old gentile tree? There is only one tree to be concerned with here.

I was just correcting the statement that there was only one tree. :)

Naphal
Aug 10th 2009, 07:15 AM
Hardly
"they shall be unto you as born in the country among the children of Israel; they shall have inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel."

If you go back to the actual verses you posted the strangers are referred to as "strangers" rather than fellowcitizens.

Naphal
Aug 10th 2009, 07:17 AM
Then who cares about the old gentile tree? There is only one tree to be concerned with here.

Who cares? We as Christians take the gospel to that tree so more of its branches can be joined to Israel. We want to help bring as many to Christ as we can :)

Sirus
Aug 10th 2009, 07:21 AM
If you go back to the actual verses you posted the strangers are referred to as "strangers" rather than fellowcitizens.

Strangers that???...what? are as born among, and have inheritance with? That's a dividing of the substance belonging to Israel according to each tribe, and dividing and maintaining among each tribe. If that's not being made fellow citizens, I don't know what is!

Now, is that the 'gentiles' in the Church? :idea: Who are those strangers?

Sirus
Aug 10th 2009, 07:22 AM
Who cares? We as Christians take the gospel to that tree so more of its branches can be joined to Israel. We want to help bring as many to Christ as we can :)True but irrelevant to the topic, is the point.

Naphal
Aug 10th 2009, 07:26 AM
Strangers that???...what? are as born among, and have inheritance with? That's a dividing of the substance belonging to Israel according to each tribe, and dividing and maintaining among each tribe. If that's not being made fellow citizens, I don't know what is!

Ok....if it is, then it only helps support the concept of non-Jews being able to fellowcitizens in Israel :) That's what I've been driving at this whole time so lets agree on this and then agree when the same thing is found in the NT!

Sirus
Aug 10th 2009, 07:28 AM
You didn't see my edit. Sorry. Here...

Now, is that the 'gentiles' in the Church? :idea: Who are those strangers?

Naphal
Aug 10th 2009, 07:30 AM
You didn't see my edit. Sorry. Here...

Now, is that the 'gentiles' in the Church? :idea: Who are those strangers?

I've already decided to agree with you on the OT example :)

CommanderRobey
Aug 10th 2009, 07:35 AM
Oops...

Ephesians 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

Paul says they used to be a gentile!

Ephesians 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

And in the past being a gentile there were without Christ (this is before they converted) and were aliens to the commonwealth of Israel.

Alien means to be a foreigner, someone that doesn't belong and not a part of Israel. That makes sense! A non-believing gentile wouldn't be part of Israel but if you do have Christ and are a gentile you can be part of Israel, an Israelite! How? Romans 11 shows that God attaches gentiles to Israel to be among natural born Israelites. Its an amazing blessing to the gentiles and one that should be honored and enjoyed. I am shocked by the reactions of Jews and gentiles alike that this would be done. It's a wonderfully beautiful act by God.
They did not stop being Gentiles... their desires changed. They no longer walked after the flesh but after the Spirit.

CommanderRobey
Aug 10th 2009, 07:39 AM
Who cares? We as Christians take the gospel to that tree so more of its branches can be joined to Israel. We want to help bring as many to Christ as we can :)Tell you what... you can join yourself to a tree if you wish, I will join myself to the vine.

John 15:1-5 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

Naphal
Aug 10th 2009, 07:40 AM
They did not stop being Gentiles... their desires changed. They no longer walked after the flesh but after the Spirit.


Yes and they were not gentiles in the spirit either.

sheina maidle
Aug 10th 2009, 07:40 AM
Who cares? We as Christians take the gospel to that tree so more of its branches can be joined to Israel. We want to help bring as many to Christ as we can :)
To what "tree" do we take the gospel? We are to take the gospel to the world:

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

We are not grafted into a "tree", we are grafted into Christ. Christ is the Vine:

John 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

John 15:2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

John 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

John 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

John 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

Naphal
Aug 10th 2009, 07:42 AM
Tell you what... you can join yourself to a tree if you wish, I will join myself to the vine.





John 15:1-5 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

This is the same concept, just using a grapevine metaphor instead of an olive tree. Christians are both part of the vine, part of the olive tree, etc etc.

Naphal
Aug 10th 2009, 07:45 AM
To what "tree" do we take the gospel? We are to take the gospel to the world:


lol

That doesn't contradict anything I've said. In the example of olive trees, one is of Christians and one is not. When the non-Christian branch becomes Christian then God "grafts" that branch to the Christian tree. Taking the gospel to the non-Christian "tree" is the same exact thing as taking it to the non-Christian world. I mean, come on...this is a bit silly.





We are not grafted into a "tree", we are grafted into Christ.


*sigh*

Sirus
Aug 10th 2009, 07:52 AM
I've already decided to agree with you on the OT example :)No. It is future and children are born from the strangers, so is it gentiles from the church or not? I agree it doesn't change the inheritance aspect. Just asking.

Naphal
Aug 10th 2009, 07:59 AM
No. It is future and children are born from the strangers, so is it gentiles from the church or not? I agree it doesn't change the inheritance aspect. Just asking.

Well that's a whole other topic for me that I don't have time to get into but quickly I will just say, no, its not literally speaking of the gentiles in the modern church age.

Naphal
Aug 10th 2009, 08:32 AM
Ephesians 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

I've have stated and shown definitions from Greek dictionaries as to what this means but now I'd like to quote some respected scholars on the matter.



Matthew Henry:

Aliens from the commonwealth of Israel; they did not belong to Christ's church, and had no communion with it, that being confined to the Israelitish nation. It is no small privilege to be placed in the church of Christ, and to share with the members of it in the advantages peculiar to it.



Barnes:


Being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel - This is the second characteristic of their state before their conversion to Christianity. This means more than that they were not Jews. It means that they were strangers to that "polity" - πολιτεία politeia - or arrangement by which the worship of the true God had been kept up in the world, and of course were strangers to the true religion The arrangements for the public worship of Yahweh were made among the Jews. They had his law, his temple, his sabbaths, and the ordinances of his religion; see the notes at Rom_3:2. To all these the pagans had been strangers, and of course they were deprived of all the privileges which resulted from having the true religion. The word rendered here as "commonwealth" - πολιτεία politeia - means properly citizenship, or the right of citizenship, and then a community, or state. It means here that arrangement or organization by which the worship of the true God was maintained.

John146
Aug 10th 2009, 02:36 PM
There is only ONE Israel....that Israel is the NATION. The Church and Israel are SEPARATE.Paul indicated that there are two Israels.

Romans 9
6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Can you tell me your understanding of this passage? There are clearly two Israels mentioned here. If we think of the first Israel mentioned in verse 6 as Israel #1 and the second as Israel #2 then we could say that not all of those who are of Israel #2 are part of Israel #1. If both were speaking of the nation of Israel it would be saying they are not all the nation of Israel which are of the nation of Israel, which would make no sense.

John146
Aug 10th 2009, 02:45 PM
Ephesians 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

I've have stated and shown definitions from Greek dictionaries as to what this means but now I'd like to quote some respected scholars on the matter.



Matthew Henry:

Aliens from the commonwealth of Israel; they did not belong to Christ's church, and had no communion with it, that being confined to the Israelitish nation. It is no small privilege to be placed in the church of Christ, and to share with the members of it in the advantages peculiar to it.



Barnes:


Being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel - This is the second characteristic of their state before their conversion to Christianity. This means more than that they were not Jews. It means that they were strangers to that "polity" - πολιτείαpoliteia - or arrangement by which the worship of the true God had been kept up in the world, and of course were strangers to the true religion The arrangements for the public worship of Yahweh were made among the Jews. They had his law, his temple, his sabbaths, and the ordinances of his religion; see the notes at Rom_3:2. To all these the pagans had been strangers, and of course they were deprived of all the privileges which resulted from having the true religion. The word rendered here as "commonwealth" - πολιτείαpoliteia - means properly citizenship, or the right of citizenship, and then a community, or state. It means here that arrangement or organization by which the worship of the true God was maintained.

Those are good.

If we put Eph 2:12 and Eph 2:19 one after the other we can clearly see what Paul was teaching.

11Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

So, "at that time" before Christ they were aliens and strangers to citizenship in the Israel of God and to the covenants of promise. But "now" that the blood of Christ has been shed for the world, Gentiles are no longer aliens and strangers to citizenship in the Israel of God and are fellowcitizens in the Israel of God with Israelite (natural descendants) believers.

sheina maidle
Aug 10th 2009, 03:23 PM
Paul indicated that there are two Israels.

Romans 9
6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Can you tell me your understanding of this passage? There are clearly two Israels mentioned here. If we think of the first Israel mentioned in verse 6 as Israel #1 and the second as Israel #2 then we could say that not all of those who are of Israel #2 are part of Israel #1. If both were speaking of the nation of Israel it would be saying they are not all the nation of Israel which are of the nation of Israel, which would make no sense.
Paul is making a contrast here....Israel the whole, and believing Israel within Israel the whole. Both Israels comprise Jews only.

They are not all Israel which are of (out of) Israel. They are not all Israel who are (descended) from Israel. Just because you have come out of Israel (just because you are a descendant of Jacob) does not make you a true Israelite. Just because you are a Jew does not make you a true Jew. Just because you are a Jew outwardly does not make you a Jew inwardly. Just because you have been circumcised outwardly does not mean that you have been circumcised in the heart (Romans 2:28-29).

There is only ONE nation of Israel..and those Jews living in that nation of Israel who are believers in Christ are called "the Israel of God" (Galatians 6:16). This "Israel" does not describe the church.

It seems that Covenant Theologians use only 3 verses in the NT to prove that the Church is Israel (Romans 9:6; 11:26; and Galatians 6:16). If the Church is indeed Israel, why only 3 verses?

John146
Aug 10th 2009, 03:41 PM
Paul is making a contrast here....Israel the whole, and believing Israel within Israel the whole. Both Israels comprise Jews only. Note you said "Both Israels". So, you do believe there are two Israels rather than just one, afterall?


They are not all Israel which are of (out of) Israel. They are not all Israel who are (descended) from Israel. Just because you have come out of Israel (just because you are a descendant of Jacob) does not make you a true Israelite.But it does make you a natural Israelite. So, two different Israels there and not just one as you claimed before.


Just because you are a Jew does not make you a true Jew.

Just because you are a Jew outwardly does not make you a Jew inwardly. Just because you have been circumcised outwardly does not mean that you have been circumcised in the heart (Romans 2:28-29).Right. So, there's two different types of Jews then, right? Just like there are two different Israels.


There is only ONE nation of Israel..and those Jews living in that nation of Israel who are believers in Christ are called "the Israel of God" (Galatians 6:16). This "Israel" does not describe the church.Okay, there we go. Now you have clarified what you actually meant. There is ONE nation of Israel, but not ONE Israel. Since you had said "ONE Israel" I thought you were saying there was no other Israel in any sense. Since those who have been made new creations make up the Israel of God (Gal 6:15-16) I don't see that the Israel of God is limited to only natural Jews. He has made both (Jew and Gentile believers) one so there's no reason to see them as separate.


It seems that Covenant Theologians use only 3 verses in the NT to prove that the Church is Israel (Romans 9:6; 11:26; and Galatians 6:16). If the Church is indeed Israel, why only 3 verses?I don't know where you get that from. We don't use only 3 verses. There's Romans 2:28-29, Romans 9:6-8, Romans 11:11-32, Galatians 3, Galatians 4:22-31, Galatians 6:15-16, Ephesians 2:11-22 and others.

-SEEKING-
Aug 10th 2009, 05:05 PM
Closing this thread as we have another thread with the same title and discussion going on.
Here is the link:

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=184021

Your Advert here


Hosted by Webnet77