PDA

View Full Version : Discussion What's with the obsession of Jews?



Pages : [1] 2

JesusMySavior
Oct 25th 2008, 03:37 AM
The Christians and the people of the Jewish faith. We're not the same. So why do many act like we are? Maybe I'm not seeing a side that everyone else sees.

In the Bible it tells us to support Israel but nowhere does it say that the Jews of the Jewish faith are our brothers and that we should have fellowship with them as if they were.

1 John 2:22-23 says "Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is Christ? It is the antichrist who denies both Father and Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also".

1 Corinthians 6:14-18 tells us all about not being yoked together with unbelievers.

Now, I fully support Israel as a country - but this "fellowship of Christians and Jews" and Christians acknowledging and participating in Jewish and Hebrew holidays and customs is total heresy to me. Paul and Peter both talk about the jewish customs being done away with since Christ fulfilled all of it; and to participate in the law and customs was to "fall away from grace" (Galatians 5:4).

Now, to me, I don't care WHO you are or what genealogy you come from; if you don't have Christ, you do not have God. And if you do not have God, you do not have forgiveness of sins. And without the forgiveness of sins, you will be in hell for eternity, end of story. Apparently some Christians don't think so - or perhaps I'm just seeing this the wrong way.

Can someone help me sort this out, and if possible, with scripture? Again, I'm in total support of Israel as a country, but why should we be linked together with those who don't profess Christ? It is the deeds of darkness and the spirit of antichrist that they proclaim.

scourge39
Oct 25th 2008, 04:07 AM
It's part of an interpretative perspective that's very dominant in North America called Dispensationalism. It sees both Israel and the Church as separate entities. It asserts that the Church is a parenthesis, or temporary suspension, within God's ultimate plan for ethnic Israel. It teaches that God's plan for Israel will resume after the Gentile Church is 'raptured' off of the earth immediately before 7 years of tribulation.

The primary passage used to defend this view of a future salvation of national ethnic Israel is Romans 11:25-32, where Paul says:

25I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
"The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27And this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."
28As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you. 32For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. (NIV)

Verse 26, where Paul says, "all Israel will be saved" is interpreted as a future promise that ethnic Israel will ultimately acknowledge Christ as Messiah. The interpretation of this verse is the major point of disagreement between Dispensationalists and other Christians. Non-Dispensationalists interpret Romans 11:26 to be a reference to both Jews and Gentiles collectively throughout history who will ultimately be saved and comprise the Church (or Spiritual 'Israel') with Christ as their head. The non- Dispensationalist uses Ephesians 2:11-22 to support its view that 'Israel' refers to the Church that's comprised of both believing Jews and Gentiles:

11Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)— 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit. (NIV)

For a fascinating historical account of how the Dispensational view took hold among North American Christians, and ultimately continues to influence American foreign policy, I highly recommend that you read the outstanding book On the Road to Armageddon: How Evangelicals Became Israel's Best Friend by Timothy P. Weber.

thepenitent
Oct 25th 2008, 04:52 AM
Many dispensationalists go even farther than you note and argue a "dual covenant" system of salvation. They say the Jews have a different route to salvation than Jesus based on the covenant promises to the Patriarchs. This is used to rationalize not evangilizing to Jews as many find it offensive these days. It is not biblical though. Paul clearly says in the passages they cite that
the Jews were branches of the same vine which were "broken off because of their unbelief" and "if they do not continue in their unbelief they will be grafted in [the vine]" Rom 11:20, 23
Thus the Jews to be saved are those who accept Christ, whether a small stream of remnants like Paul, and/or a mass coversion at the end of time. (you can make an argument for each under Ch. 11. The new ESV study bible, although not dispensational, takes the mass conversion at the end of time position.). The key is Christ is always necessary and sufficient.

scourge39
Oct 25th 2008, 06:10 AM
The new ESV study bible, although not dispensational, takes the mass conversion at the end of time position.). The key is Christ is always necessary and sufficient.

That view is common in non-Dispensational circles.

The following interview clip between Pat Robertson and Michael Eisner illustrates the extreme side of pop-level Dispensationalism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UACHykQ7iwA

RZ06
Oct 25th 2008, 06:33 AM
Now, to me, I don't care WHO you are or what genealogy you come from; if you don't have Christ, you do not have God. And if you do not have God, you do not have forgiveness of sins. And without the forgiveness of sins, you will be in hell for eternity, end of story. Apparently some Christians don't think so - or perhaps I'm just seeing this the wrong way.


:agree:

I just made a post kind of similar to this in the New in Christ forum...didn't see this one.

sheina maidle
Oct 25th 2008, 07:17 AM
I am a born again Jew...a member of the Body of Christ. I call myself a "Christian" ... a follower of Christ. I was born again 34 years ago in a Presbyterian Church.

God has not forsaken His people (ethnic/national) Israel. The Church did not replace Israel...this is called "Replacement Theology". Israel and the Church are two different entities. The writer of Hebrews (Hebrews 8:6-13; 10:15-19) states that every N.T. believer partakes of the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant through Christ, but nowhere does he say that this covenant has been transferred from national Israel to the church. Temporarily the nation Israel has been set aside in the purposes of God. Today He is creating a special body of saved people composed both of Jews and Gentiles...the Church.

Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: (Acts 15:14-16)

After this present work is accomplished, God will again resume His purposes with the nation Israel and will fulfill all the O.T. promises and prophecies concerning them:

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. (Romans 11:25-27)

"Dual Covenant" theology is taught by John Hagee. That teaching is somewhat anti-semetic....it keeps the gospel from the Jewish people. Paul said in Romans 1:16:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (Romans 1:16)

Salvation is the same for everyone, by grace through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary...for both Jew and Gentile. The ground is level at the foot of the cross. Jesus said:

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:12)

daughter
Oct 25th 2008, 09:22 AM
You say that Christians who observe the Jewish seasons are committing "total heresy" which seems a touch judgemental at first sight. After all, the Apostle Paul says, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days." In other words, it's nobody else's business how Christians, Jewish or Gentile, choose to honour Christ.

However, you qualify your charge of heresy with "to me"... (it's "total heresy to me") which helps contextualise what you're saying.

Yes, if you were to do something that made you feel uncomfortable, that in your heart you thought was wrong, then it would be heresy. But for a Jewish person who sees Christ's Sacrifice reflected in Passover, or His triumphant return prophesied in the Feast of Trumpets, then it's not heresy.

Christians come from every tribe and every nation under the sun, and all we should care about is that we help each other to love and serve Christ more. Jewish Christians who keep the feasts are not heretics. Gentile Christians who seek to understand the OT by exploring this heritage are not heretics either... unless for some reason they feel convicted that they shouldn't observe them. In which case it's between them and God.

But I'd remember what Paul says. Don't judge what another person eats, or doesn't eat, or what Sabbaths they do, or don't, keep. Remember, the same Paul who was so angry with legalistic circumcision of Gentiles circumcised a young Jewish man (Timothy) who became one of the first bishops of the church (and as an old man a Christian martyr.)

So I think we should judge people by their fruits, not whether they keep Sabbath on Saturday, Sunday or Wednesday. It's between God and His child.

valleybldr
Oct 25th 2008, 12:05 PM
The Christians and the people of the Jewish faith. We're not the same. So why do many act like we are? Maybe I'm not seeing a side that everyone else sees.

Hopefully, we have an "obsession'" with all peoples in a desire to see them saved.

The Jewish people have a primitive faith that has our Messiah woven into every "nook and corner." An excellent example are the biblical Holy Days which illustrate our Messiah's redemptive work through the ages.

I guess you can "act" like a Gentile and hope God finds your life a glorious witness. Early believers walked by "every word of God" before it was decided that much of the word of God did not apply to them. Many of the sharp differences seen 2,000 years later are the result of the churches long history of anti-Semitism which you can easily research and document.

todd

diffangle
Oct 25th 2008, 03:37 PM
Christians acknowledging and participating in Jewish and Hebrew holidays and customs is total heresy to me.
The Feasts/holidays laid out in the Scriptures are not "Jewish" holidays... they are the Feasts of YHWH so those who love Him should want to celebrate His Feasts, if you don't want to celebrate His Feasts that's between you and Him, but with all due respect, I would urge you to proceed with caution when trying to condmn/discourage others who want to celebrate His Feasts. Also try not to forget that even after our Messiah's death and resurection, the apostles continued to celebrate the Feasts of YHWH.



Paul and Peter both talk about the jewish customs being done away with since Christ fulfilled all of it;
Where? That doesn't make sense since they continued to observe the Feasts of YHWH. Yahushua has not fulfilled "all" of the Feasts... His second coming hasn't occured yet, right?



and to participate in the law and customs was to "fall away from grace" (Galatians 5:4).

No he says that if you're seeking justification through the law, he's not saying the law is bad and that you shouldn't observe the Feasts of YHWH.

Rom 7:12 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&c=7&v=12&t=KJV#12)Wherefore the law [is] holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

1Ti 1:8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Ti&c=1&v=8&t=KJV#8)But we know that the law [is] good, if a man use it lawfully;

scourge39
Oct 25th 2008, 05:48 PM
The Church is the continuation of true Israel, it does not 'replace' Israel. The term 'replacement theology' is a negative term used by Dispensationalists to caricature and totally misrepresent non-Dispensationalism. The Church is a continuation of God's plan with national Israel. It was started by Jewish Christians and grew to include Gentiles, just as God intended. The Church fulfills God's promise to Abraham whereby he declares:

2 "I will make you into a great nation
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.

3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you." (Genesis 12:2-3, NIV)

Only the Jewish priesthood forfeited its place of authority for failing to recognize Jesus as Messiah:

33"Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. 34When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit.
35"The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. 36Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. 37Last of all, he sent his son to them. 'They will respect my son,' he said.

38"But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, 'This is the heir. Come, let's kill him and take his inheritance.' 39So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.

40"Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?"

41"He will bring those wretches to a wretched end," they replied, "and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time."

42Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures:
" 'The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone;
the Lord has done this,
and it is marvelous in our eyes'?

43"Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. 44He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed."

45When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus' parables, they knew he was talking about them. 46They looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people held that he was a prophet. (Matthew 21:33-46, NIV)

The 'other tenants' to whom the vineyard is rented in verse 41 are the Jewish Apostles who faithfully served as a light to the Gentiles. God's intent was always to make for himself ONE people of God comprised of BOTH Jews and Gentiles. Nothing was 'replaced,' the authority that one's belonged to the unfaithful Jewish priesthood and transferred to the Jewish apostles who would faithfully evangelize Gentiles and incorporate them into the people of God. The Jewish priesthood missed that the point of their office was to evangelize other Gentile nations. It's EXPANSION theology, NOT 'replacement theology,' as is commonly alleged (At the end of the day, the term 'replacement theology' is an ad hominem cheap shot on the part of Dispensationalists based on a choice to deliberately dismiss and misunderstand non-Dispensational perspectives). The people of God, which once included only ethnic Israel has grown to include people from every nation, tribe and tongue under Christ. THIS is the point that Jesus is trying to make with the parable of the prodigal son.


11Jesus continued: "There was a man who had two sons. 12The younger one said to his father, 'Father, give me my share of the estate.' So he divided his property between them.
13"Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. 14After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. 15So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. 16He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.

17"When he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired men have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men.' 20So he got up and went to his father.
"But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.

21"The son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.'

22"But the father said to his servants, 'Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let's have a feast and celebrate. 24For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' So they began to celebrate.

25"Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. 26So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. 27'Your brother has come,' he replied, 'and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.'

28"The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29But he answered his father, 'Look! All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!'

31" 'My son,' the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' " (Luke 15:11-32, NIV)

People often hear this parable preached evangelistically with the emphasis placed on the son who returned, but based on what we know concerning the interpretation of parables in general, the dialogue between the Father and the son who stayed is the central focus. The son who stayed represents ethnic Jews and the son who left and later returned represents Gentiles. That Jesus emphasizes that BOTH are sons of the same father illustrates that both are equally loved and important to God. Jesus calls the prodigal son the 'brother' of the son who stayed. Verse 22 illustrates the shared inheritance that both Jews and Gentiles have in Christ. Verses 28-30 are an indictment of Judaism's unwillingness to evangelize Gentiles and accept those who receive the truth as brothers. Unfortunately, Dispensationalism's 'two entities' view muddies the ability of many to understand many of Jesus' parables.

The idea that the Church and national Israel are 2 separate entities is completely foreign to Scripture and does absolutelt no justice whatsoever to anything that Paul says in Ephesians 2:11-22. Dallas Theological Seminary prof Harold Hoehner's recent commentary on Ephesians is proof positive that circular argumentation rather than honest Biblical interpretation is the tactic to which Dispensationalism MUST resort in order to maintain the 'two entities' view. Hoehner's exegesis of Ephesians 2 would be laughable if his conclusions weren't so horribly tragic and unfortunate.

The time for Spiritual ignorance is over for both Jews and Gentiles. They are both obligated to become Christians NOW, not to wait until the Second Coming. I totally believe that God will bring about the salvation of many more Jews until the Second Coming.

Non-Dispensationalists fully understand the seriousness of Paul's words in Romans 11:17-21

17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. (NIV)

Richard H
Oct 25th 2008, 05:57 PM
To answer your question, I’ll say that we do not have fellowship with Jews in the same way we have fellowship with the believers who have the Spirit of Christ.
However, we have some commonalities which forever link Christians to the Jews, the remnant of Israel.

I’ll cut to the chase, a bit and say that Jesus is a Jew, so it is from the Jews that we have a Savior.
Our “law” – the Law of Love is based on the Old Testament law given to Moses, and in fact Jesus calls us to an even higher standard.

Additionally, we both – Jews and Christians, seek to please the same God, YHWH.
The pagans had/have many gods – which are not really gods.
The Jews know YHWH, but they did not recognize the Messiah HE sent to them.
We know the Messiah, but some do not understand the people Jesus was born to.
Still we have these things in common, so there is a bond.

That’s the short answer to the question at hand.
Richard

Mograce2U
Oct 25th 2008, 10:39 PM
To answer your question, I’ll say that we do not have fellowship with Jews in the same way we have fellowship with the believers who have the Spirit of Christ.
However, we have some commonalities which forever link Christians to the Jews, the remnant of Israel.

I’ll cut to the chase, a bit and say that Jesus is a Jew, so it is from the Jews that we have a Savior.
Our “law” – the Law of Love is based on the Old Testament law given to Moses, and in fact Jesus calls us to an even higher standard.

Additionally, we both – Jews and Christians, seek to please the same God, YHWH.
The pagans had/have many gods – which are not really gods.
The Jews know YHWH, but they did not recognize the Messiah HE sent to them.
We know the Messiah, but some do not understand the people Jesus was born to.
Still we have these things in common, so there is a bond.

That’s the short answer to the question at hand.
RichardJohn seems to view this differently.

(1 John 1:3) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

(1 John 2:22-24) Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. {23} Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. {24} Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.

(2 John 1:9) Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

He seems to think that those who did not receive the Son did not continue in the Father either. Which would seem to leave nothing left by which we could "bond" to them as a basis for fellowship. Nor with those who transgressed and did not abide in the doctrine of Christ.

(2 John 1:10-11) If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: {11} For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Richard H
Oct 25th 2008, 11:29 PM
John seems to view this differently.

(1 John 1:3) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

(1 John 2:22-24) Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. {23} Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. {24} Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.

(2 John 1:9) Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

He seems to think that those who did not receive the Son did not continue in the Father either. Which would seem to leave nothing left by which we could "bond" to them as a basis for fellowship. Nor with those who transgressed and did not abide in the doctrine of Christ.

(2 John 1:10-11) If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: {11} For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
Hi Robin,
The question was “why was there a bond?” – not “why do we not follow Judaism?”.
As I alluded to – Jews (who are not born again) do not have the Spirit, and can not share in the fellowship of the saints.

I believe God will fulfill His promise to the natural “olive tree” and then proceed to bring that remnant into the kingdom through Christ – whom they have pierced.

Richard
__________
In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.
And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
Zec 12:8-10

And:

Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear; ) unto this day.
Romans 11:5-8

And:

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;
Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
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 also shalt be cut off.
And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
Romans 11:17-32

JesusMySavior
Oct 26th 2008, 02:34 AM
there may have been a misunderstanding in my original post.

I have absolutely no problem with "Christian" jews honoring the days and feasts (as long as it is done in reverence to the Lord and not for law's sake). My problem is Christians who think the jewish faith is eligible to save one from hell, just because they are "God's annointed". My point is being that no one can be saved from hell unless Christ is the mediator.

In Romans, it says "by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in His sight".

There is quite a bit of anti-semitism but there is also a bit of "Jew worship" today, too. Just read John Hagee's book "In Defense of Israel". He bends over backward for the jewish people and faith so much that he actually denies Christ and discredits Him of being the messiah.

This is heresy. My whole post was more on the side of, it doesnt matter who you are, jew or gentile; if you don't have Christ you are going to spend eternity in hell.

JesusMySavior
Oct 26th 2008, 02:40 AM
I believe God will fulfill His promise to the natural “olive tree” and then proceed to bring that remnant into the kingdom through Christ – whom they have pierced.


so what you're basically saying is that if you're a jew in the time of the millenium it doesn't matter if you acknowledge and recieve Christ personally, you will still be saved just because of your lineage?

That sounds totally contradictory to the Bible to me. Please elaborate. :)

sheina maidle
Oct 26th 2008, 02:53 AM
there may have been a misunderstanding in my original post.

I have absolutely no problem with "Christian" jews honoring the days and feasts (as long as it is done in reverence to the Lord and not for law's sake). My problem is Christians who think the jewish faith is eligible to save one from hell, just because they are "God's annointed". My point is being that no one can be saved from hell unless Christ is the mediator.

In Romans, it says "by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in His sight".

There is quite a bit of anti-semitism but there is also a bit of "Jew worship" today, too. Just read John Hagee's book "In Defense of Israel". He bends over backward for the jewish people and faith so much that he actually denies Christ and discredits Him of being the messiah.

This is heresy. My whole post was more on the side of, it doesnt matter who you are, jew or gentile; if you don't have Christ you are going to spend eternity in hell.
When a person dies without Christ, he/she will end up in hell (ultimately the Lake of Fire)...whether Jew or Gentile. The Pharisees believed that they would go to heaven because they were the physical seed of Abraham. They were wrong. Jesus Christ died on the cross of Calvary and shed His precious blood for all mankind (Jews and Gentiles). The sins of the world were laid on Him (Isaiah 53:6; 1 Peter 2:24)...past, present, and future. When a sinner (we are all sinners) trusts in the finished work of Christ on the cross of Calvary (Jew or Gentile), they are born again and inherit eternal life. That eternal life can never be lost. Those who are born again will spend eternity with the Lord. Those who reject God's gift of salvation (Jew or Gentile) will spend eternity in the Lake of Fire...they will go there with their sins already paid for. (Jesus paid it ALL, ALL to Him I owe)

As far as John Hagee is concerned, I believe his teaching on "dual covenant" theology is heresy. It keeps the gospel from the Jews (to the Jew first).

Jewishness and heredity won't get you eternal life...Jesus Christ is the ONLY way for the Jew and Gentile...for both are lost without Christ.

livingwaters
Oct 26th 2008, 02:58 AM
Romans 9:27 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Romans+9:27&version=9) (Whole Chapter) (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Romans+9&version=9)
Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved.

Wouldn't that mean the ones that accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior. Because Jesus said that HE was the only way to the Father.:idea:

Richard H
Oct 26th 2008, 03:24 AM
so what you're basically saying is that if you're a jew in the time of the millenium it doesn't matter if you acknowledge and recieve Christ personally, you will still be saved just because of your lineage?

That sounds totally contradictory to the Bible to me. Please elaborate. :)Hi JMS, :)
No.
I believe they will inherit the land in the fullness of the promise.

Then it will come about that any who are left of all the nations that went against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Booths.
And it will be that whichever of the families of the earth does not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, there will be no rain on them.
Zec 14:16,17

Now it will come about that In the last days The mountain of the house of the LORD Will be established as the chief of the mountains, And will be raised above the hills; And all the nations will stream to it.
Isa 2:2

At that time, some of them will understand and embrace Christ as their Savior.
Whether they like it or not - He WILL be their King.

And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?
For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;
and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB."
"THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS."
Rom 11:23-27

"When those hired about the eleventh hour came, each one received a denarius.
"When those hired first came, they thought that they would receive more; but each of them also received a denarius.
"When they received it, they grumbled at the landowner,
saying, 'These last men have worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the scorching heat of the day.'
"But he answered and said to one of them, 'Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius?
'Take what is yours and go, but I wish to give to this last man the same as to you.
'Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous?'
"So the last shall be first, and the first last."
Mat 20:9-16

'More clear now?
Richard

scourge39
Oct 26th 2008, 04:20 AM
There is quite a bit of anti-semitism but there is also a bit of "Jew worship" today, too. Just read John Hagee's book "In Defense of Israel". He bends over backward for the jewish people and faith so much that he actually denies Christ and discredits Him of being the messiah.

This is heresy. My whole post was more on the side of, it doesnt matter who you are, jew or gentile; if you don't have Christ you are going to spend eternity in hell.

I'm so glad that you mentioned Hagee's most recent book. It's essentially a public denouncement of Christianity regardless of how much Hagee and his followers try to deny it. I've seen two other Dispensational acquaintances wind up in the place where Hagee is currently, and they both ultimately rejected Christ and embraced Judaism. I hope Hagee doesn't go that route, but if he did, it wouldn't surprise me.

I believe that the hyper-Dispensationalism so common today is Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism's way of perpetually apologizing for the Holocaust. What Hitler and the Nazis did to the Jews was an evil atrocity, but it would've been equally heinous if the same despicable acts were perpetrated against Gentiles. Evil is evil and sin is sin, regardless of who it's directed at. I believe that Dispensationalists frequently forget that.

Jews still have the same obligation to receive Christ as everyone else regardless of what hardships they've undergone. Jesus himself downplays any notion that their ethnicity will save them:

31To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
33They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?"

34Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37I know you are Abraham's descendants. Yet you are ready to kill me, because you have no room for my word. 38I am telling you what I have seen in the Father's presence, and you do what you have heard from your father."

39"Abraham is our father," they answered.

"If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would do the things Abraham did. 40As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41You are doing the things your own father does."
"We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself."

42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? 47He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God." (John 8:31-47, NIV)

Mograce2U
Oct 26th 2008, 04:46 AM
Richard,
One thing that seems clear to me in Paul's entire discourse in Romans is that who is to be considered the just is not going to be based upon one's natural descent from Abraham. He refers to a remnant in his day which though they were to be among the elect, had not yet come to faith in Christ. And he is zealous to reach them with the gospel. Yet he also says that the elect had received the promise while these others were concluded under unbelief. And God in doing this with the unbelievers, ensured that faith would be the only way to come in and be counted among the just. That was because the covenant which Israel had been under, was no longer going to be a way to achieve a righteous standing before God. And it was necessary to put them in that place whereby only grace would save them - as it would the Gentiles who didn't yet know Jesus was the Christ. So that the new covenant was in force without competition.

This is the point the dispensationalist fails to consider as they look to Israel in unbelief today and think they are still part of the remnant whom Paul spoke of in his day. The OT way of election is over now that Christ has come. But it still was applicable while the temple was still standing for that generation. Once the old covenant was fulfilled, the temple was brought down, and the way into the holy of holies was made manifest as only being thru Christ. There is no elect remnant who is being held in unbelief today. Rather the elect today are seen as only those who are IN Christ. Which all who look to Him for salvation and call upon His name will be saved. This is a major difference in how salvation was brought to Israel before Christ came. When the keeping of the law was the test for whether one had righteousness by faith. That test is no longer what qualifies faith. In fact the keeping of the law is no guarantee at all! Nor is being a descendent of Abraham a guarantee that one will be counted among the just who will be raised from the dead. It is thru grace by faith in Christ and Christ alone which brings one into the kingdom to be counted among those who have a part in the promised inheritance - an inheritance which He alone has full possession of.

scourge39
Oct 26th 2008, 04:59 AM
Richard,
One thing that seems clear to me in Paul's entire discourse in Romans is that who is to be considered the just is not going to be based upon one's natural descent from Abraham. He refers to a remnant in his day which though they were to be among the elect, had not yet come to faith in Christ. And he is zealous to reach them with the gospel. Yet he also says that the elect had received the promise while these others were concluded under unbelief. And God in doing this with the unbelievers, ensured that faith would be the only way to come in and be counted among the just. That was because the covenant which Israel had been under, was no longer going to be a way to achieve a righteous standing before God. And it was necessary to put them in that place whereby only grace would save them - as it would the Gentiles who didn't yet know Jesus was the Christ. So that the new covenant was in force without competition.

This is the point the dispensationalist fails to consider as they look to Israel in unbelief today and think they are still part of the remnant whom Paul spoke of in his day. The OT way of election is over now that Christ has come. But it still was applicable while the temple was still standing for that generation. Once the old covenant was fulfilled, the temple was brought down, and the way into the holy of holies was made manifest as only being thru Christ. There is no elect remnant who is being held in unbelief today. Rather the elect today are seen as only those who are IN Christ. Which all who look to Him for salvation and call upon His name will be saved. This is a major difference in how salvation was brought to Israel before Christ came. When the keeping of the law was the test for whether one had righteousness by faith. That test is no longer what qualifies faith. In fact the keeping of the law is no guarantee at all! Nor is being a descendent of Abraham a guarantee that one will be counted among the just who will be raised from the dead. It is thru grace by faith in Christ and Christ alone which brings one into the kingdom to be counted among those who have a part in the promised inheritance - an inheritance which He alone has full possession of.

Dispensationalism seems to assume that Israel's rejection of Christ as Messiah carries with it no irreversible consequences. This is certainly not Jesus's perspective when he cursed the fig tree (a symbol of Israel's prosperity in the OT) and says that never again would the nation bear fruit.

They read Romans 11:29 erroneously. All Paul is saying is that Israel's unbelief does not overturn that the Gospel is still a gift from Israel to the Gentiles. God currently demonstrates mercy to both Jews and Gentiles during their time of disobedience.

Richard H
Oct 26th 2008, 05:08 AM
Robin,
I don’t know how I could have been more clear.
The Jews receive the promise of the land.

That is not entrance into the kingdom of heaven, which as we know requires that one be born again.

I personally believe those who survive to His appearance - since they will still be alive…
those individuals will have the individual opportunity to receive Him as their Savior.

They will in no way - be granted special entrance to Heaven, because of their lineage.
Richard

JesusMySavior
Oct 26th 2008, 05:19 AM
I'm so glad that you mentioned Hagee's most recent book. It's essentially a public denouncement of Christianity regardless of how much Hagee and his followers try to deny it. I've seen two other Dispensational acquaintances wind up in the place where Hagee is currently, and they both ultimately rejected Christ and embraced Judaism. I hope Hagee doesn't go that route, but if he did, it wouldn't surprise me.

I believe that the hyper-Dispensationalism so common today is Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism's way of perpetually apologizing for the Holocaust. What Hitler and the Nazis did to the Jews was an evil atrocity, but it would've been equally heinous if the same despicable acts were perpetrated against Gentiles. Evil is evil and sin is sin, regardless of who it's directed at. I believe that Dispensationalists frequently forget that.

Jews still have the same obligation to receive Christ as everyone else regardless of what hardships they've undergone. Jesus himself downplays any notion that their ethnicity will save them:

31To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
33They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?"

34Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37I know you are Abraham's descendants. Yet you are ready to kill me, because you have no room for my word. 38I am telling you what I have seen in the Father's presence, and you do what you have heard from your father."

39"Abraham is our father," they answered.

"If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would do the things Abraham did. 40As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41You are doing the things your own father does."
"We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself."

42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? 47He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God." (John 8:31-47, NIV)


This is precisely the point of my post. Thank you for understanding :)

Support Israel? Yes.

Embrace Judaism? No way.

valleybldr
Oct 26th 2008, 11:05 AM
This is precisely the point of my post. Thank you for understanding :)

Support Israel? Yes.

Embrace Judaism? No way. What Christian/Messianic "embrace[s] Judaism?" They would not be Christian but rather a practicing Jew or Jewish convert. todd

sheina maidle
Oct 26th 2008, 12:41 PM
What Christian/Messianic "embrace[s] Judaism?" They would not be Christian but rather a practicing Jew or Jewish convert. todd

I was involved in Messianic Judaism for almost 10 years. IMHO, it is simply another branch of Judaism with Jesus added on. Most in Messianic Jewish congregations are Gentiles, not Jews..and most are Torah Observant, putting themselves and the Gentiles back under the "yoke of the law" (Acts 15). It's a form of the Galatian error about which Paul wrote in the epistle to the Galatians. It's adding "works to grace", or "Galatianism".

That's my :2cents:

BHS
Oct 26th 2008, 01:11 PM
I was involved in Messianic Judaism for almost 10 years. IMHO, it is simply another branch of Judaism with Jesus added on. Most in Messianic Jewish congregations are Gentiles, not Jews..and most are Torah Observant, putting themselves and the Gentiles back under the "yoke of the law" (Acts 15). It's a form of the Galatian error about which Paul wrote in the epistle to the Galatians. It's adding "works to grace", or "Galatianism".

That's my :2cents:

Is an interest in knowing God revealed from the early Scriptures Judaism? Or a love for the whole of Scriptures Judaism? We are encouraged to be like the Bereans who studied the scriptures. It was the OT scriptures (because that was all they had at the time) that they used to test what was truth and what was not. Jesus is far more than "added on". He is taught thoughout the OT. Have we lost this ability today -- to test the truth because we no longer are interested in a study of the complete Scripture? Sometimes, to me, it would seem so.

Blessings,
BHS

sheina maidle
Oct 26th 2008, 01:42 PM
Is an interest in knowing God revealed from the early Scriptures Judaism? Or a love for the whole of Scriptures Judaism? We are encouraged to be like the Bereans who studied the scriptures. It was the OT scriptures (because that was all they had at the time) that they used to test what was truth and what was not. Jesus is far more than "added on". He is taught thoughout the OT. Have we lost this ability today -- to test the truth because we no longer are interested in a study of the complete Scripture? Sometimes, to me, it would seem so.

Blessings,
BHS
I didn't say that we don't study the whole Scripture (counsel of God). The entire OT points us to Christ. The New Testament believer is "in Christ". Too much emphasis is placed on "Jewishness" instead of on Christ, Who is the "substance". Works added to grace is not the gospel.

valleybldr
Oct 26th 2008, 02:20 PM
I was involved in Messianic Judaism for almost 10 years. IMHO, it is simply another branch of Judaism with Jesus added on. Most in Messianic Jewish congregations are Gentiles, not Jews..and most are Torah Observant, putting themselves and the Gentiles back under the "yoke of the law" (Acts 15). It's a form of the Galatian error about which Paul wrote in the epistle to the Galatians. It's adding "works to grace", or "Galatianism".

That's my :2cents:
They were teaching that one was saved by their works and needed to be circimcised? You were in a rare anomaly. todd

valleybldr
Oct 26th 2008, 02:28 PM
Too much emphasis is placed on "Jewishness" instead of on Christ, Who is the "substance". Works added to grace is not the gospel.
Messianic congregations differ and some are more catered to Jewish worship forms then others. In my area we have a dozen to choose from so it's no big deal to find a suitable congregation. Your "works added to grace" quip would need further qualification before one could tell that your gripe is legitimate or not. todd

valleybldr
Oct 26th 2008, 03:01 PM
Most in Messianic Jewish congregations are Gentiles, not Jews..and most are Torah Observant, Do you have any stats on this? That might be true but in my experience I'd guess it's more like 50-50 and most Gentle are marginally "torah observant." todd

Mograce2U
Oct 26th 2008, 04:06 PM
Robin,
I don’t know how I could have been more clear.
The Jews receive the promise of the land.

That is not entrance into the kingdom of heaven, which as we know requires that one be born again.

I personally believe those who survive to His appearance - since they will still be alive…
those individuals will have the individual opportunity to receive Him as their Savior.

They will in no way - be granted special entrance to Heaven, because of their lineage.
Richard(Isa 65:9) And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there.

(Mat 21:38) But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.

(Mark 12:7) But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.

(Luke 20:14) But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.

(Gal 3:18-19) For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. {19} Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

The promise of the inheritance in the land can only be everlasting because is is the sole possession of the One Seed who lives forever. He does not pass it on to children born of Abraham of the flesh but only to those who have been sanctified in Him thru the new birth.

(Acts 26:17-18) Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

It would seem the promise went out to the Gentiles in this commission to Paul from the Lord's mouth.

Richard H
Oct 26th 2008, 04:26 PM
(Isa 65:9) And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there.

(Mat 21:38) But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.

(Mark 12:7) But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.

(Luke 20:14) But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.

(Gal 3:18-19) For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. {19} Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

The promise of the inheritance in the land can only be everlasting because is is the sole possession of the One Seed who lives forever. He does not pass it on to children born of Abraham of the flesh but only to those who have been sanctified in Him thru the new birth.

(Acts 26:17-18) Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

It would seem the promise went out to the Gentiles in this commission to Paul from the Lord's mouth.So... You're a replacement theologist?
(if I understand properly)

Will we have to evict the Jews?

Mograce2U
Oct 26th 2008, 04:39 PM
So... You're a replacement theologist?
(if I understand properly)

Will we have to evict the Jews?I try to point you to look to Christ and you call me names? It is often pointed out here that Christ was a Jew, and yet He is not allowed to keep His own inheritance and give it to whom He wills? Which side of those scriptures I posted are you on? I'm just asking...

Richard H
Oct 26th 2008, 04:50 PM
I try to point you to look to Christ and you call me names? It is often pointed out here that Christ was a Jew, and yet He is not allowed to keep His own inheritance and give it to whom He wills? Which side of those scriptures I posted are you on? I'm just asking...It wasn't intended as a "name", and I didn't see a question.

Replacement theology has a good deal of truth in it, but it neglects certain key bits of information.

Whom did God divorce? The house of Israel (Jer 3)
Whom did He not divorce? The house of Judah

Which house are we grafted into? (in terms of the olive tree, the whole house of Israel)
The house of Israel

Certainly there is now a new covenant, with a new promise.
Having not divorced one, is God now free from keeping the old promise in its fullness?
Or are both promises valid?

scourge39
Oct 26th 2008, 04:59 PM
I was involved in Messianic Judaism for almost 10 years. IMHO, it is simply another branch of Judaism with Jesus added on. Most in Messianic Jewish congregations are Gentiles, not Jews..and most are Torah Observant, putting themselves and the Gentiles back under the "yoke of the law" (Acts 15). It's a form of the Galatian error about which Paul wrote in the epistle to the Galatians. It's adding "works to grace", or "Galatianism".

That's my :2cents:

My sister married into a Messianic Jewish family 10 years ago, and they are very much like the Judaizers whom Paul rebukes in Galatians. I've observed other Messianic Jews, even some ordained with the Assemblies of God, as well as dialogued with some of them on other Internet forums. The thing that many, not all, of them seem to share is a deep-seated disdain for Paul. I've witnessed their resentment that Paul told Gentiles that they are not obligated to observe the law firsthand more times than I'd care to remember. A few will even go as far as saying that Paul's writings should be subordinated to the Gospels. The epistles are seemingly treated as though they only apply to Gentiles. Galatians particularly frustrates them. The view of Scriptural inspiration held by the Messianic Jews I've met is extremely questionable and a far cry from that held by other Christians. I know that Gentile and Jewish Christians won't agree on everything, but the inspiration of the entire NT as having EQUAL authority between its various books and authors is simply non-negotiable. Jesus Christ certainly is an 'add on' for a significant number of them.

valleybldr
Oct 26th 2008, 05:15 PM
I try to point you to look to Christ and you call me names? The question mark after the statement denotes he is asking you a question not calling you a "name." todd

Mograce2U
Oct 26th 2008, 05:19 PM
It wasn't intended as a "name", and I didn't see a question.

Replacement theology has a good deal of truth in it, but it neglects certain key bits of information.

Whom did God divorce? The house of Israel (Jer 3)
Whom did He not divorce? The house of Judah

Which house are we grafted into? (in terms of the olive tree, the whole house of Israel)
The house of Israel

Certainly there is now a new covenant, with a new promise.
Having not divorced one, is God now free from keeping the old promise in its fullness?
Or are both promises valid?Which old promise is that? The one made to Abraham that he would be a father to many nations thru the Seed that was to come from him? Jesus makes this promise everlasting because He is risen. Now those who are sanctified by faith in Him (not by the law given to Moses) are those who share in His inheritance. Israel could not hold onto the land because of sin. But Christ holds it fast. The fact that Judah's remnant was bought to faith and the others cut off because of unbelief, means that no one is going to be counted among the sanctified except thru faith in Christ. There is no old promise that must still be fulfilled for Israel, the hope of resurrection lies only in Christ. You are placing the land promised to Israel as being above that which the promise given to Abraham foretold - the resurrection from the dead. The land promise was only for the time of the Mosaic covenant. That covenant is now over. The land promise is now tied to our resurrection hope in Christ - for the eternal kingdom that is coming. What other promise is there to give to Israel?

valleybldr
Oct 26th 2008, 05:21 PM
A few will even go as far as saying that Paul's writings should be subordinated to the Gospels. The epistles are seemingly treated as though they only apply to Gentiles. Galatians particularly frustrates them.
I love the Pauline Epistles but I don't hold them up over any other part of Scripture. I’m sorry some people see Paul in conflict with the rest of Scripture because I don't share that point of view. I really think few Messianics would subscribe to such thinking either. I hope we are not conflating the "Hebrew Roots" movement and Messianics into one. I'm thinking the Hebrew Roots folk might have a higher percentage (still a definite minority) of adherents that find Paul problematic. todd

ConqueredbyLove
Oct 26th 2008, 05:23 PM
What's with the obsession of Jews?

We best be obsessed and head over heals in love with that Jew, Jesus Christ of Nazareth :hug:

Richard H
Oct 26th 2008, 05:52 PM
Which old promise is that?
The one made to Abraham that he would be a father to many nations thru the Seed that was to come from him?Fulfilled

Jesus makes this promise everlasting because He is risen.
Now those who are sanctified by faith in Him (not by the law given to Moses) are those who share in His inheritance.
Israel could not hold onto the land because of sin. But Christ holds it fast.
“Israel” as in: The whole house of Israel or just the House of Israel?
Do you have Scripture?
Jesus promised the kingdom of Heaven for those who believe.
What has that to do with the land?
The fact that Judah's remnant was bought to faith When? Scripture?
and the others cut off because of unbelief, means that no one is going to be counted among the sanctified except thru faith in Christ. There is no old promise that must still be fulfilled for Israel, the hope of resurrection lies only in Christ. So can God dismiss with the promise to the one whom He did not divorce?

You are placing the land promised to Israel as being above that which the promise given to Abraham foretold - the resurrection from the dead.
What Scripture is that? I though the promise to Abraham was that he would be father of many nations. Only Jesus promised life everlasting. It certainly not have been gained through the law.

That covenant is now over.
The land promise was only for the time of the Mosaic covenant.
The Mosaic covenant is over, but the promise of the land did not depend on the Law.
The land promise is now tied to our resurrection hope in Christ - for the eternal kingdom that is coming. Scripture?
What other promise is there to give to Israel?I thought we were talking about Judah. That is who now occupies the land.
The house of Israel disappeared 720 BC. (2 Kings 17)
We are (“replace”) the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Dragonfighter1
Oct 26th 2008, 06:16 PM
It seems to me that there is a great deal of misinformation about what dispensationalism really is.

I have read some of the supposed definitions listed in this thread and can say with absolute certainty that most of the definitions are either deliberately misrepresentative or misunderstood. And truly there can be no such thing as non dispensational... unless you Bible stops at the end of Genesis.

Every word that proceeds fomr the mouth of our Lord is either for us or to us. EVERY.

To be non dispensational means that one accepts no progression at all in theology since Adam and EVE... and yet the Bible teaches clearly that God changed the rules after Adam and Eve sinned.

Dispensationalism is debated as to how much is rightly to be understood. Some go too far, some dont go far enough in accepting God divine instructions. Some over interpret some take a norrow view etc.. these issues will always be a healthy part of discussion among Christians who sincerely want to grow and know. But name calling or catagorizing people into falsely defined groups is disengenuous.

A dispensation generally speaking is a prescription from God to man. There are some obvious one like the dietary prescriptions that progressed form vegetarian Adam and eve, to Meat after Noah, to only certain meat under Moses, to All meats again under Peter. (the people names referenced are for comprehension not for authority).

There are other prescriptions for various issues throughout the Bible. Grouping Food rules, with spiritual Law, is silly; likewise grouping Nation Israel, with Clothing rules, is silly. But these are all dispensations/prescriptions.

Technical point: The word dispensation comes from the root word administration, or more accurately yet, house management. When I run my house I may change a rule as to who is responsible for cleaning the kitchen today but that doesn't mean all the rules have been changed. Nor does it mean I am hyper! (which I actually am but that's another issue, lol)

Richard H
Oct 26th 2008, 06:26 PM
Robin,
I am sorry if you took it as name calling.

I might label myself as a replacement theologist, except I understand that we replace Israel and not Judah.

And so I will let you have the last say.
Richard

Dragonfighter1
Oct 26th 2008, 06:28 PM
replacement theology=potentially pejorative term
Dispensationalist=potentially pejorative term
Hyper dispensationalist=potentially pejorative term
nondispensationalist=potentially pejorative term

Yes, they can be used in a context fairly, but generally they are used to "camp" someone.



"But I am convinced of you that such are not among you...


"Let us go on to Love brethren....

sheina maidle
Oct 26th 2008, 06:28 PM
Do you have any stats on this? That might be true but in my experience I'd guess it's more like 50-50 and most Gentle are marginally "torah observant." todd
Not number stats. However, I do know that the majority of members in the Messianic congregation I attended for 10 years were Gentiles...and definitely more than 50-50...it was more like 85-15%. Also talked to Jewish evangelists who visited our church and they say the same thing...that the majority of Messiainc congregations is 80-85% Gentile. Most of the Gentiles at the congregation where I attended were much more than "mildly" Torah Observant.

valleybldr
Oct 26th 2008, 06:57 PM
Not number stats. However, I do know that the majority of members in the Messianic congregation I attended for 10 years were Gentiles...and definitely more than 50-50...it was more like 85-15%. Also talked to Jewish evangelists who visited our church and they say the same thing...that the majority of Messiainc congregations is 80-85% Gentile. Most of the Gentiles at the congregation where I attended were much more than "mildly" Torah Observant. I'll try to find some estimates but I strongly doubt the 80-85% number. That certainly does not represent the numbers here in the DC/Baltimore area or the NorthEast in general. Mississippi? Sure, I'd believe that. todd

sheina maidle
Oct 26th 2008, 07:32 PM
I'll try to find some estimates but I strongly doubt the 80-85% number. That certainly does not represent the numbers here in the DC/Baltimore area or the NorthEast in general. Mississippi? Sure, I'd believe that. todd
I didn't attend a Messianic congregation in the Northwest Mississippi area...I attended an MC in Colorado.

Our church supports the IBJM (International Board of Jewish Missions). Here is a link to their website:

http://http://www.ibjm.org/history.htm

I am a firm believer in taking the gospel to the "Jew first" and also to the "Greek/Gentile." However, I do not believe it is biblical to put the born again child of God, especially the Gentiles, back under the "yoke of bondage" in Messianic congregations. More churches need to be involved in Jewish (not Messianic) missions and evangelism.

Firstfruits
Oct 26th 2008, 07:32 PM
I try to point you to look to Christ and you call me names? It is often pointed out here that Christ was a Jew, and yet He is not allowed to keep His own inheritance and give it to whom He wills? Which side of those scriptures I posted are you on? I'm just asking...

May I just say that according to the following there is no difference between either a Jew or a Gentile because we are either born again in Christ or we are not.

Rom 3:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

Gal 3:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

No one is better than the other without Christ, in Christ we are all one.

God bless you!!

Firstfruits

sheina maidle
Oct 26th 2008, 07:49 PM
May I just say that according to the following there is no difference between either a Jew or a Gentile because we are either born again in Christ or we are not.

Rom 3:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

Gal 3:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

No one is better than the other without Christ, in Christ we are all one.

God bless you!!

Firstfruits
In Christ, there is neither Jew nor Gentile...we all come to Christ the same way.

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

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (Romans 1:16)

However, the Church did not replace national Israel.

Firstfruits
Oct 26th 2008, 07:57 PM
In Christ, there is neither Jew nor Gentile...we all come to Christ the same way.

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

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (Romans 1:16)

However, the Church did not replace national Israel.

Yet we are either in Christ or not, we are either under sin or under Christ no matter who we are.

Rom 3:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

Firstfruits

valleybldr
Oct 26th 2008, 08:51 PM
I do not believe it is biblical to put the born again child of God, especially the Gentiles, back under the "yoke of bondage" in Messianic congregations. More churches need to be involved in Jewish (not Messianic) missions and evangelism. Yes, it's far more "biblical" to be like Jews for Jesus seeking to turn Jews into a bunch of good Protestants. :eek: todd

BHS
Oct 26th 2008, 09:11 PM
I didn't say that we don't study the whole Scripture (counsel of God). The entire OT points us to Christ. The New Testament believer is "in Christ". Too much emphasis is placed on "Jewishness" instead of on Christ, Who is the "substance". Works added to grace is not the gospel.

Sheina Maidle, my comments came from my messianic experience. We are not about being Jewish, but about studying His Word, obtaining more of a knowledge of it and God and wanting to do His will. "Works added to grace" is not what we are about. Nor do we foster Judaism. We clearly understand that works is not a justification for salvation, though we understand, too what faith is and that "faith without works is dead". I know that our congregation is not the typical messianic congregation, as they are pretty much individual.

When we became "messianic" 12 years ago the percentage of Gentiles to Jews was about 60/40%. Lately I have heard a percentage of about 80/20%, though I do not know how accurate that might be. Personally, I have no problem with that if one is walking in the direction of God's leading and the goal to further Jewish understanding of their Messiah remains.

Blessings,
BHS

sheina maidle
Oct 26th 2008, 09:24 PM
Yes, it's far more "biblical" to be like Jews for Jesus seeking to turn Jews into a bunch of good Protestants. :eek: todd
Since when does Jews for Jesus turn Jews into good Protestants? I didn't become a "Protestant" when I got saved...I was born again by the Spirit of God...I became a member of the Body of Christ. For your information, Jews for Jesus had nothing to do with my salvation. I wasn't even aware that they even existed. I was saved through the witness of a born again Gentile woman who loved the Jewish people and the Lord used her witness to bring me to Himself 34 years ago.

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Romans 10:17)

scourge39
Oct 26th 2008, 09:36 PM
However, the Church did not replace national Israel.

Stop using the word 'replaced.' That is not what any of us is saying. Please reread my earlier post about the parable of the talents. I believe that Jesus illustrates quite clearly what happened. The Jewish priesthood persistently refused to acknowledge Jesus as Messiah and evangelize Gentiles. As a result, Jesus said authority would be passed from the obstinate, unfaithful priesthood to his Jewish disciples, whom he knew would indeed affirm his Messiahship, preach the Gospel to Gentiles, and be a "blessing to all nations," as the Abrahamic covenant promises.

I find it very interesting that in Acts 19:11-16, Luke juxtaposes Paul's apostolic miracles with that of the sons of Sceva, who failed to perform an exorcism. It illustrates exactly what Jesus said would happen in Matthew 12:43-45.

43"When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. 44Then it says, 'I will return to the house I left.' When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. 45Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation." (NIV)

Exorcism was a common practice among Jews in Jesus' day. Their ability to perform them successfully authenticated their message. The 'unoccupied' house that Jesus refers to was most likely that of Israel. Because Christ was not recognized and allowed to 'occupy' the house of Israel as her Messiah, her previous exorcisms would be reversed and she would no longer be able to miraculously authenticate her message as she had done before Christ's advent.

Luke may very likely be placing Paul's successful miracles alongside the failure of the sons of Sceva to show a definite transfer of authority and miraculous authentication from the Jewish priesthood and exorcists to the Jewish apostles. Acts commentators are too cowardly to make such bold statements in our Dispensational day and age, but there seems to be a definite and deliberate connection being made by Luke with his contrast of both events. Luke goes to great lengths to show that inclusion, not Jewish/Gentile distinction, was God's original intent from the very beginning.

In Luke 4:25-27, Jesus references Elijah's visit to the widow of Zarephath and the cleansing of Naaman the Syrian from leprosy (both were Gentiles) to illustrate God's intention to evangelize Gentiles and incorporate them into the one people of God. In their stubbornness, the people in the Nazareth synagogue sought to throw him off a cliff (cf. 4:28-30). Jesus repeatedly shows, in both word and deed, that Israel's uniqueness was supposed to center on evangelizing those outside of herself (not on her lineage or promised land). Even those OT accounts in 1 Kings 17:7-24 and 2 Kings 5 to which Jesus refers show this, but Judaism largely missed it, with the exception of those Jews who received Christ as Messiah. God did not intend for national Israel to maintain any sort of superiority or preeminence over Gentiles, whether then, now, or in the future.

Setting aside your obvious Dispensational proclivities about national Israel's future for a moment, please explain how national Israel, with its perpetual rejection of Christ and an ever-increasing agnosticism among its members, is currently fulfilling its role of being a 'blessing to all nations'?

valleybldr
Oct 26th 2008, 09:49 PM
Since when does Jews for Jesus turn Jews into good Protestants?
Notice I used the world "like." I was comparing your contention that Gentiles were acting like Jews with those who are fine with Jews that acting like Gentiles. todd

SIG
Oct 26th 2008, 09:56 PM
I would rather see both act like Christians.

sheina maidle
Oct 26th 2008, 10:05 PM
I would rather see both act like Christians.
:agree:

I've been around alot of Gentiles who act like Jewish wannabes...it does get old. As born again believers, we are to be "conformed" to the image of Christ.

Your walk talks and your talk walks. But your walk talks farther than your talk walks.

Toymom
Oct 26th 2008, 10:28 PM
I am a born again Jew...a member of the Body of Christ. I call myself a "Christian" ... a follower of Christ. I was born again 34 years ago in a Presbyterian Church.

God has not forsaken His people (ethnic/national) Israel. The Church did not replace Israel...this is called "Replacement Theology". Israel and the Church are two different entities. The writer of Hebrews (Hebrews 8:6-13; 10:15-19) states that every N.T. believer partakes of the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant through Christ, but nowhere does he say that this covenant has been transferred from national Israel to the church. Temporarily the nation Israel has been set aside in the purposes of God. Today He is creating a special body of saved people composed both of Jews and Gentiles...the Church.

Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: (Acts 15:14-16)

After this present work is accomplished, God will again resume His purposes with the nation Israel and will fulfill all the O.T. promises and prophecies concerning them:

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. (Romans 11:25-27)

"Dual Covenant" theology is taught by John Hagee. That teaching is somewhat anti-semetic....it keeps the gospel from the Jewish people. Paul said in Romans 1:16:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (Romans 1:16)

Salvation is the same for everyone, by grace through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary...for both Jew and Gentile. The ground is level at the foot of the cross. Jesus said:

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:12)
:agree: :hug:

Hi Pretty Girl! I am also a Jew who is now a born again Christian. I don't think there are very many of us. It is nice to find another.


I was involved in Messianic Judaism for almost 10 years. IMHO, it is simply another branch of Judaism with Jesus added on. Most in Messianic Jewish congregations are Gentiles, not Jews..and most are Torah Observant, putting themselves and the Gentiles back under the "yoke of the law" (Acts 15). It's a form of the Galatian error about which Paul wrote in the epistle to the Galatians. It's adding "works to grace", or "Galatianism".

That's my :2cents:
I have not been involved in Messianic Judaism at all. I looked into it and that is the impression that I got also and the 15% Jew and 85% gentile is what I have also seen when I looked into it. And of those involved in Messianic Judaism who call themselves Jews, many of them were not raised in the Jewish religion, but found out that they have Jewish heritage and that is one thing that drew them into the Messianic Jewish practices.

Since when does Jews for Jesus turn Jews into good Protestants? I didn't become a "Protestant" when I got saved...I was born again by the Spirit of God...I became a member of the Body of Christ. For your information, Jews for Jesus had nothing to do with my salvation. I wasn't even aware that they even existed. I was saved through the witness of a born again Gentile woman who loved the Jewish people and the Lord used her witness to bring me to Himself 34 years ago.

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Romans 10:17)
When I was a teenager I was in a Jewish youth group (BBYO) and at one of our conferences we went through a role playing activity that was intended to indoctrinate us against Jews For Jesus and taught us that they were the bad guys who impersonate Jews to infiltrate their ranks and pretend to be Jews and then convert them to Christianity. I believed it and thought all Messianic Jews were that way for many years even after I became a born again Christian.

valleybldr
Oct 26th 2008, 10:28 PM
:agree:

I've been around alot of Gentiles who act like Jewish wannabes...it does get old. As born again believers, we are to be "conformed" to the image of Christ.

Your walk talks and your talk walks. But your walk talks farther than your talk walks. To anyone who knows me well that term/concept would never come to mind. However, maybe outsiders called the 1st century "God-fearers"... "Jewish wannabes?" It's probable. todd

Toymom
Oct 26th 2008, 10:31 PM
Here is an interesting article I found that relates some I think http://www.realmessiah.org/tradition.htm

drew
Oct 27th 2008, 12:46 AM
Again, I'm in total support of Israel as a country, but why should we be linked together with those who don't profess Christ? It is the deeds of darkness and the spirit of antichrist that they proclaim.
I agree with your post and would go even further and suggest that there is no Scriptural basis for supporting Israel preferentially over any other nation. Perhaps that is not what you are saying, although I am not sure.

drew
Oct 27th 2008, 01:15 AM
After this present work is accomplished, God will again resume His purposes with the nation Israel and will fulfill all the O.T. promises and prophecies concerning them:

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. (Romans 11:25-27)
I know this is a matter of some controversy but I think that when Paul writes "all Israel shall be saved", he is talking about "the church" and not the nation of Israel. In extremely summary form, here are some arguments for this:

1. Early on in Romans (chapter 4), Paul clearly identifies a "second" Israel - a people comprised of both Jews and Gentiles. He maintains this category of "true Israel" and uses it at other times. In Romans 9, we have both Israels in tight relation - Paul laments over the state of national Israel and yet sees them as vessels fitted for destruction for the benefit of "true" Israel (the vessels of mercy). So there is no doubt that Paul has two "Israels" in his mind. This makes it at least plausible that the Israel in "all Israel shall be saved" is, in fact, not national Israel but rather "true" Isreal;

2. The word "so" as in "so all Israel shall be saved" is misleading when read in English. We often use the word "so" to mean "then". If you the research, you will find the Greek word (translated as "so") never has this "then" sense that underwrites the view that Paul is saying that there will come a time of widespread salvation of national Israel. No - "so" means "in this manner" or "thusly". Therefore it is entirely reasonable to conclude that when Paul writes "so all Israel shall be saved", he really intends to communicate the following:

"In this manner - through the blinding of national Israel (or parts of it) and the ingathering of the Gentiles - true Israel (made up of Jews and Gentiles) will be saved."

And this reading of what Paul is saying meshes well with the overall argument he is mounting in Romans 9 to 11.

sheina maidle
Oct 27th 2008, 01:58 AM
I know this is a matter of some controversy but I think that when Paul writes "all Israel shall be saved", he is talking about "the church" and not the nation of Israel. In extremely summary form, here are some arguments for this:

1. Early on in Romans (chapter 4), Paul clearly identifies a "second" Israel - a people comprised of both Jews and Gentiles. He maintains this category of "true Israel" and uses it at other times. In Romans 9, we have both Israels in tight relation - Paul laments over the state of national Israel and yet sees them as vessels fitted for destruction for the benefit of "true" Israel (the vessels of mercy). So there is no doubt that Paul has two "Israels" in his mind. This makes it at least plausible that the Israel in "all Israel shall be saved" is, in fact, not national Israel but rather "true" Isreal;

2. The word "so" as in "so all Israel shall be saved" is misleading when read in English. We often use the word "so" to mean "then". If you the research, you will find the Greek word (translated as "so") never has this "then" sense that underwrites the view that Paul is saying that there will come a time of widespread salvation of national Israel. No - "so" means "in this manner" or "thusly". Therefore it is entirely reasonable to conclude that when Paul writes "so all Israel shall be saved", he really intends to communicate the following:

"In this manner - through the blinding of national Israel (or parts of it) and the ingathering of the Gentiles - true Israel (made up of Jews and Gentiles) will be saved."

And this reading of what Paul is saying meshes well with the overall argument he is mounting in Romans 9 to 11.
God has not forsaken His people Israel...Israel is Israel and the Church is the Church....they are not the same thing. Your post is teaching Replacement Theology. I am very familiar with that teaching and I do not believe that is a biblical teaching....it leans towards being anti-semetic. You can deny this, but this is exactly what it is.

scourge39
Oct 27th 2008, 04:11 AM
I know this is a matter of some controversy but I think that when Paul writes "all Israel shall be saved", he is talking about "the church" and not the nation of Israel. In extremely summary form, here are some arguments for this:

1. Early on in Romans (chapter 4), Paul clearly identifies a "second" Israel - a people comprised of both Jews and Gentiles. He maintains this category of "true Israel" and uses it at other times. In Romans 9, we have both Israels in tight relation - Paul laments over the state of national Israel and yet sees them as vessels fitted for destruction for the benefit of "true" Israel (the vessels of mercy). So there is no doubt that Paul has two "Israels" in his mind. This makes it at least plausible that the Israel in "all Israel shall be saved" is, in fact, not national Israel but rather "true" Isreal;

2. The word "so" as in "so all Israel shall be saved" is misleading when read in English. We often use the word "so" to mean "then". If you the research, you will find the Greek word (translated as "so") never has this "then" sense that underwrites the view that Paul is saying that there will come a time of widespread salvation of national Israel. No - "so" means "in this manner" or "thusly". Therefore it is entirely reasonable to conclude that when Paul writes "so all Israel shall be saved", he really intends to communicate the following:

"In this manner - through the blinding of national Israel (or parts of it) and the ingathering of the Gentiles - true Israel (made up of Jews and Gentiles) will be saved."

And this reading of what Paul is saying meshes well with the overall argument he is mounting in Romans 9 to 11.

Great post, Drew. What our dispensational friends fail to realize is that the rejection of Christ as Messiah by the Jewish priesthood carries with it permanent, irreversible consequences. The same holds true for Gentiles who likewise reject Christ. The real tragedy is that some who read your post will remain reactionary and levy the anti-semitic charge against you without even looking up the passages that you cite and even considering anything other than their currently-held views.

threebigrocks
Oct 27th 2008, 02:18 PM
Everyone - this is enough. Are we not all under Christ?

If we think that there isn't a remenent of true Israel which will be saved as they are we fool ourselves. If we were a Jew when we were called, don't change how you relate to God, just do so through Christ, as a bondservant excorcising liberty in faith. If you were not a Jew when you were called - don't act as though you were. Period.

1 Corinthians 7
18Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised.
19Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.
20Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.
21Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that.
22For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave.
23You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.

Let's get down to the truth of scripture, come together with a common thread, or this thread will not continue.

mikeelikesthebible
Oct 27th 2008, 02:37 PM
This thread is ridiculous. Anyone who does not know and understand that Israel is the beginning and the end needs to get back into the Bible.

Some one stated that all Israel will be saved. What scripture says that?
That actually helps support my belief that all will be saved. Narrow are the gates, but they don't close. A sheep herder will not let one go astray.

threebigrocks
Oct 27th 2008, 02:39 PM
Yes, all those who believe in Christ Jesus, repent and follow Him will be saved. Gentiles are grafted in, so all who believe are considered to be Israel.

drew
Oct 27th 2008, 03:04 PM
1Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand.

This is from Romans 5. Who is the "we" who have received this promise of peace - one of the great covenantal promises? We find the answer in chapter 4:

Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.

Paul discerns that, from the very beginning, the covenant promises never were for Jews and Jews only.

And in Romans 5 to 8, other covenant blessings, thought to be for the Jew and the Jew and the Jew only, are shown by Paul to really be for "true" Israel - the "true" children of Abraham. And Abraham's family consists of both Jew and Gentile.

There is no question of "replacement" here. Paul is mounting a case that the promises never were for the genetic descendents of Abraham.

threebigrocks
Oct 27th 2008, 03:41 PM
Exactly - it was faith, not genetics or geographical location.

Let's focus on that and everyone chill out. I don't want to close the thread but will if things don't settle.

thepenitent
Oct 27th 2008, 04:03 PM
God has not forsaken His people Israel...Israel is Israel and the Church is the Church....they are not the same thing. Your post is teaching Replacement Theology. I am very familiar with that teaching and I do not believe that is a biblical teaching....it leans towards being anti-semetic. You can deny this, but this is exactly what it is.

How is it anti-semetic? Is not believing Christ to be the Messiah "anti-Christian?"

threebigrocks
Oct 27th 2008, 04:16 PM
Theology labels wont' further discussion, they very rarely do.

It is not antisemitic. All can come to Christ and be saved.

How is Israel not the church? How is the church not Israel? Let's let our passions be shown gently, well salted and with scripture.

Emanate
Oct 27th 2008, 04:26 PM
Theology labels wont' further discussion, they very rarely do.

It is not antisemitic. All can come to Christ and be saved.

How is Israel not the church? How is the church not Israel? Let's let our passions be shown gently, well salted and with scripture.


A common mistake people make is by trying to creat two Israels or Israel and the Church. Israel is indeed the Church and the Church is Israel. Not as a replacement, but a continuation as hinted at in Acts 7. And still to the Jew first....

threebigrocks
Oct 27th 2008, 04:27 PM
A common mistake people make is by trying to creat two Israels or Israel and the Church. Israel is indeed the Church and the Church is Israel. Not as a replacement, but a continuation as hinted at in Acts 7. And still to the Jew first....

Agreed !

drew
Oct 27th 2008, 04:50 PM
Although it is perhaps a tad confusing, Paul works with two categories (at least in the book of Romans):

1. National Israel - the genetic descendents of Abraham;
2. "True" Israel - a set of people, containing both Jew and Gentile, who are marked out by one thing only - they believe the gospel of Christ;

Here are examples of Paul making statements about "national" Israel:

I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit— 2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel

1Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.

So Paul clearly has "national" (or ethnic) Israel in mind as a distinct category.

Now here are texts which speak of "true" Israel:

Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.

Those who are "of the law" are the members of national Israel - the Jews. And Paul is here stating that Abraham's offspring includes any person - Jew or Gentile - who has the faith of Abraham.

Now Paul makes it clear that these people are the "true" family of Abraham, even though he is fully aware that Abraham also has a "genetic" family. Why is Paul being so confusing? Why not simply call this "Jew+Gentile" family (that he refers to in the text above) the "true" people of God? Why does he insist of defining them to be Abraham's children, when he knows very well that the reader will be inclined to think of the Jews as Abraham's children?

It is because, as we see in Romans 5 to 8, Paul believes that covenant promises, seemingly made to Abraham in his role as father of national Israel, were in fact never made to national Israel at all, but rather made to Abraham in his role as father of "true" Israel.

Paul cannot afford to get rid of the connection to Abraham in his identification of the true people of God. If he did, he would not be able to argue, as he does in Romans 5 to 8, that promises made to Abraham are actually the inheritance of the true people of God.

And here is another reference to "true" Israel:

"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one,"[i (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209%20;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28166i)] 26and, "It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,'
they will be called 'sons of the living God.'

Although Paul does not use the term "Israel" here, he is clearly saying that the "true" people of God - that is the true Israel - are a group other than those who are traditionally held to be the people of God - national Israel.

And, of course, there are Jews in both groups. One can be a member of national Israel and a member of true Israel. Paul is one example.

Mograce2U
Oct 27th 2008, 05:13 PM
This thread is ridiculous. Anyone who does not know and understand that Israel is the beginning and the end needs to get back into the Bible.

Some one stated that all Israel will be saved. What scripture says that?
That actually helps support my belief that all will be saved. Narrow are the gates, but they don't close. A sheep herder will not let one go astray.
The first Adam was the beginning of man in the earth who brought spiritual death because of sin; and the last Adam was Jesus who brought the end of that fallen creation and was the first to rise from the dead to bring to birth a new man quickened in spirit and reconciled to God.

Abraham was the first seed of Israel and Christ was the last Seed.

David was the first king of Israel established by God who died, from him came the Seed who now sits upon His Father's throne and lives forever as the King of kings and Lord of lords and Ruler of heaven and earth.

Jesus is the Creator of the whole earth and the One who sustains it by His power.

Israel was not the first in God's plan to bring redemption to the earth. But she was the way established in the earth thru which the Redeemer would come. That gives Jesus the preeminence - not Israel. He is therefore rightly to be called Alpha and Omega. Which makes Israel subject to Him and not the other way around.

All the promises of God given to men - and to Israel - are Yea and Amen in Him. Jesus holds all the promises of God given to men because He is the One who not only delivered them as the Son of God but received them for us as the Son of Man. It is by Him, men live and move and have their being (Acts 17:28). Yet it is only those who are IN Him that men will be adopted as sons of God and counted as the brethren of Christ. And He has no natural born children. The sons of Abraham may continue in the earth, but they will die here like men. Only the children of God who have been born from above will live forever.

Israel in the flesh is therefore in worse shape than when she began, now that Christ has come and wrought salvation in the earth. One cannot reject the promise of eternal life and still be said to have some other hope for a kingdom which is only of this world. Not when the kingdom which is not of this world has already come and they still continue to want no part of it. What else is God supposed to do for them that He has not already done? Except to give them what they desire - which is to worship the idol of their own imagination which has deceived them. Is this anti-semitism on God's part? Or the lot they have chosen for themselves because they want no part of the righteousness of God which He delivered to them in sending them His Son. A rejection, which God the Father says was of Himself as well.

All they need do to have a part in the promise once again is to look to Christ and repent of their unbelief. And then they too will be added to the number which are part of the body of Christ - the redeemed. It is not the body of Israel in the earth which they need to be enjoined to - they already have that as the sons of Abraham who are now counted as being among the sons of Ishmael - the ones to whom the promise was NOT given. Whereas the true sons of Jacob are those to whom the promise was delivered who received it. And there are no sons of Jacob in the earth today which continued to be birthed in the flesh thru his Seed which is Jesus.

This is neither anti-semitism nor replacement theology, rather it is the gospel of Christ which was preached first to Israel. That she doesn't want to hear it, is nothing new. But when any do finally turn and hear it, it will mean life from the dead for them too and coming into the kingdom that will never end. Jesus however stands at the gate into the heavenly city which gates will never close, but no one will get by Him who has not first been reconciled to God by faith in Him. And this is what she doesn't seem to know she needs, that He stands ready to forgive their sins by grace and heal them.

Israel may think their hope is in this earthly realm, but Abraham knew better!

Dragonfighter1
Oct 27th 2008, 05:14 PM
Although it is perhaps a tad confusing, Paul works with two categories (at least in the book of Romans):

1. National Israel - the genetic descendents of Abraham;
2. "True" Israel - a set of people, containing both Jew and Gentile, who are marked out by one thing only - they believe the gospel of Christ;

Here are examples of Paul making statements about "national" Israel:

I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit— 2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel

1Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.

So Paul clearly has "national" (or ethnic) Israel in mind as a distinct category.

Now here are texts which speak of "true" Israel:

Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.

Those who are "of the law" are the members of national Israel - the Jews. And Paul is here stating that Abraham's offspring includes any person - Jew or Gentile - who has the faith of Abraham.

Now Paul makes it clear that these people are the "true" family of Abraham, even though he is fully aware that Abraham also has a "genetic" family. Why is Paul being so confusing? Why not simply call this "Jew+Gentile" family (that he refers to in the text above) the "true" people of God? Why does he insist of defining them to be Abraham's children, when he knows very well that the reader will be inclined to think of the Jews as Abraham's children?

It is because, as we see in Romans 5 to 8, Paul believes that covenant promises, seemingly made to Abraham in his role as father of national Israel, were in fact never made to national Israel at all, but rather made to Abraham in his role as father of "true" Israel.

Paul cannot afford to get rid of the connection to Abraham in his identification of the true people of God. If he did, he would not be able to argue, as he does in Romans 5 to 8, that promises made to Abraham are actually the inheritance of the true people of God.

And here is another reference to "true" Israel:

"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one,"[i (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209%20;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28166i)] 26and, "It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,'
they will be called 'sons of the living God.'

Although Paul does not use the term "Israel" here, he is clearly saying that the "true" people of God - that is the true Israel - are a group other than those who are traditionally held to be the people of God - national Israel.

And, of course, there are Jews in both groups. One can be a member of national Israel and a member of true Israel. Paul is one example.

Kudo's! an excellent presentation. Well presented, and non inflammatory. Very educational!
Though I imagine some will dispute parts of what you say what you said was not said distastefully at all.... Are you a mod?

drew
Oct 27th 2008, 05:30 PM
... Are you a mod?
Thanks for your kind words. And no, I am not a mod. I would not wish such a difficult job on my worst enemy (and I hope the mods take that in the complimentary fashion it was intended).

Veretax
Oct 27th 2008, 05:35 PM
This is an interesting discussion.


First I believe God's plan for Salvation has not changed since it was first given. I believe that Christians are grafted into the fine as it says. However, I also believe that God has specific promises for God's Chosen people (israel). Note that all 12 of Jacob's sons were a part of his promise family, yet he choose to show favor to Joseph. This is how I see it. Some things are meant particularly for israel, but most are meant to all of us.

At least that's about as simply as how I can believe it.

sheina maidle
Oct 27th 2008, 06:31 PM
Theology labels wont' further discussion, they very rarely do.

It is not antisemitic. All can come to Christ and be saved.

How is Israel not the church? How is the church not Israel? Let's let our passions be shown gently, well salted and with scripture.
The Church is the church...Israel is Israel.

Israel is the nation chosen and created by God to preserve His truth in the world and to prepare the way for Christ's coming.

The Church was an unrevealed mystery in the Old Testament (Ephesians 3:1-10).

To this special people, God gave a Land (Palestine) so they could live separated from the heathen peoples in order to fulfill God's purposes.

God delivered the Scriptures to the world through Israel (Romans 3:1-2). He also gave the Savior to the world through Israel (Romans 9:4-5).

Today He is creating a special body of saved people composed both of Jews and Gentiles (Acts 15:14-16; Ephesians 3:1-21).

When one replaces (yes I said replaces) Israel with the Church, one has to spiritualize almost the entire OT and the book of Revelation to make the Replacement doctrine "fit". Also, the Church is not an "extension" of the nation of Israel. Israel never "becomes" the Church.

Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: (1 Corinthians 10:32)

A careful and prayerful study of the Word of God (rightly dividing the Word of Truth) will show that Israel is not the Church, nor an "extension" of the Church.

drew
Oct 27th 2008, 07:07 PM
The Church is the church...Israel is Israel.
Well, I agree with this statement in the sense that Paul sees national Israel as a real group that he deals with as a group. And he sees "the church" as another real group. But Paul makes every effort to call the "church" the true children of Abraham:

Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.

So we have to honour Paul here and concede that he considers "the church" to be the true offspring of Abraham. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate to say that Paul has this category "true Israel" in his mind. We can call this group "the church", but we lose something when we do this. What do we lose? We lose Paul's argument that promises seemingly made to national Israel were never actually made to national Israel - they were made to Abraham in his capacity as father of "true" Israel.

Mograce2U
Oct 27th 2008, 07:22 PM
The Church is the church...Israel is Israel.

Israel is the nation chosen and created by God to preserve His truth in the world and to prepare the way for Christ's coming.

The Church was an unrevealed mystery in the Old Testament (Ephesians 3:1-10).

To this special people, God gave a Land (Palestine) so they could live separated from the heathen peoples in order to fulfill God's purposes.

God delivered the Scriptures to the world through Israel (Romans 3:1-2). He also gave the Savior to the world through Israel (Romans 9:4-5).

Today He is creating a special body of saved people composed both of Jews and Gentiles (Acts 15:14-16; Ephesians 3:1-21).

When one replaces (yes I said replaces) Israel with the Church, one has to spiritualize almost the entire OT and the book of Revelation to make the Replacement doctrine "fit". Also, the Church is not an "extension" of the nation of Israel. Israel never "becomes" the Church.

Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: (1 Corinthians 10:32)

A careful and prayerful study of the Word of God (rightly dividing the Word of Truth) will show that Israel is not the Church, nor an "extension" of the Church.Who was the church in the wilderness? Acts 7:38 - was it not this people led by Moses called Israel?

Who is preserving the word of the Lord? Is it not the church who is the pillar of the truth in the world today? Israel doesn't even understand the scripture orginally delivered to her because of the darkness brought about from unbelief.

Was not Jesus born as a son of Abraham? Thus fulfilling the purpose for which Israel was formed. Who are His children that the promise has been passed to since His birth, death and resurrection? Is it the nation of Israel or the entity we now call the "Church"? And how is it passed to them? By faith - just as it was to Abraham's children BEFORE He came.

Who is the royal priesthood ruling with Christ? Hint: it is not the Levitical priesthood anymore. The clue is the temple was torn down according to the prophetic words of Christ, thus ending forever that way to stand before God.

Israel was the church of the OT, but the substance of that body is now found in Christ and not in Moses nor in the flesh progeny of Abraham. Only those who follow Jesus have a part in the promise which He holds for the children of God who have been chosen in Him by their faith.

If we are going to rightly divide the word then the changes made at the cross are crucial to understanding the mystery it reveals. As it concerns Israel and indeed all the world who will be judged by Him.

drew
Oct 27th 2008, 07:22 PM
When one replaces (yes I said replaces) Israel with the Church, one has to spiritualize almost the entire OT and the book of Revelation to make the Replacement doctrine "fit".
Do you believe that I am arguing that "true" Israel "replaces" national Israel?

I am not arguing this at all. I am arguing that Paul "clarifies" the real meaning of all the covenant promises. Paul says that it has always been the case that the covenant promises were directed to a group other than national Israel. Paul is not saying that national Israel is being replaced as the "true people of God" - those who fall under the promises of the covenent - he is saying that they never were.

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.

Although I will not argue the point in the present post, I will assert that when Paul says "Abraham was credited with righteousness", he is really saying "Abraham was deemed to be a member of the true people of God - those who are heirs to all the covenantal blessings".

So Paul is saying that, even in Abraham's time, the covenant promises were not made to ethnic Jews. If Paul were adopting a "replacement" model, he would say something different than this.

One of Paul's main themes in Romans is this: the covenant promises do not means what they seem to mean and the covenant heirs are not who they seem to be.

Mograce2U
Oct 27th 2008, 07:32 PM
Drew,

One of Paul's main themes in Romans is this: the covenant promises do not means what they seem to mean and the covenant heirs are not who they seem to beThis is exactly Paul's point as he shows that the just and the unjust are different than who Israel thought they were. Israel looked upon themselves as sons of Abraham as being those God counted as just, while to them the Gentiles were the unjust. Paul is showing that both Jews and Gentiles will be counted as just in the same way yet in contrast to the fact that among BOTH these same groups will the unjust be found. The distinguishing mark to identify the just is faith, and similarly unbelief marks the unjust. Because it is the heart of the inner man who God alone knows by which He makes this distinction - without respect of persons.

Firstfruits
Oct 27th 2008, 08:47 PM
The Church is the church...Israel is Israel.

Israel is the nation chosen and created by God to preserve His truth in the world and to prepare the way for Christ's coming.

The Church was an unrevealed mystery in the Old Testament (Ephesians 3:1-10).

To this special people, God gave a Land (Palestine) so they could live separated from the heathen peoples in order to fulfill God's purposes.

God delivered the Scriptures to the world through Israel (Romans 3:1-2). He also gave the Savior to the world through Israel (Romans 9:4-5).

Today He is creating a special body of saved people composed both of Jews and Gentiles (Acts 15:14-16; Ephesians 3:1-21).

When one replaces (yes I said replaces) Israel with the Church, one has to spiritualize almost the entire OT and the book of Revelation to make the Replacement doctrine "fit". Also, the Church is not an "extension" of the nation of Israel. Israel never "becomes" the Church.

Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: (1 Corinthians 10:32)

A careful and prayerful study of the Word of God (rightly dividing the Word of Truth) will show that Israel is not the Church, nor an "extension" of the Church.

With reference to Romans 9:1-8. and John 3:1-8. what is the difference between natural Israel and the Children of God.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

sheina maidle
Oct 27th 2008, 10:05 PM
With reference to Romans 9:1-8. and John 3:1-8. what is the difference between natural Israel and the Children of God.

God bless you!

Firstfruits
In Romans 9:1-8, Paul is speaking of "unsaved" Israel...just because the Jews were the "physical" seed of Abraham doesn't mean they have a free ticket to heaven. Jesus said "Ye must be born again"!

John 3:1-8 is Jesus' dialogue with Nicodemus about the "new birth". Children of God are "born again".

All come to Christ the same way (Jews and Gentiles) by trusting in the finished work of Christ on the Cross of Calvary...but this doesn't make the Church the continuation of Israel or the replacement of Israel.

God made covenants and promises to Israel in the OT and those covenants and promises were not "replaced" or "transferred" to the Church. The Church receives the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant through Christ. But the Church was never given the Abrahamic, Davidic or Mosaic Covenants...those covenants were given to Israel alone.

The Mosaic covenant was a system of law God gave to Israel on Mt. Sinai. The Mosaic law was only a temporary system given to prepare Israel for salvation-not given to overthrow her promises in the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants (Romans 4:9-16; Galatians 3:21-4:5; Hebrews 6:13-20; 8:13).

Israel is a literal nation...is the Church a nation? Did God promise the Church a land? (Genesis 12:1-3).

drew
Oct 27th 2008, 11:36 PM
God made covenants and promises to Israel in the OT
Paul's writings indicate that he does not believe this. He believes that the covenants were made with the "true" Israel that he identifies explicitly in Romans 4 and Romans 9:

So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them

This is a rather direct statement that Abraham's "true family" - and I think we all agree that would be Abraham's true family are those who receive the covenant blessings - contain Gentiles. So Paul simply does not line up with your assertion that the promises are for national Israel.

No, the promises were for Abraham's family. And in the above, it is clear that Abrahams' true family contains Gentiles.

And we also have this, as already posted:

16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.

Paul again clearly includes the Gentiles in Abraham's true family. And, again, it is the family of Abraham, whoever they turn out to be, that are the heirs to the covenant promises.

And Paul clearly says "This family is not national Israel".

And what could be clearer than this statement from Romans 9:

It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel....

Paul is making things as clear as he possibly can. He goes on to mount an argument that basically says "the true Israel is not determined by genetics but by the "promise".

So I am not sure why you think anybody is talking "replacement". Paul's argument is that from the very outset, the covenant promises are for "true" Israel, not national Israel.

This is not to say that God does not have a role for national Israel. But their role is a terrible burden - they are the people that God molds as if for destruction (Romans 9), so that the world can be saved (Romans 11). We members of "true" Israel, Jew and Gentile alike, owe national Israel a great debt of thanks.

And as far as the land is concerned, Paul realizes that the true intent of that promise, despite appearances, was never that the Jews would get Palestine, but rather that "true" Israel would get the whole world:

The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that[i (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28123i)] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

sheina maidle
Oct 28th 2008, 12:19 AM
Paul's writings indicate that he does not believe this. He believes that the covenants were made with the "true" Israel that he identifies explicitly in Romans 4 and Romans 9:

So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them

This is a rather direct statement that Abraham's "true family" - and I think we all agree that would be Abraham's true family are those who receive the covenant blessings - contain Gentiles. So Paul simply does not line up with your assertion that the promises are for national Israel.

No, the promises were for Abraham's family. And in the above, it is clear that Abrahams' true family contains Gentiles.

And we also have this, as already posted:

16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.

Paul again clearly includes the Gentiles in Abraham's true family. And, again, it is the family of Abraham, whoever they turn out to be, that are the heirs to the covenant promises.

And Paul clearly says "This family is not national Israel".

And what could be clearer than this statement from Romans 9:

It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel....

Paul is making things as clear as he possibly can. He goes on to mount an argument that basically says "the true Israel is not determined by genetics but by the "promise".

So I am not sure why you think anybody is talking "replacement". Paul's argument is that from the very outset, the covenant promises are for "true" Israel, not national Israel.

This is not to say that God does not have a role for national Israel. But their role is a terrible burden - they are the people that God molds as if for destruction (Romans 9), so that the world can be saved (Romans 11). We members of "true" Israel, Jew and Gentile alike, owe national Israel a great debt of thanks.

And as far as the land is concerned, Paul realizes that the true intent of that promise, despite appearances, was never that the Jews would get Palestine, but rather that "true" Israel would get the whole world:

The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that[i (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28123i)] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
The descendants of Abraham did not include the Gentiles. These are not my assertions, they are biblical. Gentiles who believe are the "spiritual" seed of Abraham, through faith in Christ. This doesn't make them "true Israel".

Israel is a nation chosen by God and sustained by covenant promises (Deut. 7:6-9). Not all individuals in this chosen nation are saved (Rom. 9:6; 11:28).

The Church is a called out assembly of believers who have been baptized into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). Every member of the body of Christ is saved, though there are multitudes of professing Christians who may not be saved (2 Tim. 2:19).

Israel traces its origin to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Jacob being the father of the twelve tribes).

The Church traces its origin to the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) when believers were first placed into the body of Christ.

In God’s program for Israel, His witnesses comprised a nation (Isaiah 43:10).

In God’s program for the Church, His witnesses are among all nations (Acts 1:8).

God's covenants and promises TO Israel were NOT given to the Church, nor were they "transferred" to the Church. There is ONE people of God, the Church (born again Jews and Gentiles)...and this is not "true Israel"! Show me where in Scriptures it specifically says "true Israel" is the Body of Christ.

scourge39
Oct 28th 2008, 01:37 AM
Acts 7:38 explicitly calls Israel 'the Church' when Stephen says, "38He was in the assembly in the desert, with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers; and he received living words to pass on to us." (NIV) Most English versions translate the Greek as 'assembly,' but the Greek word found in that verse is 'ekklesia,' which is translated Church throughout the rest of the NT.

7:38 οὖτός ἐστιν ὁ γενόμενος ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ μετὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου τοῦ λαλοῦντος αὐτῶ ἐν τῶ ὄρει σινᾶ καὶ τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν, ὃς ἐδέξατο λόγια ζῶντα δοῦναι ἡμῖν,

drew
Oct 28th 2008, 03:09 AM
The descendants of Abraham did not include the Gentiles. These are not my assertions, they are biblical. Gentiles who believe are the "spiritual" seed of Abraham, through faith in Christ. This doesn't make them "true Israel".
This is simply not consistent with what Paul actually says. Obviously, we all know that Gentiles are not the genetic descendents of Abraham. But we know that Paul considers Abraham's "true" descendents - his descendents in the sense that matters as far as being heirs to the covenant promises - include Gentiles. Consider this from Romans 4:

So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised

16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all

No one is saying that there is not a national Israel. But in the second of these quotes, Paul is quite clear that the recipients of the covenant blessings are a people made up of Jew and Gentile. And they are considerd to be Abraham's family.

And in this text from Romans 5, Paul clearly shows that the covenant blessing of shalom - peace with God - belongs to Abraham's "true" family:

Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,....


Show me where in Scriptures it specifically says "true Israel" is the Body of Christ.
Here in Romans 9:

6It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." 8In other words, [B]it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.
.
.
.
What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles


The vessels fitted for destruction is the main part of national Israel - I can make that case if you like.

And when Paul says "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel", he could not be more clear - he identities that "real" Israel (even he does not actually use the word "real", the implication is clear) is not the same as "genetic" Israel.

Let me repeat - I am not saying that there is not this people called national Israel. But if we read Paul and take him at his word, he states that national Israel actually never were the "children of the promise", that is, the heirs of the covenant blessing. Instead the heirs are this group of people, both Jew and Gentile, who are not marked out by genetics.

They are marked out by one thing only - they believe the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Mograce2U
Oct 28th 2008, 03:34 AM
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is who Israel must trace their roots back to - right? Now what about Ishmael who was born before Isaac and received circumcision first? And then there was Esau who was born before Jacob yet was rejected. Follow that elective purpose of God down to the birth of Jesus and you will find that everybody else is cut off after His death. Cut off from what? THE PROMISE. But God raised Him from the dead, therefore what was given to Him is still His - forever. You can't give to Israel what has already been given to Christ, when God Himself took it away from them. Jesus isn't "just a Jew" as in one of many, He is The Jew and the reason for the existence of the nation - period. They have absolutely no purpose in the plan of God to bring redemption to the world apart from their connection to Jesus - which those who reject Him now do not have. Just like Noah's flood when it was over had no descendants other than his in the world, so was the nation of Israel complete once Jesus was born into the world and completed the covenants which God made with them. She is now among the nations as "just another Gentile" - which was what she was in the beginning. Which is how Paul is able to make his analogy that Israel of the flesh is like Ishmael.

I don't know why this is resisted, it seems simple enough to me...

sheina maidle
Oct 28th 2008, 05:35 AM
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is who Israel must trace their roots back to - right? Now what about Ishmael who was born before Isaac and received circumcision first? And then there was Esau who was born before Jacob yet was rejected. Follow that elective purpose of God down to the birth of Jesus and you will find that everybody else is cut off after His death. Cut off from what? THE PROMISE. But God raised Him from the dead, therefore what was given to Him is still His - forever. You can't give to Israel what has already been given to Christ, when God Himself took it away from them. Jesus isn't "just a Jew" as in one of many, He is The Jew and the reason for the existence of the nation - period. They have absolutely no purpose in the plan of God to bring redemption to the world apart from their connection to Jesus - which those who reject Him now do not have. Just like Noah's flood when it was over had no descendants other than his in the world, so was the nation of Israel complete once Jesus was born into the world and completed the covenants which God made with them. She is now among the nations as "just another Gentile" - which was what she was in the beginning. Which is how Paul is able to make his analogy that Israel of the flesh is like Ishmael.

I don't know why this is resisted, it seems simple enough to me...
Where in the world did you come up with that theology? Sure isn't in my Bible.

Ishmael was not the "son of promise", Isaac was:

And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year. (Genesis 17:19-21)

Ishmael was circumcised first because Isaac was not born...but that doesn't change the fact that Ishmael was not the "son of promise".

This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. (Genesis 17:10-13)

Esau was not interested in God and spiritual things; therefore, he sold his birthright for a bowl of soup:

And Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthright. And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me? And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob. Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright. (Genesis 25:31-34)

everybody else is cut off after His death. Cut off from what? THE PROMISE.
Scripture please? Who is "everybody else"? You seem to forget that there has ALWAYS been a remnant of believing Jews...the Israel of God (which is NOT the Gentiles or the Church)

Noah's sons repopulated the earth after the flood. Abram came from the lineage of Shem, from whom we get Isaac and Jacob and the twelve tribes of the children of ISRAEL! There was a covenant made with Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3) and that same covenant was repeated to Isaac (Genesis 26:1-5, 24), and to Jacob (Genesis 28:4, 13, 14; 32:12; 35:12)

If one says that the nation of Israel was complete when Jesus was born and the covenants were completed, that is calling God a liar Who does not keep His promises to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob/Israel and David.

Israel is not "among the nations as "just another Gentile" - which was what she was in the beginning." First of all, if Israel is just "among the nations as 'just another Gentile', then why do the Arab nations want to push Israel out into the Mediterranean Sea? Why has God preserved this tiny little nation...why not let the Arabs just destroy Israel? The nation of Israel is God's chosen nation...His chosen people are the Jews...God will keep all his promises and covenants with that nation and people. Israel is back in their land in unbelief, but there will be a time in the near future when they will turn back to their God and recognize Jesus as their Messiah. (Zecharaih 12:10)

Have you done a study on "Israelology"? The Church is never called, and is not, a "spiritual Israel" or a "new Israel" or a "true Israel". That is a doctrine which stems from Augustine and the RCC. 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.

drew
Oct 28th 2008, 06:14 AM
Have you done a study on "Israelology"? The Church is never called, and is not, a "spiritual Israel" or a "new Israel" or a "true Israel".
I think it is clear that Paul does this very thing right here:

So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised

Paul might not use the exact phrase "true Israel" but I really do not understand how this text can be read without concluding that Paul sees Abraham as being the father of a "nation" - a set of persons - which is not identical to the nation of Israel.

Sheina, please answer this question:

Is Paul or is Paul not stating that Abraham is considered to be the father of a set of persons who are both Jew and Gentile?

sheina maidle
Oct 28th 2008, 06:53 AM
I think it is clear that Paul does this very thing right here:

So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised

Paul might not use the exact phrase "true Israel" but I really do not understand how this text can be read without concluding that Paul sees Abraham as being the father of a "nation" - a set of persons - which is not identical to the nation of Israel.

Sheina, please answer this question:

Is Paul or is Paul not stating that Abraham is considered to be the father of a set of persons who are both Jew and Gentile?
No... The word father here is used in a spiritual sense. Abraham was the ancestor of all true believers; he was their model and example. They are regarded as his children because they are justified in the same way, and are imitators of his example.

This verse in no way implies that the Church is a continuation of "true" Israel. Every believer in Christ (every true member of the Church, whether Jew or Gentile) is a child of Abraham and a child of God (Romans 4:11-12; Galatians 3:26-29). This statement does not mean that Church age believers are Israelites or "spiritual" Israel.

Veretax
Oct 28th 2008, 11:34 AM
I don't understand why this is so difficult to grasp, many of the promises and prophecy for the last days involves a "nation" israel, not the Church. Who do you think the 144,000 are? Are they not jews from every tribe?

Yes, we have a spiritual heritage through Abraham, but that does not make us Israelites.

Firstfruits
Oct 28th 2008, 02:00 PM
In Romans 9:1-8, Paul is speaking of "unsaved" Israel...just because the Jews were the "physical" seed of Abraham doesn't mean they have a free ticket to heaven. Jesus said "Ye must be born again"!

John 3:1-8 is Jesus' dialogue with Nicodemus about the "new birth". Children of God are "born again".

All come to Christ the same way (Jews and Gentiles) by trusting in the finished work of Christ on the Cross of Calvary...but this doesn't make the Church the continuation of Israel or the replacement of Israel.

God made covenants and promises to Israel in the OT and those covenants and promises were not "replaced" or "transferred" to the Church. The Church receives the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant through Christ. But the Church was never given the Abrahamic, Davidic or Mosaic Covenants...those covenants were given to Israel alone.

The Mosaic covenant was a system of law God gave to Israel on Mt. Sinai. The Mosaic law was only a temporary system given to prepare Israel for salvation-not given to overthrow her promises in the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants (Romans 4:9-16; Galatians 3:21-4:5; Hebrews 6:13-20; 8:13).

Israel is a literal nation...is the Church a nation? Did God promise the Church a land? (Genesis 12:1-3).

Thank you Sheina Maidle,

So the only way Jew and Gentile can become children of God is by being born again, if therefore natural Israel is not saved unless they are born again which Israel are we, with regards to the following scripture?

Rom 9:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are Not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Is the following the new Israel?

Rom 9:24 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=24) Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
Rom 9:25 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=25) As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
Rom 9:26 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=26) And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

Are we part of the Church of the first born by being born again?

Heb 12:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=12&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
Heb 12:23 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=12&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=23) To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

God bless you

Firstfruits

drew
Oct 28th 2008, 02:02 PM
No... The word father here is used in a spiritual sense. Abraham was the ancestor of all true believers; he was their model and example.
I do not agree. It is clear from Romans that Paul considers these "Jew+Gentile children of Abraham" to be specifically the heirs of the covenant promises. I am not sure exactly what you mean by the term "spiritual", but in Romans 5 to 8, Paul systematically "transfers" the covenant promises from "national" Israel to "true" Israel. I use the word "transfer" guardedly because, as I have already argued, Paul says that, from the very beginning, the covenant promises have always been for this "true" Israel.

But in any event, your claim about Abraham being merely a "model" or "example" of justification by faith is not consistent with this, where it is clear that Abraham's "Jew+Gentile" offspring are indeed the true heirs of the covenant:

13It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.

Verse 13 is a direct allusion to the covenant promise that Abraham would be the father of many nations:

Then the word of the LORD came to him: "This man will not be your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir." 5 He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars—if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be."

And how more clear could Paul possibly be that this "Jew+Gentile" family is in fact the true covenant family:

Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations

This text alone neatly and clearly makes the case. Not only is Abraham a "father" to a "Jew+Gentike" family but this family is precisely the covenantally promised family. Verse 17 is a reference to the covenant.

So we see that Paul is not merely saying "Abraham is the father of the 'Jew+Gentile' church in a 'spiritual' sense". No - he is saying that this "Jew+Gentile" family of Abraham's is what was promised in the covenant.

Veretax
Oct 28th 2008, 02:12 PM
This is some interesting reading, that is coinciding some of my study at home at present, but I'm going to pose, what may seem like a very "dumb" question to some, but I think its important for me to understand this question in order to understand just what is being said.

The Question is this:

"What is God's Covenantal Promise?"

Since it seems clear that its being said that born again believers of Israel and Gentiles are whom this promise is for, it seems important to know just what these promises are. Perhaps someone could explain or at least refresh my memory? Also is it a singular promise or a number of promises?

Toymom
Oct 28th 2008, 02:16 PM
Has anyone pointed out that the preposition in the title should be "with" rather than "of"? Because if it is of, that would refer to what the Jews themselves are obsessed with, however since it is actually referring to people who are obsessed with the Jews themselves, it would seem that the correct preposition there should be "with". :2cents::dunno:

drew
Oct 28th 2008, 02:19 PM
I don't understand why this is so difficult to grasp, many of the promises and prophecy for the last days involves a "nation" israel, not the Church.
I disagree. Or rather, I will suggest that Paul disagrees. One of Paul's central realizations is that the covenant promises have been misunderstood by the Jews all along.

Here is, I think, how Paul sees the covenant promises as compared to how the Jews would see them:

- The Jews think their inheritance is the land of Palestine;

- Paul realizes that the inheritance is the whole world, not just Palestine, and that the heirs are "true" Israel (Jew+Gentile) and not national Israel;

- The Jews think they are promised political restoration from exile (e.g. in Babylon);

- Paul realizes the true restoration is the restoration of "true" Israel from the exile of death.

- The Jews think they are "chosen" to be the world's great nation;

- Paul realizes - and this what the stuff about the potter in Romans 9 is all about - the Jews have actually been "chosen" to be a vessel of destruction where the sins of the world are accumulated (before being dealt with by her faithful Messiah, Jesus);

- The Jews think that the temple will be rebuilt and that God will again dwell there;

- Paul realizes that the temple is the human individual and that the indwelling of Holy Spirit is the promised presence of God.

- The Jews expected national vindication - to be shown to be God's true people in front of the pagan nations.

- Paul realizes that the vindication is the resurrection of the believer from the dead and the rescue of the entire cosmos from death and sin.

And there may be more.

Paul's model for this is Jesus - He interprets that what God had seemingly promised to do for Israel at the end of her long history, God has done for Jesus in the middle of history - vindicated Him, restored Him, given Him triumph over His enemies. And by extension, Paul sees the "Jew + Gentile" family of Abraham as being promised the same things that happened to Jesus.

Firstfruits
Oct 28th 2008, 02:21 PM
I do not agree. It is clear from Romans that Paul considers these "Jew+Gentile children of Abraham" to be specifically the heirs of the covenant promises. I am not sure exactly what you mean by the term "spiritual", but in Romans 5 to 8, Paul systematically "transfers" the covenant promises from "national" Israel to "true" Israel. I use the word "transfer" guardedly because, as I have already argued, Paul says that, from the very beginning, the covenant promises have always been for this "true" Israel.

But in any event, your claim about Abraham being merely a "model" or "example" of justification by faith is not consistent with this, where it is clear that Abraham's "Jew+Gentile" offspring are indeed the true heirs of the covenant:

13It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.

Verse 13 is a direct allusion to the covenant promise that Abraham would be the father of many nations:

Then the word of the LORD came to him: "This man will not be your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir." 5 He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars—if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be."

And how more clear could Paul possibly be that this "Jew+Gentile" family is in fact the true covenant family:

Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations

This text alone neatly and clearly makes the case. Not only is Abraham a "father" to a "Jew+Gentike" family but this family is precisely the covenantally promised family. Verse 17 is a reference to the covenant.

So we see that Paul is not merely saying "Abraham is the father of the 'Jew+Gentile' church in a 'spiritual' sense". No - he is saying that this "Jew+Gentile" family of Abraham's is what was promised in the covenant.

Abraham is the Father of us all.

Rom 4:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

As long as we are in Christ we are Abrahams seed.

Gal 3:29 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=29) And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

drew
Oct 28th 2008, 02:24 PM
Rom 9:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are Not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Is the following the new Israel?

Rom 9:24 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=24) Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
Rom 9:25 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=25) As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
Rom 9:26 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=26) And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
Although this question was directed at sheina, I will offer my opinion that. yes, "true" Israel is precisely the people described in Romans 9:24-26.

Veretax
Oct 28th 2008, 02:40 PM
Then is revelation in some error then?

Rev 7:1-8
1 After these things I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, on the sea, or on any tree. 2 Then I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God. And he cried with a loud voice to the four angels to whom it was granted to harm the earth and the sea, 3 saying, “Do not harm the earth, the sea, or the trees till we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads.”

4 And I heard the number of those who were sealed. One hundred and forty-four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel were sealed:
5 of the tribe of Judah twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Reuben twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Gad twelve thousand were sealed;6 of the tribe of Asher twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Naphtali twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Manasseh twelve thousand were sealed;
7 of the tribe of Simeon twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Levi twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Issachar twelve thousand were sealed;
8 of the tribe of Zebulun twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Joseph twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Benjamin twelve thousand were sealed.


I'm of the belief that in God still has a plan to reserve a remnant in Israel as he did through Noah, through Joseph and Egypt, and through the people as they were carried away to babylon. I fail to see how God's promise is not slack if he does not fulfill what was promised to them physically?

drew
Oct 28th 2008, 02:46 PM
I'm of the belief that in God still has a plan to reserve a remnant in Israel as he did through Noah, through Joseph and Egypt, and through the people as they were carried away to babylon. I fail to see how God's promise is not slack if he does not fulfill what was promised to them physically?
I will now make the "understatement of the thread": Revelation is a tricky book to understand. I do not pretend to understand it, but one thing is clear: many people disagree widely on what Revelation is all about, much more so than most books.

I have nothing immediate to say in answer to your post, except that my sense of Paul is that he sees the true familty of God as being entirely homogeneous - you know, the whole "neither Jew nor Greek, free nor slave" thing. So I am skeptical of claims that God still has some kind of "special" role for Israel.

But, in any event, your post is indeed a challenging question.

threebigrocks
Oct 28th 2008, 03:22 PM
If we could draw a line from Genesis 1 through Revelation 22 we would hit on something throughout history that is just as true today as it was in the beginning. Faith. Being a part of God's chosen, a remnant, promised ones, whatever you want to call it - has been through faith. Adam, Able, Noah, Moses, Abraham, Lot, David, etc - it would be quite a list.

Israel always had a remnant. There was always someone, or a group, that remained faithful to God. The rest - God smote, no holds barred. National Israel meant nothing to God without faith in Him, first and foremost. It is our hearts he wants and has always wanted. When we make it this huge issue of who Israel is - we take our focus off of faith and begin to bicker and low and behold we are turning into those whom God will smite.

Faith. Nothing more, nothing less. That includes today us who are gentiles, grafted into the branch. There is not one iota of difference here any longer, no distinction. It's still by faith. Always has been and always will be. God doesn't change.

The Israel of old was God's tool, His chosen. God uses His chosen people, just as He uses us today, to be a light to the world. For 4,000 years foundation was laid until salvation came through His Son. God does hold a special place for spiritual Israel, and we ought to learn from what the Lord has done through them.

Firstfruits
Oct 28th 2008, 03:37 PM
Although this question was directed at sheina, I will offer my opinion that. yes, "true" Israel is precisely the people described in Romans 9:24-26.

Thank you Drew,

God bless you!

Firstfruits

drew
Oct 28th 2008, 04:04 PM
The Israel of old was God's tool, His chosen. God uses His chosen people, just as He uses us today, to be a light to the world.
While I agree with all the other stuff in your post, I do not think what you say here maps to what Paul thinks. Paul comes to realize something dark and yet wonderful about what "national" Israel was "chosen for". And that role does not transfer to us.

In short, and as per stuff in Romans 5,7, and especially 9 and 11, Paul sees the strange way that God has actually used Israel to bless the nations. And it is that God, like the potter, has created national Israel to be the "vessel fitted for destruction" - the place where the sin of the world is concentrated and brought to full expression. Yes, I am indeed claiming that God intentionally "heaps" the sin of the world onto national Israel. Why is He doing this? In preparation for the actions of her faithful Messiah who - acting as national Israel - actually bears that sin in his body solo, thereby fufilling the covenant.

National Israel has indeed blessed the world, but not by teaching them great moral truths or showing them a model of how to live as God's children. Instead, national Israel has gone the "Jesus path" and blessed the world by being smitten.

And I suggest that such a role was for national Israel alone and set the stage for the "it is finished" of the cross.

threebigrocks
Oct 28th 2008, 04:12 PM
I agree drew. Just as He did in the OT. National Israel was "fitted for destruction" more than once then. Spiritual Israel, those who remained faithful to God, were spared. They were destroyed because they left the spiritual behind. Nothing will change.

Thing is - many times we see them as one. God never meant there to be a nation of Israel under leadership of man with man ruling over man as a king. He was their King. National Israel went worldly by asking God for what other nations had. Thing is, other nations didn't have God.

Firstfruits
Oct 28th 2008, 04:18 PM
I agree drew. Just as He did in the OT. National Israel was "fitted for destruction" more than once then. Spiritual Israel, those who remained faithful to God, were spared. They were destroyed because they left the spiritual behind. Nothing will change.

Thing is - many times we see them as one. God never meant there to be a nation of Israel under leadership of man with man ruling over man as a king. He was their King. National Israel went worldly by asking God for what other nations had. Thing is, other nations didn't have God.

When you speak of National Israel do you speak of the Israel in the following scripture?

Rom 9:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
Rom 9:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
Rom 9:5 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=5) Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 9:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Rom 9:7 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=7) Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Rom 9:8 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=8) That 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.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Veretax
Oct 28th 2008, 04:18 PM
I will now make the "understatement of the thread": Revelation is a tricky book to understand. I do not pretend to understand it, but one thing is clear: many people disagree widely on what Revelation is all about, much more so than most books.

I have nothing immediate to say in answer to your post, except that my sense of Paul is that he sees the true familty of God as being entirely homogeneous - you know, the whole "neither Jew nor Greek, free nor slave" thing. So I am skeptical of claims that God still has some kind of "special" role for Israel.

But, in any event, your post is indeed a challenging question.


Indeed it is. I'm in agreement that the Church == Those who are saved, and they include both Gentiles and Jews who have saving faith.

Yet, I look at the OT, and I look at the NT, and I see prophecy that appears to not yet be fulfilled, prophecy which seems specifically aimed at the Jewish people. Now, I believe God has not totally given up on the physical lineage of Abraham. I believe that 144K are the remnant that he has chosen and sealed that will at the very least help fulfill his promise to Abraham. There will likely be more than that saved, my reading of revelation, my interpretation if you will, is that through the testimony of this 144K well a great multitude come to be saved.

Ultimately though, I believe the final fulfillment of many of these promises, will come in the form of the millennial kingdom, or if not there, then in one that comes after it.


If we could draw a line from Genesis 1 through Revelation 22 we would hit on something throughout history that is just as true today as it was in the beginning. Faith. Being a part of God's chosen, a remnant, promised ones, whatever you want to call it - has been through faith. Adam, Able, Noah, Moses, Abraham, Lot, David, etc - it would be quite a list.

Israel always had a remnant. There was always someone, or a group, that remained faithful to God. The rest - God smote, no holds barred. National Israel meant nothing to God without faith in Him, first and foremost. It is our hearts he wants and has always wanted. When we make it this huge issue of who Israel is - we take our focus off of faith and begin to bicker and low and behold we are turning into those whom God will smite.

Faith. Nothing more, nothing less. That includes today us who are gentiles, grafted into the branch. There is not one iota of difference here any longer, no distinction. It's still by faith. Always has been and always will be. God doesn't change.

The Israel of old was God's tool, His chosen. God uses His chosen people, just as He uses us today, to be a light to the world. For 4,000 years foundation was laid until salvation came through His Son. God does hold a special place for spiritual Israel, and we ought to learn from what the Lord has done through them.


I agree there, that God's main purpose was to call for himself a faithful "remnant" from all of time, yet, I also believe that God's words and promises were not all figurative either. Look at Jesus genealogy. Look at how it fulfills so many things. Who could have thought that some of the people through which Christ's physical birth came through could be a descendant of the promised seed that was promised to man at the fall? Therefore I believe that God will use the physical nation of Israel again. We may not understand it from scripture entirely, even I don't entirely understand why or how God will do this, but how minor a thing this will be to God compared to what he has already accomplished through Jesus.

Firstfruits
Oct 28th 2008, 04:22 PM
Indeed it is. I'm in agreement that the Church == Those who are saved, and they include both Gentiles and Jews who have saving faith.

Yet, I look at the OT, and I look at the NT, and I see prophecy that appears to not yet be fulfilled, prophecy which seems specifically aimed at the Jewish people. Now, I believe God has not totally given up on the physical lineage of Abraham. I believe that 144K are the remnant that he has chosen and sealed that will at the very least help fulfill his promise to Abraham. There will likely be more than that saved, my reading of revelation, my interpretation if you will, is that through the testimony of this 144K well a great multitude come to be saved.

Ultimately though, I believe the final fulfillment of many of these promises, will come in the form of the millennial kingdom, or if not there, then in one that comes after it.




I agree there, that God's main purpose was to call for himself a faithful "remnant" from all of time, yet, I also believe that God's words and promises were not all figurative either. Look at Jesus genealogy. Look at how it fulfills so many things. Who could have thought that some of the people through which Christ's physical birth came through could be a descendant of the promised seed that was promised to man at the fall? Therefore I believe that God will use the physical nation of Israel again. We may not understand it from scripture entirely, even I don't entirely understand why or how God will do this, but how minor a thing this will be to God compared to what he has already accomplished through Jesus.

For the remnant to be saved they must put their faith in Christ and be born again in order for them to be called the children of God.

Firstfruits

threebigrocks
Oct 28th 2008, 04:26 PM
When you speak of National Israel do you speak of the Israel in the following scripture?

Rom 9:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
Rom 9:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
Rom 9:5 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=5) Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 9:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Rom 9:7 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=7) Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Rom 9:8 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=8) That 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.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Pretty much, yes. There are those who were under Israel and didn't have faith. Some did, as it says in verse 6.


I agree there, that God's main purpose was to call for himself a faithful "remnant" from all of time, yet, I also believe that God's words and promises were not all figurative either. Look at Jesus genealogy. Look at how it fulfills so many things. Who could have thought that some of the people through which Christ's physical birth came through could be a descendant of the promised seed that was promised to man at the fall? Therefore I believe that God will use the physical nation of Israel again. We may not understand it from scripture entirely, even I don't entirely understand why or how God will do this, but how minor a thing this will be to God compared to what he has already accomplished through Jesus.

No they weren't all figurative, but many things that were for that time and occured were also things that are yet to come today. We see that throughout the prophets. I replied to this above, hope that helps!

Emanate
Oct 28th 2008, 06:24 PM
When you speak of National Israel do you speak of the Israel in the following scripture?

Rom 9:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
Rom 9:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
Rom 9:5 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=5) Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 9:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Rom 9:7 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=7) Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Rom 9:8 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=8) That 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.

God bless you!

Firstfruits


I am always amused how Firstfruits posts the same posts on various threads.

Firstfruits
Oct 28th 2008, 07:22 PM
I am always amused how Firstfruits posts the same posts on various threads.

I believe that depending on the subject they are at some point going to link with one another.

If it helps us to understand the scriptures or what is being said then that is what we are here to do, if possible.

God bless you!!

Firstfruits

sheina maidle
Oct 28th 2008, 07:24 PM
Thank you Sheina Maidle,

So the only way Jew and Gentile can become children of God is by being born again, if therefore natural Israel is not saved unless they are born again which Israel are we, with regards to the following scripture?

Rom 9:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are Not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Is the following the new Israel?

Rom 9:24 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=24) Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
Rom 9:25 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=25) As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
Rom 9:26 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=26) And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

Are we part of the Church of the first born by being born again?

Heb 12:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=12&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
Heb 12:23 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=12&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=23) To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

God bless you

Firstfruits
All born again believers are children of God whether they be Jews or Gentiles. They become members of the Body of Christ/the Church. The Church is NOT Israel at all. In Romans 9:6, Paul is not speaking of the Church as "true" or "spiritual" Israel. He is strictly speaking of the "physical" descendents of Jacob. Not all the descendants of Jacob have the true spirit of Israelites, or are Jews in the scriptural sense of the term. Paul also speaks of this in Romans 2:28-29:

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 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 2:28-29)

These verses describe what a "true" Jew is...it has nothing to do with the Church or Gentiles being "spiritual" Jews or the Church being "spiritual" Israel.

There is only ONE nation of Israel. There is NO new Israel....where is that on the map?

Romans 9:24-26: God chose Israel sovereignly to take the front stage in the plan of redemption. He turned from Israel and chose the Gentiles. In the future He will again turn back to Israel. (Romans 11:15, 25-29).

Romans 9-11 speaks of Israel (the nation and the people of that nation)...not the Church. I don't understand why some try to make the Church "fit" into a passage of Scriptures that has nothing to do with the Church.

Romans 9-Israel past
Romans 10-Israel present
Romans 11-Israel future

The Church of the firstborn is the "heavenly" assembly of saints...not Israel.

Firstfruits
Oct 28th 2008, 07:53 PM
All born again believers are children of God whether they be Jews or Gentiles. They become members of the Body of Christ/the Church. The Church is NOT Israel at all. In Romans 9:6, Paul is not speaking of the Church as "true" or "spiritual" Israel. He is strictly speaking of the "physical" descendents of Jacob. Not all the descendants of Jacob have the true spirit of Israelites, or are Jews in the scriptural sense of the term. Paul also speaks of this in Romans 2:28-29:

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 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 2:28-29)

These verses describe what a "true" Jew is...it has nothing to do with the Church or Gentiles being "spiritual" Jews or the Church being "spiritual" Israel.

There is only ONE nation of Israel. There is NO new Israel....where is that on the map?

Romans 9:24-26: God chose Israel sovereignly to take the front stage in the plan of redemption. He turned from Israel and chose the Gentiles. In the future He will again turn back to Israel. (Romans 11:15, 25-29).

Romans 9-11 speaks of Israel (the nation and the people of that nation)...not the Church. I don't understand why some try to make the Church "fit" into a passage of Scriptures that has nothing to do with the Church.

Romans 9-Israel past
Romans 10-Israel present
Romans 11-Israel future

The Church of the firstborn is the "heavenly" assembly of saints...not Israel.

It is written that not all Israel is Israel;

Rom 9:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are Not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Those that are natural born Israel (of the flesh) are still Israel, but not the Israel of the Children of God.

They did not cease to be Israel because they did not believe but by being born again they become the children of God.

Rom 9:7 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=7) Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Rom 9:8 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=8) That 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.

It seems to me by what is written that there is an Israel born of the flesh and an Israel born of the spirit.

Jn 3:5 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=43&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=5) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Jn 3:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=43&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

drew
Oct 28th 2008, 07:56 PM
All born again believers are children of God whether they be Jews or Gentiles. They become members of the Body of Christ/the Church. The Church is NOT Israel at all.
I know we are repeating ourselves, but I do not see how you can claim that the Church is not Israel in light of what Paul says here in Romans 4, where he clearly says that the church is the "true" family of Abraham. And not simply in the "Abraham is a model of justification by faith" sense, but rather in the specific sense that the church the Abrahamic family that is the heir of the covenants - that is to say, Israel:

So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them.And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. 13It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world,

The reference to "law" here is a reference to the Torah. Paul really could not be more clear - Abraham's family - those who are heirs to the covenant promises - is a family constituted by both Jews and Gentiles.

Paul is not simply setting forth Abraham as an example of justification by faith - he is saying that this "Jew + Gentile" family are the heirs of the covenant. He says it right here in verse 13.

So Paul is saying that this "Jew + Gentile" family are the true Israel in this sense.

I am not denying that national Israel is a real group or that God has purposes for them. But, despite appearances, the covenant promises were not for national Israel, but for this "true" Israel.

threebigrocks
Oct 28th 2008, 08:01 PM
Matthew 7
21"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
22"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

sheina maidle
Oct 28th 2008, 08:22 PM
I know we are repeating ourselves, but I do not see how you can claim that the Church is not Israel in light of what Paul says here in Romans 4, where he clearly says that the church is the "true" family of Abraham. And not simply in the "Abraham is a model of justification by faith" sense, but rather in the specific sense that the church the Abrahamic family that is the heir of the covenants - that is to say, Israel:

So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them.And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. 13It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world,

The reference to "law" here is a reference to the Torah. Paul really could not be more clear - Abraham's family - those who are heirs to the covenant promises - is a family constituted by both Jews and Gentiles.

Paul is not simply setting forth Abraham as an example of justification by faith - he is saying that this "Jew + Gentile" family are the heirs of the covenant. He says it right here in verse 13.

So Paul is saying that this "Jew + Gentile" family are the true Israel in this sense.

I am not denying that national Israel is a real group or that God has purposes for them. But, despite appearances, the covenant promises were not for national Israel, but for this "true" Israel.
I disagree with you...the covenants and promises are for NATIONAL Israel. They were everlasting covenants and promises from a covenant-keeping God. They were made in the OT to Israel and they were not "transferred" to the Church in the NT. The Church is not and has never been a continuation of the believing remnant of Israel. Rather, the believing remnant of Jews are members of the Body of Christ/the Church.

drew
Oct 28th 2008, 08:35 PM
In Romans 9:6, Paul is not speaking of the Church as "true" or "spiritual" Israel. He is strictly speaking of the "physical" descendents of Jacob.
I do not see how this can be true. In Romans 9, Paul starts out with a statement of his distress over the state of what I have been calling "national" Israel - the ethnic / genetic set of person who any reasonable 1st century person would call "a Jew". He makes it clear that he is talking about an ethnic group:

For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel

So clearly Paul has this concept of a "racial" Israel. This is what I mean when I use the term "national" Israel.

Then in verse 6 and following, he basically says that there is "an Israel according to the promise within national Israel":

Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned."[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28148b)] 8In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring

This seems crystal clear to me. Even though Paul recognizes the existence of national Israel, he is now saying that within national Israel, there exists another family - Abraham's true offspring - whose status as "true offspring" has nothing to do with genetics.

So I really hope you are not saying that the those "regarded as Abraham's offspring" are "'physical' descendents of Jacob". Please answer this question: Are you asserting that the offspring of Abraham in verse 8 are the "physical descendents of Jacob"?

I do not see how your answer to this question can possibly be "yes", but I will ask anyway.

And later on in the chapter, he expands this family of Abraham's true offspring to include both Jew and Gentile.

drew
Oct 28th 2008, 08:54 PM
I disagree with you...the covenants and promises are for NATIONAL Israel. They were everlasting covenants and promises from a covenant-keeping God. They were made in the OT to Israel and they were not "transferred" to the Church in the NT. The Church is not and has never been a continuation of the believing remnant of Israel. Rather, the believing remnant of Jews are members of the Body of Christ/the Church.
But I am only following Paul here - you seem to be disagreeing with what Paul clearly states. In Romans 4, Paul says this:

11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them.12 And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
13It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world,

The following seem beyond dispute:

Paul clearly states in verse 11 that there is at least some sense in which Abraham is a father to the uncircumcised. This is more than an assertion that Abraham is an example or a model - he is described as a father.

Paul clearly states in verse 12 that, in the very same sense, Abraham is a father to ethnic Jews.

Paul clearly states that his offspring are the promised "countless descendents" of Genesis 15. Do you deny that Paul is referring to the Genesis 15 covenant here in Romans 4? Good luck if you are since only a few verses later in Romans, Paul makes this obvious reference to the covenant promises:

18Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him

Returning to these offspring: By context this must refer to both Jews and Gentiles, since Paul has just said that Abraham is father to Jew and to Gentile.

This seems to have the quality of a mathematical proof: Abraham has a family --> there are both Jews and Gentiles in it --> this family is the promised worldwide family of the covenant.

So I do not see how we can conclude anything other than this: Paul sees the Old Testament covenant promise of a worldwide family as not being "about a worldwide family of Jews", but rather about a family of both Jew and Gentile.

drew
Oct 28th 2008, 09:08 PM
Here is more evidence that the covenant promises are seen by Paul as being for a "true" Israel constituted by both Jew and Gentile.

At the end of chapter 4, Paul has arrived at a point in his argument where he has shown that Abraham's true family are not the ethnic Jews, but rather a "Jew+Gentile" family whose badge of family membership is that they share the faith of Abraham.

Now in chapters 9-11, Paul will argue, among other things, that this "Jew + Gentile" family have an obligation to national Israel. And he echoes this in 15:27

27They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews' spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings

This verse alone suggests that Paul sees the covenant blessing as being for Gentiles as well as Jews.

Now in chapters 4 to 8 we see this interesting pattern. The very promises, seemingly made to the Jews (reference Romans 9:4) are ascribed to Christ and his worldwide people:


- Sonship (Romans 8);

- Glory (Romans 5 and 8);

- Covenants (Romans 4 and 8);

- Lawgiving (Romans 7 and 8);

- Worship (Romans 5:1—5 and Romans 8);

- Promises (Romans 4);

- Patriarchs (Romans 4).

The overall structure of Paul's argument is the covenant promises have been historically misread as being for the Jews and the Jews only. Instead, Paul argues in chapters 4 to 8, they are for this worldwide "Jew + Gentile" family.

SIG
Oct 28th 2008, 10:15 PM
Good thread....

Some random thoughts:

1. Perhaps some re-definition of terms from me:

Instead of "true Israel" -- "spiritual Israel" (as distinguished from national Israel).
Instead of "church" -- "assembly" or "gathering."

2. Had all of national Israel fully (spiritually) understood the covenant promises, all would have recognized Jesus as Messiah.

3. OT Israel never consisted of only genetic Jews; rather, non-Jews were always grafted in, even then, by faith. Some were even part of the lineage of the Messiah. This was an OT picture of what would also occur after Pentecost. The promises were always for whoever believed.

4. Note the difference in Strong's between the Hebrew word "Israel" and the Greek word "Israel."

5. National Israel was and is a model people chosen by God to be a type of the human race, and God's dealings with it. His blessings and cursings were displayed in Israel for the world to see--and in most high relief in Jesus as Messiah. Both before and after the cross, salvation comes by faith, for both Jew and non-Jew.

Firstfruits
Oct 29th 2008, 03:16 PM
I disagree with you...the covenants and promises are for NATIONAL Israel. They were everlasting covenants and promises from a covenant-keeping God. They were made in the OT to Israel and they were not "transferred" to the Church in the NT. The Church is not and has never been a continuation of the believing remnant of Israel. Rather, the believing remnant of Jews are members of the Body of Christ/the Church.

According to what promise are we Abraham's seed, and heirs?

Gal 3:26 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=26) For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=27) For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=29) And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Is this not for all that believe and are born again, the children of God, the church of God, Israel?

Firstfruits

sheina maidle
Oct 29th 2008, 06:07 PM
According to what promise are we Abraham's seed, and heirs?

Gal 3:26 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=26) For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=27) For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=29) And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Is this not for all that believe and are born again, the children of God, the church of God, Israel?

Firstfruits

That verse does NOT make the Church (all born again believers..Jews and Gentiles) "true Israel"...that promise is not the Abrahamic Covenant (made ONLY to Abraham and his physical seed in (Genesis 12:1-3), and it is not the Davidic covenant (2 Samuel 7:13-16). Israel's future existence, restoration and kingdom is based on God's promise to Abraham and David. This is why the kingdom is certain in spite of Israel's rebellion. The covenants are unconditional and eternal. Every N.T. believer is a partaker of the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant through faith in Christ. However, this covenant has not been transferred from national Israel to the church.

Notice in verse 29 it says "the promise" not "all the promises and covenants." Paul was telling these "Gentile" believers in Galatia that they didn't have to become "Jews" to inherit "the promise" of eternal life.

threebigrocks
Oct 29th 2008, 06:41 PM
If that seed is Christ, and we can agree on that - maybe we need to define promise?

Yes, Sheina - those Galatians verses are what they say. :) We can't change that. Let it sit with your mind in prayer for a bit, see what happens. ;)

drew
Oct 29th 2008, 07:12 PM
That verse does NOT make the Church (all born again believers..Jews and Gentiles) "true Israel"...that promise is not the Abrahamic Covenant (made ONLY to Abraham and his physical seed in (Genesis 12:1-3),
But Paul clearly shows that he does not see the covenant promises, such as the one in Genesis 12:1-3 as being made to Abraham's physical seed.

13It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.

Now here is the Genesis text:

The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you.

2 "I will make you into a great nation
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you."

Paul is explicating the true meaning of the Genesis promise. Paul, when he refers to the promise that Abraham would be "heir of the world" is refering to the very same promises as bolded in the text of Genesis above.

Do you deny this? You would have to in order to salvage your position. Because if Paul is alluding to this promise, then we are forced to conclude, from the Romans 4 material, that this promise never was for Abraham's genetic descendents.

So can you please explain how it is that Paul is not referring to this (and other) covenant promises?

Firstfruits
Oct 29th 2008, 07:31 PM
That verse does NOT make the Church (all born again believers..Jews and Gentiles) "true Israel"...that promise is not the Abrahamic Covenant (made ONLY to Abraham and his physical seed in (Genesis 12:1-3), and it is not the Davidic covenant (2 Samuel 7:13-16). Israel's future existence, restoration and kingdom is based on God's promise to Abraham and David. This is why the kingdom is certain in spite of Israel's rebellion. The covenants are unconditional and eternal. Every N.T. believer is a partaker of the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant through faith in Christ. However, this covenant has not been transferred from national Israel to the church.

Notice in verse 29 it says "the promise" not "all the promises and covenants." Paul was telling these "Gentile" believers in Galatia that they didn't have to become "Jews" to inherit "the promise" of eternal life.

With regards to the following scriptures I would have to disagree;

Rom 4:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Rom 4:12 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=12) And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

Rom 4:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

Rom 4:17 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=17) (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Rom 4:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.

Rom 8:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
Rom 8:17 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=17) And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

We are children according to the promise made to Abraham.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

sheina maidle
Oct 29th 2008, 07:59 PM
But Paul clearly shows that he does not see the covenant promises, such as the one in Genesis 12:1-3 as being made to Abraham's physical seed.

13It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.

Now here is the Genesis text:

The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you.

2 "I will make you into a great nation
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you."
Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 12:1-3, 7; 13:14-18; 15:1-21). God promised to bless Abraham and his nation and the entire world through his Seed. Jesus Christ is Abraham's Son and inherits these blessings and bestows them upon those who believe (Matthew 1:1; Galatians 3:6-29) The national, physical aspects of Abraham's covenant will yet be fulfilled to the nation Israel (Jeremiah 30:1-24).

Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. (Genesis 12:1-3)

And the LORD said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward: For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered. Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee. Then Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto the LORD. (Genesis 13:14-18)

In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girga****es, and the Jebusites. (Genesis 15:18-21)

Tell me this, does the Church inherit a land? According to Genesis 12, 13, and 15, God promised Abraham and his physical seed a land. That tiny country in the Middle East called Israel, is God's promise and covenant to Abraham and his physical seed. Israel is back in her land in unbelief (since 1948 which is the fulfillment of Ezekiel 37). The physical aspects of the Abrahamic Covenant will be completely fulfilled at the Second Coming.

Paul is explicating the true meaning of the Genesis promise. Paul, when he refers to the promise that Abraham would be "heir of the world" is refering to the very same promises as bolded in the text of Genesis above.


Do you deny this? You would have to in order to salvage your position. Because if Paul is alluding to this promise, then we are forced to conclude, from the Romans 4 material, that this promise never was for Abraham's genetic descendents.

So can you please explain how it is that Paul is not referring to this (and other) covenant promises?
Paul was not speaking of the physical aspects of the Abrahamic Covenant because they do not, and have never been applicable to the Church. When you can show me in Scripture where the Church (born again Jews and Gentiles) inherits a land, then maybe your teaching will make some sense. Until then, I'll simply believe the Scriptures....Israel is Israel and the Church is the Church.

Firstfruits
Oct 29th 2008, 08:10 PM
Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 12:1-3, 7; 13:14-18; 15:1-21). God promised to bless Abraham and his nation and the entire world through his Seed. Jesus Christ is Abraham's Son and inherits these blessings and bestows them upon those who believe (Matthew 1:1; Galatians 3:6-29) The national, physical aspects of Abraham's covenant will yet be fulfilled to the nation Israel (Jeremiah 30:1-24).

Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. (Genesis 12:1-3)

And the LORD said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward: For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered. Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee. Then Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto the LORD. (Genesis 13:14-18)

In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girga****es, and the Jebusites. (Genesis 15:18-21)

Tell me this, does the Church inherit a land? According to Genesis 12, 13, and 15, God promised Abraham and his physical seed a land. That tiny country in the Middle East called Israel, is God's promise and covenant to Abraham and his physical seed. Israel is back in her land in unbelief (since 1948 which is the fulfillment of Ezekiel 37). The physical aspects of the Abrahamic Covenant will be completely fulfilled at the Second Coming.

Paul was not speaking of the physical aspects of the Abrahamic Covenant because they do not, and have never been applicable to the Church. When you can show me in Scripture where the Church (born again Jews and Gentiles) inherits a land, then maybe your teaching will make some sense. Until then, I'll simply believe the Scriptures....Israel is Israel and the Church is the Church.

According to the following which is the true Israel?

It is written that not all Israel is Israel;

Rom 9:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are Not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Those that are natural born Israel (of the flesh) are still Israel, but not the Israel of the Children of God.

Firstfruits

drew
Oct 29th 2008, 08:21 PM
When you can show me in Scripture where the Church (born again Jews and Gentiles) inherits a land, then maybe your teaching will make some sense.
I claim that the following text from Romans 8 essentially makes the case that

1. The promise about the land never really was made to ethnic Jews;
2. The promise never was even about only Palestine;

17Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. 18I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that[i (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208&version=31#fen-NIV-28123i)] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God

In the above, Paul is saying that the "land" promise was never about Palestine - even granted that it was expressed as such in the Old Testament. Instead, the land promise was really a "disguised" way of referring to the entirety of creation. And the "we" who are heirs of verse 17 refers to the "Jew+Gentile" family of Abraham.

I will concede this: my position requires believing that God made promises that had "hidden" alternate meanings. This may seem like I am representing God as being "misleading". But I think we are forced into that situation by what Paul writes in Romans, not least in Romans 4, where Paul says this:

13It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world,...

I suggest that this text makes my case here. The promise we get in the Old Testament is that the Jews will get Palestine. I do not dispute this for a second. But Paul clearly believes that it is the whole world that is really what was promised.

sheina maidle
Oct 29th 2008, 09:12 PM
In other words, you believe that God has never made any promises or covenants with ethnic Israel? Wow! And whatever promises He made were "transferred " to the Church. What you are saying is that God has forsaken His people of "promise". At least that is what it says to me. You may as well just toss out the entire Old Testament...

Palestine and Israel are the same land, BTW

drew
Oct 29th 2008, 09:29 PM
People may object to my assertion that God makes promises whose meanings are other than what a "plain literal reading" would suggest. And this is understandable. Such an objector will say: "God told Abraham that his descendents would get a specific chunk of land, e.g. as per the following":

On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river [d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2015;&version=31;#fen-NIV-379d)] of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates- 19 the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, 20 Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, 21 Amorites, Canaanites, Girga****es and Jebusites

What gives me the right to say that this promise is really a promise about the whole world and not about this chunk of Palestine after all?

Paul gives me that right. He repeatedly makes the case the beneficiaries of the covenant promises are not determined by genetics, in contradiction to what one would indeed reasonably conclude by looking at the promises as originally expressed (e.g. in Genesis).

So, for example, we have this:

In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring

So, Paul is very much in business of "re-working" the covenant promises. This may be a little disconcerting since it kind of upsets the worldview one would get from the Old Testament. But if its good enough for Paul, its good enough for me.

Besides, Paul does other things along these lines as well. He says that the Torah was given to "make the trespass abound" and "in order that sin will become utterly sinful." This seems to clash with such things as Psalm 119 where the Torah is lauded as "perfect". So how can Paul claim that it actually makes sin worse?

Anyway, things are not as simple as they seem.

sheina maidle
Oct 29th 2008, 09:47 PM
Palestine: Name given to land of Israel by Romans in A.D. 135, and still used by most of the world today. Is actually the land of Israel and will be restored by the Messiah to the Jews, "from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates" (Genesis 15:18-21)

Before the Romans renamed the land of Israel to Palestine, it was also called "Canaan"

And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came. And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Sichem, unto the plain of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land. (Genesis 12:5-6)

The Abrahamic Covenant was unconditional and everlasting. It was made to the physical seed of Abraham alone.

sheina maidle
Oct 29th 2008, 10:25 PM
According to the following which is the true Israel?

It is written that not all Israel is Israel;
Rom 9:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are Not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Those that are natural born Israel (of the flesh) are still Israel, but not the Israel of the Children of God.

Firstfruits
Paul is making a contrast of two Israels: Israel the whole, which is the nation of Israel and the believing remnant within the nation of Israel. Both Israels comprise Jews only.

No matter how you cut it, Israel has never been or will ever be, the continuation of the Church...nor will God's promises and covenants with that nation be "transferred" to the Church.

Veretax
Oct 30th 2008, 12:28 AM
I'm inclined to agree. Yes there is a new spiritual heritage through Christ, but that does not negate the literal physical promises to Abraham, David, and on down the line.

BroRog
Oct 30th 2008, 01:07 AM
People may object to my assertion that God makes promises whose meanings are other than what a "plain literal reading" would suggest. And this is understandable. Such an objector will say: "God told Abraham that his descendents would get a specific chunk of land, e.g. as per the following":

On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river [d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2015;&version=31;#fen-NIV-379d)] of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates- 19 the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, 20 Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, 21 Amorites, Canaanites, Girga****es and Jebusites

What gives me the right to say that this promise is really a promise about the whole world and not about this chunk of Palestine after all?

Paul gives me that right. He repeatedly makes the case the beneficiaries of the covenant promises are not determined by genetics, in contradiction to what one would indeed reasonably conclude by looking at the promises as originally expressed (e.g. in Genesis).

So, for example, we have this:

In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring

So, Paul is very much in business of "re-working" the covenant promises. This may be a little disconcerting since it kind of upsets the worldview one would get from the Old Testament. But if its good enough for Paul, its good enough for me.

Besides, Paul does other things along these lines as well. He says that the Torah was given to "make the trespass abound" and "in order that sin will become utterly sinful." This seems to clash with such things as Psalm 119 where the Torah is lauded as "perfect". So how can Paul claim that it actually makes sin worse?

Anyway, things are not as simple as they seem.

Drew, the land promise and the world promise are not the same promise, they are two different promises. The world promise is found in Genesis 13:14 in which the Lord promises Abraham all the land from horizon to horizon. The land promise is found in Genesis at the end of chapter 15 in which God names the actual boundaries.

Notice also, in chapter 13 God names Abraham specifically,

"Now lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward; for all the land which you see, I will give it to you and to your descendants forever.

In chapter 15, God names his descendants but not Abraham specifically,

"To your descendants I have given this land . . .

SIG
Oct 30th 2008, 04:41 AM
Hmmmm...by thinking inside certain boxes, we may be putting our own limitations on what God has done and is doing.

I don't believe that God ever works on just one level. With that in mind, we may see literal as opposed to figurative or spiritual--but He may mean both, or more.

For example, a promise to Abraham and His seed could refer to his genetic descendants, his spiritual descendants--or both. So, being a Jew who believes Jesus is Messiah, I am heir to both genetic and spiritual promises.

Also--in reference to what has been cited as the inheritance of the body of Christ (yes--I am avoiding the word "church"):

Let us assume that the Book of Joshua is the OT type or picture of the Book of Revelation. Joshua (yes, the same name as Jesus) takes the land that was promised (that land being a picture not of Heaven, but of salvation and the ongoing spiritual battle). He is accompanied by the descendants of the mixed multitude, both genetic Jews and non-Jews, who left Egypt 40 years before. In Revelation Jesus (yes, the same name as Joshua) returns to take the land promised to him--the whole world. He is accompanied by His bride--also a mixed multitude...So in Exodus and Joshua we may see a picture of something yet future. Both are literally and figuratively true.

Firstfruits
Oct 30th 2008, 01:56 PM
Paul is making a contrast of two Israels: Israel the whole, which is the nation of Israel and the believing remnant within the nation of Israel. Both Israels comprise Jews only.

No matter how you cut it, Israel has never been or will ever be, the continuation of the Church...nor will God's promises and covenants with that nation be "transferred" to the Church.

Do all that believe and have been born again wether they be Jew or Gentile not belong to the one body of Christ?

1 Cor 10:17 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=46&CHAP=10&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=17) For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

1 Cor 12:12 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=46&CHAP=12&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=12) For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
1 Cor 12:13 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=46&CHAP=12&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=13) For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

1 Cor 12:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=46&CHAP=12&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) But now are they many members, yet but one body.

Col 1:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=51&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=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.

Heb 12:23 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=12&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=23) To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

Is there another body, is there another church?

Firstfruits

drew
Oct 30th 2008, 02:15 PM
Drew, the land promise and the world promise are not the same promise, they are two different promises. The world promise is found in Genesis 13:14 in which the Lord promises Abraham all the land from horizon to horizon.
I see what you are saying here and I considered this possibility. On the whole, though, I think the balance of consideration tilts against the notion that God made any promise of the land of Palestine to the Jews.

And, of course, I realize the awkward position this puts me in, since we have direct statements that such a promise was indeed made.

But, I cannot deny Paul's analysis. And I think that if you are going to take Paul seriously, you have to agree that God sometimes is like a poet - he makes statement that seem to mean A but really mean B.

Here is a very broad defence of my overall position:

1. God makes all these promises to Israel - land, vindication before their enemies, return from exile, return of the presence of God to the temple, they will be a blessing to the nations, etc. I deny none of this - there are clear promises made to national Israel;

2. Jesus comes into the world, lives, dies, and is resurrected.

3. Paul, a devoted Pharisee and persecutor of the church, has his Damascus road vision. He then goes aways and, I suggest, comes to this shocking realization: all the promises that have made to Israel have been fulfilled not for national Israel, but for the one man Jesus Christ;

- Jesus has been returned from the exile of death;

- Jesus has been vindicated in front of the enemies of sin and death, making an example of them on the cross;

- Jesus is not given Palestine, but is instead made lord of a new creation of all the whole world. This is the true meaning behind the land promise. The promise was made to Israel, yet Paul sees it as being fulfilled in Christ in this strange and "bigger" way. It is no accident that Jesus is raised on the first day of the week. God is telling us, through echoes to Genesis, that a new creation has begun. And it is no accident that Jesus is mistaken to be the gardener, because in a very real sense, He is the gardener of the new creation.

- The giving of the Holy Spirit as an indwelling presence in each believer is the fulfillment of the promise of the return of the presence of God to the temple. The promise was never really about the temple as one might legitimately expect.

- And the Jews have not blessed the world in the way that anyone would expect. They have blessed the world by being the place where the sin of the world is accumulated and brought to full hideousness of expression before that sin is dealt with by Jesus on the cross. Israel, as Paul argues in Romans 9 and 11, has been "cast away for the sake of the world".

So all these together make a very powerful case that the original promises are "cryptic" ways of making entirely different promises.

4. Paul's Romans arguments that the real people of God are "true" Israel. In places like Romans 4 and 9, Paul bends over backwards to say "the real family" of Abraham is not national Israel, but rather "true" Israel. And remember, the promises are all made to Abraham and his "descendents". My repeated arguments about this have been more or less ignored. And that is understandable. For once one takes Paul seriously and realize that the heirs of the promise are not national Israel, one is forced to realize that the promise were indeed coded ways of making different promises.

5. Paul says this in 2 Corinthians 1:

For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ.

What does this mean if not exactly what I have been saying above - the covenant promises, seemingly made to national Israel, have been fulfilled for the one man Jesus Christ - and by extension to those who believe in Him.

Conclusion: Paul's analysis of what God has done drives us to the admittedly uncomfortable place of realizing that God's covenant promises were not intended to be taken literally. Paul sees this in hindsight as he interprets these promises, as originally written, in the light of what has happened to Jesus. And he cannot help but come to the following "world-view changing conclusion: What God has promised to do for Israel, He has actually done for Jesus and His people.

BroRog
Oct 30th 2008, 02:36 PM
Drew

I would say that when we go and look at each of these passages we find that Paul is not saying that all the promises were "fulfilled", i.e. came to fruition in the one man Jesus. I believe we will find that the New Testament speaks about Jesus as the one who strengthened the promises, making them more sure.

If you promise your kid a bike for Christmas, but don't have the money, then it is likely that you won't be able to keep your promise. But if Jesus gives you $200, then your promise suddenly becomes more certain. When you give the bike to your child you will say, "Jesus made this possible." You aren't going to say, "I promised you a bike, but didn't actually mean that. I meant Jesus will live in your heart."

The child will say, "no you didn't. You promised me a bike." And the child would be right; and the child would be right to never trust you again.

sheina maidle
Oct 30th 2008, 06:32 PM
Do all that believe and have been born again wether they be Jew or Gentile not belong to the one body of Christ?

1 Cor 10:17 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=46&CHAP=10&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=17) For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

1 Cor 12:12 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=46&CHAP=12&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=12) For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
1 Cor 12:13 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=46&CHAP=12&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=13) For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

1 Cor 12:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=46&CHAP=12&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) But now are they many members, yet but one body.

Col 1:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=51&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=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.

Heb 12:23 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=12&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=23) To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

Is there another body, is there another church?

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

This is the CHURCH! The church has never, is not, nor ever will be, Israel, "new Israel,"true" Israel, or "spiritual" Israel. You can keep on quoting all that Scriptures, but that isn't going to change the fact that the Church is not Israel.

THE MEANING OF "CHURCH." Ekklesia means a lawful, organized assembly. It is used in three ways in the N.T.

(1) Israel in the wilderness (Acts 7:38).

(2) A political assembly (Acts 19:32-41).

(3) Christ's assembly (Matthew 16:18).

Of the 115 N.T. references to the "church," 111 refer to Christ's assembly. The word church in Acts 7:38 means, literally, the people called out; and is applied with great propriety to the assembly or multitude called out of Egypt, and separated from the world. It has not, however, of necessity our idea of a church; but means the assembly, or people called out of Egypt, and placed under the leadership of Moses.

drew
Oct 30th 2008, 07:04 PM
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (Ephesians 4:4-6)

This is the CHURCH! The church has never, is not, nor ever will be, Israel, "new Israel,"true" Israel, or "spiritual" Israel.
The Ephesians material simply asserts that there is one body of believers. Fine. But this does not mean that we cannot conclude that this body of believers also fits the role of "true Israel". I trust you are not trying to mount the following kind of argument:

1. There is a body of believers called the church;
2. Therefore since they are "the church", they cannot also be "true Israel".

I will assume that you are not indeed making such a clearly incorrect argument.


You can keep on quoting all that Scriptures, but that isn't going to change the fact that the Church is not Israel.
But the very argument that some of us are putting forward is that the scriptures do indeed establish that the church is a "true" Israel. You almost seem like you are saying that what the scriptures says is not important. I assume that you do not intend to take such a position.

I really do not see how your position can be sustained given Paul's repeated claim that Abraham's "true family" is a group made up of Jews and Gentiles, combined with the fact that Paul identifies this true family as being the heirs of the "promise". And Paul describes the circumstances under which this promise was made:

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before!

....followed by this:

13It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world,

This material really seals the deal. When Paul makes the statement that "Abraham believed God and it was credited to Him for righteousness", he is quoting from Genesis 15 - the very chapter where the covenant is inititiated and covenant promises made. Paul could really not be more clear:

1. The true family of Abraham is a "Jew + Gentile" familiy;
2. This family is the same family that is heir to the Abrahamic promises of Genesis 15;
3. Therefore, this family is the "true" Israel.

If you are correct, then Paul is being incredibly misleading. He is doing the following:

1. Talking about a Jew + Gentile family for Abraham;

2. Reflecting on the promises of Genesis 15 - the covenant promises;

3. Saying that Abraham was given these promises before he received the mark of circumcision - before he received the mark of national Israel. And before the Torah - the ethnic charter of national Israel - was delivered.

....all the while intending us to not draw the obvious conclusion that these promises were for this "Jew+Gentile" family.

Paul goes out of his way to describe the circumstance of the giving of the covenant promise of being heir to the world - it was before Abraham received the mark of national Israel. And is was before the Torah was given ("It was not through law (Torah) that Abraham and his offspring received the promise...)

Yet you seemingly do not take the rather obvious point - that Paul is saying that this was not a promise for national Israel. I have no idea what sense your position makes out of the fact that Paul says Abraham was given the covenant promise before he was circumcised and before the Torah was given.

Circumcision and Torah are the hallmark identifiers of national Israel. When Paul says the promises were delivered before these were received, he is clearly saying that it was not in his status as an ethnic Jew that he received these promises.

Emanate
Oct 30th 2008, 07:08 PM
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (Ephesians 4:4-6)

This is the CHURCH! The church has never, is not, nor ever will be, Israel, "new Israel,"true" Israel, or "spiritual" Israel. You can keep on quoting all that Scriptures, but that isn't going to change the fact that the Church is not Israel.

THE MEANING OF "CHURCH." Ekklesia means a lawful, organized assembly. It is used in three ways in the N.T.

(1) Israel in the wilderness (Acts 7:38).

(2) A political assembly (Acts 19:32-41).

(3) Christ's assembly (Matthew 16:18).

Of the 115 N.T. references to the "church," 111 refer to Christ's assembly. The word church in Acts 7:38 means, literally, the people called out; and is applied with great propriety to the assembly or multitude called out of Egypt, and separated from the world. It has not, however, of necessity our idea of a church; but means the assembly, or people called out of Egypt, and placed under the leadership of Moses.


In the Septugaint, Ekklesia is used in place of the Hebrew Kahal which means congregation or assembly. Ekklesia is applied to the congregation of Israel throughout the OT, and Ekklesia is applied to this same "one body", now with Gentiles partakers of the covenants of promise.

Firstfruits
Oct 30th 2008, 07:43 PM
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (Ephesians 4:4-6)

This is the CHURCH! The church has never, is not, nor ever will be, Israel, "new Israel,"true" Israel, or "spiritual" Israel. You can keep on quoting all that Scriptures, but that isn't going to change the fact that the Church is not Israel.

THE MEANING OF "CHURCH." Ekklesia means a lawful, organized assembly. It is used in three ways in the N.T.

(1) Israel in the wilderness (Acts 7:38).

(2) A political assembly (Acts 19:32-41).

(3) Christ's assembly (Matthew 16:18).

Of the 115 N.T. references to the "church," 111 refer to Christ's assembly. The word church in Acts 7:38 means, literally, the people called out; and is applied with great propriety to the assembly or multitude called out of Egypt, and separated from the world. It has not, however, of necessity our idea of a church; but means the assembly, or people called out of Egypt, and placed under the leadership of Moses.

Who are they that are born of God, are they Jew or Gentile?

1 Pet 1:23 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=60&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=23) Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

1 Jn 4:7 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=62&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=7) Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

1 Jn 5:1 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=62&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=1) Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

1 Jn 5:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=62&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

Rom 8:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Rom 8:17 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=17) And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Gal 3:7 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=7) Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

Gal 3:26 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=26) For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Gal 4:28 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=28) Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

Gal 4:31 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=31) So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

Eph 5:8 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=49&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=8) For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:

Who are not the children of God?

Rom 9:7 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=7) Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Rom 9:8 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=8) That 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.

To whom does this promise belong?

Heb 8:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Firstfruits

sheina maidle
Oct 30th 2008, 08:31 PM
Who are they that are born of God, are they Jew or Gentile?

1 Pet 1:23 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=60&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=23) Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

1 Jn 4:7 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=62&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=7) Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

1 Jn 5:1 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=62&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=1) Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

1 Jn 5:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=62&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

Rom 8:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Rom 8:17 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=17) And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Gal 3:7 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=7) Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

Gal 3:26 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=26) For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Gal 4:28 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=28) Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

Gal 4:31 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=31) So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

Eph 5:8 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=49&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=8) For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:

Who are not the children of God?

Rom 9:7 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=7) Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Rom 9:8 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=8) That 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.

To whom does this promise belong?

Heb 8:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Firstfruits
Firstfruits,

You can list all the Scriptures you want to try and prove that the Church is "new", "true", or "spiritual" Israel. It's not going to fly.

There is no such thing as "new", "true" or "spiritual" Israel...all born again believers (Jews and Gentiles) are members of the Body of Christ/the Church. These born again believers are the "spiritual" seed of Abraham by faith in Christ Jesus (the born again Jews are also the physical seed of Abraham). Being the "spiritual" seed of Abraham doesn't make Gentiles "new", "true", or "spritual" Israel. There is a believing remnant of Jews living in national Israel...they are also members of the Body of Christ/the Church.

"The house of Israel" in Hebrews 8:10 is exactly that..."the house of Israel". The New Covenant was made with the "house of Israel"...not the Church. The Body of Christ/the Church is a partaker of the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31) through Christ, but the New Covenant was made with the "house of Israel", NOT the Church. The New Covenant will be literally fulfilled following the Church age (Romans 11:25-27). God has not forsaken His people Israel (national Israel).

In all your rambling on about the Church being a continuation of supposedly "true", "new" or "spiritual" Israel, you list the "promises" and "blessings", but you disregard the "curses". Why?

drew
Oct 30th 2008, 08:58 PM
You can list all the Scriptures you want to try and prove that the Church is "new", "true", or "spiritual" Israel. It's not going to fly.
At the risk of seeming blunt, the scriptures make the vey case that there is indeed a "spiritual" Israel.

We all agree that "all born again believers (Jews and Gentiles) are members of the Body of Christ/the Church". No one is disputing this.


These born again believers are the "spiritual" seed of Abraham by faith in Christ Jesus (the born again Jews are also the physical seed of Abraham). Being the "spiritual" seed of Abraham doesn't make Gentiles "new", "true", or "spritual" Israel.
If it weren't for Paul's clear and penetrating analysis, I might agree with you. I would say "well God made promises to national Israel which are Abraham's genetic descendents and He also created a spiritual family for Abraham. These are distinct groups and there is no sense in which the creation of this spiritual family gets rid of the promises to Abraham in his role as father of national Israel"

However, Paul absolutely trumps that possibility when, in Romans 4, he states the specific conditions under which the covenant promises were delivered to Abraham - and these are the Genesis 15 promises so one cannot argue that they are not the same promises as have been ascribed to national Israel. The conditions are these:

1. Before circumcision;
2. Apart from the "Law" - the Torah.

Now these are clearly, and I must insist clearly - the marks of membership in national Israel.

So why is Paul going to all the trouble of telling us this? His point is obvious - the covenant promises of Genesis 15 were made to Abraham in a state completely outside his status as a member of national Israel. Therefore, they are not for national Israel after all.

Please engage these points, they are not going to disappear.


The New Covenant was made with the "house of Israel"...not the Church. The Body of Christ/the Church is a partaker of the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31) through Christ, but the New Covenant was made with the "house of Israel", NOT the Church.
I do not think that position can hold up to this rather clear statement:

What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25As he says in Hosea:
"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one,"[i (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=9&version=31#fen-NIV-28166i)] 26and,
"It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,'
they will be called 'sons of the living God.' "[j (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=9&version=31#fen-NIV-28167j)]

Are you taking the position that something other than covenant renewal is being described here? It would seem that you would have to.

And what about this from Romans 3, a statement about Jesus being faithful to the covenant, for the benefit of both Jew and Gentile:

21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[i (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203%20;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28002i)] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith

I am prepared to argue that Paul is talking covenant faithfulness on the part of God here, although I will grant this is not at all self-evident.

sheina maidle
Oct 30th 2008, 09:23 PM
Drew,

I am assuming you believe and teach Covenant Theology?

If you do, then this discussion is fruitless. You totally disregard all the OT Covenants God made to the nation of Israel. You have indeed removed the nation of Israel from her rightful place in the prophetic plan of God and "replaced" it with the Church...which you insist on calling "spiritual" Israel.

This is Replacement Theology...and the roots of this theology go back to Augustine and the Roman Catholic Church.

Lamplighter
Oct 30th 2008, 09:27 PM
I am a born again Jew...a member of the Body of Christ. I call myself a "Christian" ... a follower of Christ. I was born again 34 years ago in a Presbyterian Church.

God has not forsaken His people (ethnic/national) Israel. The Church did not replace Israel...this is called "Replacement Theology". Israel and the Church are two different entities. The writer of Hebrews (Hebrews 8:6-13; 10:15-19) states that every N.T. believer partakes of the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant through Christ, but nowhere does he say that this covenant has been transferred from national Israel to the church. Temporarily the nation Israel has been set aside in the purposes of God. Today He is creating a special body of saved people composed both of Jews and Gentiles...the Church.

Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: (Acts 15:14-16)

After this present work is accomplished, God will again resume His purposes with the nation Israel and will fulfill all the O.T. promises and prophecies concerning them:

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. (Romans 11:25-27)

"Dual Covenant" theology is taught by John Hagee. That teaching is somewhat anti-semetic....it keeps the gospel from the Jewish people. Paul said in Romans 1:16:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (Romans 1:16)

Salvation is the same for everyone, by grace through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary...for both Jew and Gentile. The ground is level at the foot of the cross. Jesus said:

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:12)

Awesome post. This sums it up quite well.

I can't see how a person can read the book of Romans, and then be a replacement theologian? Paul clearly teaches the difference between the nation of Israel and the body of Christ in Romans.

drew
Oct 30th 2008, 09:34 PM
Drew,

I am assuming you believe and teach Covenant Theology?

If you do, then this discussion is fruitless. You totally disregard all the OT Covenants God made to the nation of Israel. You have indeed removed the nation of Israel from her rightful place in the prophetic plan of God and "replaced" it with the Church...which you insist on calling "spiritual" Israel.

This is Replacement Theology...and the roots of this theology go back to Augustine and the Roman Catholic Church.
I do not know what the term "covenant theology" means.

But I doubt that other readers will fail to notice that you really have not engaged my arguments rooted in Romans 4. I have produced a lot of them in some detail.

Why not show where those arguments are wrong.

For example:

1. Does Paul not say that certain promises to Abraham were made outside of Abraham's status as an "ethnic" Jew?

2. Does Paul not make it clear that he is talking about the Genesis 15 promises - the very promises normally thought of as being for national Israel;

3. Does Paul not make it clear that Abraham's true family is a Jew + Gentile family?

drew
Oct 30th 2008, 09:41 PM
Awesome post. This sums it up quite well.

I can't see how a person can read the book of Romans, and then be a replacement theologian? Paul clearly teaches the difference between the nation of Israel and the body of Christ in Romans.
I for one, despite being misrepresented repeatedly, have never claimed that "true" Israel replaces "ethnic" Israel. I am merely following Paul who says that a whole bunch of promises actually never were for ethnic Israel in the first place. And if I am wrong, then by all means read my posts and show where my errors are.

God does indeed have plans for ethnic Israel - I am not denying the reality of this group. But they are not the heirs of the covenant promises and never were.

Lamplighter
Oct 30th 2008, 09:42 PM
What I also find fascinating about replacement theology, is that they want to claim all of the blessings of the Nation of Israel, but none of the curses? Very interesting theology indeed.

sheina maidle
Oct 30th 2008, 10:04 PM
I do not know what the term "covenant theology" means.

But I doubt that other readers will fail to notice that you really have not engaged my arguments rooted in Romans 4. I have produced a lot of them in some detail.

Why not show where those arguments are wrong.

For example:

1. Does Paul not say that certain promises to Abraham were made outside of Abraham's status as an "ethnic" Jew?

2. Does Paul not make it clear that he is talking about the Genesis 15 promises - the very promises normally thought of as being for national Israel;

3. Does Paul not make it clear that Abraham's true family is a Jew + Gentile family?
What you teach is Replacement Theology. Romans 4 has nothing to do with Israel...its main topic is justification by faith. All who are "justified by faith" are Abraham's "spiritual" seed. This does not make a Gentile a "spiritual" Jew nor does it make believing Gentiles "spiritual" Israel.

The Seed of Abraham is both the nation Israel and Jesus Christ.

No matter how much you want to debate Romans 4 to prove your point, as far as I'm concerned, this discussion is fruitless.

I find it strange that you don't know what Covenant Theology is...becaues what you are teaching is Covenant Theology and Replacement Theology is what the Covenant Theologians teach.

sheina maidle
Oct 30th 2008, 10:10 PM
What I also find fascinating about replacement theology, is that they want to claim all of the blessings of the Nation of Israel, but none of the curses? Very interesting theology indeed.
They leave the curses to national Israel and keep all the blessings...very selective theology indeed!

Lamplighter
Oct 30th 2008, 10:14 PM
They leave the curses to national Israel and keep all the blessings...very selective theology indeed!

A lot of times replacement theologians get labeled with antisemitism, but I don't think this is the case at all. They realize that salvation comes from the nation of Israel's messiah Jesus the Christ, they just are ignorant of the Nation of Israel's role throughout scripture. It's more of a misunderstanding of scripture, rather then a dislike for the Nation of Israel.

sheina maidle
Oct 30th 2008, 10:26 PM
I for one, despite being misrepresented repeatedly, have never claimed that "true" Israel replaces "ethnic" Israel. I am merely following Paul who says that a whole bunch of promises actually never were for ethnic Israel in the first place. And if I am wrong, then by all means read my posts and show where my errors are.

God does indeed have plans for ethnic Israel - I am not denying the reality of this group. But they are not the heirs of the covenant promises and never were.
According to Covenant/Replacement Theology, since national "ethnic" Israel rejected Christ, God has cursed "ethnic" Israel and has "transferred" all the blessings to the Church (which is now called "spiritual", "new" or "true" Israel). Romans 4 deals with "justification by faith" and that all born again children of God (Jews or Gentiles) are Abraham's "spiritual" seed by faith in Christ. Abraham’s faith was based upon the promise of God and so should our faith be.

There is a "called out" people of God...they are called the Body of Christ/the Church. They are a totally separate group of people...they are not "spiritual" Israel. They are Abraham's "spiritual" seed...which does not change the fact that the Church and Israel are two separate entities. God has not foresaken His people...which is "ethnic" national Israel. They were given promises and covenants in the OT..those covenants and promises were not "transferred" to a "new" Israel. They were unconditional and since God made them "with no strings attached", He will keep those promises to His people.

I am thinking that those "branches" of the wild olive tree (Romans 11) which were grafted into the natural olive tree are "boasting":

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; Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. (Romans 11:17-21)

Veretax
Oct 30th 2008, 11:40 PM
I find this thread very interesting, almost popcorn worthy. For reference I came from a Reformed teach that taught this sort of Covenental Replacement Theology, and I'm inclined to agree, the Church is indeed heirs through Abraham's spiritual heritage, but that does not make us in any way associated with Israel, other than we are associated via Christ. Paul says for us to remember that branches were broken off the tree for us, but that we should not look at ourselves as being... well let's let paul put it bluntly

Romans 11:11-36
11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness! 13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. 15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. Paul is clear here, Israel fell and stumbled, and through that fall God is going to provoke them to jealousy because salvation has come to the Gentiles. He continues:

17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in." 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? 25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, F58 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=ro+11&version=nkj&language=en&showtools=0#F58) as it is written: "The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; 27 For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins." F59 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=ro+11&version=nkj&language=en&showtools=0#F59) 28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, 31 even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all. 33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! 34 "For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has become His counselor?" F60 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=ro+11&version=nkj&language=en&showtools=0#F60) 35 "Or who has first given to Him And it shall be repaid to him?" F61 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=ro+11&version=nkj&language=en&showtools=0#F61) 36 For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.


Clearly we may be grafted into the "Tree of righteousness" so to speak, but we must remember that we are grafted in and not to boast, because we stand on the root.

David Taylor
Oct 31st 2008, 12:58 AM
where did Drew replace anyone?

Grouping all of the redeemed regardless of race with Christ
Is not replacing anyone.
Notice Paul in Romans 11 isn't racist nor does he replace anyone...he simply teaches the faithful wild branches are grafted in WITH the faithful natural branches; and they TOGETHER partake of the fatness of the Root!

Paul is a joiner not divider.

drew
Oct 31st 2008, 01:28 AM
Romans 4 has nothing to do with Israel...its main topic is justification by faith.
While justification by faith is an important issue in Romans 4, it is not the main theme. I will now prove that Romans 4 has everything to do with Israel.

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter?

Abraham is introduced in his role as forefather. Obviously we know what nation Abraham is the forefather of - it is Israel;

3What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."

What is Paul quoting here? Genesis 15. And what is Genesis 15 about? It is about the establishment of the covenant. Note 2 covenant promises here from Genesis 15:

Then the word of the LORD came to him: "This man will not be your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir." 5 He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars—if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be."

6 Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness. 7 He also said to him, "I am the LORD, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to take possession of it."

And now more from Romans 4:

So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised

Abraham's role as father, not only as example of justification by faith, is central here. Clearly, the issue of who the true people of God - the true Israel - is on Paul's mind.

He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.
18Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, "So shall your offspring be."[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%204&version=31#fen-NIV-28026d)] 19Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah's womb was also dead.

This is Israel and covenant through and through. Paul continues his reflections of Genesis 15 and 17 - the very chapters that many consider to key covenant initiation chapters. If Sheina is right - if the covenant with Israel is not on Paul's mind - this reference is a massive coincidence.

Here is relevant stuff from Genesis 15 and 17;

No longer will you be called Abram ; your name will be Abraham, [c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2017;&version=31;#fen-NIV-403c)] for I have made you a father of many nations.

He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars—if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be.

So we see the evidence proves that Paul is deeply concerned with the covenant all the way through Romans. And, of course, an associated concern is who the true covenant heirs are - who is true Israel.

What is your response?

Is Paul not reflecting on the covenenat initiation chapters?

drew
Oct 31st 2008, 01:28 AM
where did Drew replace anyone?
Thank you for reading my posts carefully.

Lamplighter
Oct 31st 2008, 05:47 AM
It's real simple folks. There is no separate salvation plan for the Nation of Israel outside of Christ, however, Gods special plan to bring the Nation of Israel to Christ is revealed in the book of Revelation. It's called the Great tribulation, and the Nation of Israel will come to know Christ through it.

God is not through with the Nation of Israel, hence why after 2000 years of being destroyed and dispersed, the Nation was reborn in the 20th century.

The only way the Nation of Israel is making the kingdom of God is through Christ, and this will be accomplished during the Great Tribulation in the book of Revelation.

God's not through with Israel by a long shot.

Mograce2U
Oct 31st 2008, 06:06 AM
Where in the world did you come up with that theology? Sure isn't in my Bible.

Ishmael was not the "son of promise", Isaac was:

And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year. (Genesis 17:19-21)

Ishmael was circumcised first because Isaac was not born...but that doesn't change the fact that Ishmael was not the "son of promise".

This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. (Genesis 17:10-13)

Esau was not interested in God and spiritual things; therefore, he sold his birthright for a bowl of soup:

And Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthright. And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me? And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob. Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright. (Genesis 25:31-34)

Scripture please? Who is "everybody else"? You seem to forget that there has ALWAYS been a remnant of believing Jews...the Israel of God (which is NOT the Gentiles or the Church)

Noah's sons repopulated the earth after the flood. Abram came from the lineage of Shem, from whom we get Isaac and Jacob and the twelve tribes of the children of ISRAEL! There was a covenant made with Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3) and that same covenant was repeated to Isaac (Genesis 26:1-5, 24), and to Jacob (Genesis 28:4, 13, 14; 32:12; 35:12)

If one says that the nation of Israel was complete when Jesus was born and the covenants were completed, that is calling God a liar Who does not keep His promises to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob/Israel and David.

Israel is not "among the nations as "just another Gentile" - which was what she was in the beginning." First of all, if Israel is just "among the nations as 'just another Gentile', then why do the Arab nations want to push Israel out into the Mediterranean Sea? Why has God preserved this tiny little nation...why not let the Arabs just destroy Israel? The nation of Israel is God's chosen nation...His chosen people are the Jews...God will keep all his promises and covenants with that nation and people. Israel is back in their land in unbelief, but there will be a time in the near future when they will turn back to their God and recognize Jesus as their Messiah. (Zecharaih 12:10)

Have you done a study on "Israelology"? The Church is never called, and is not, a "spiritual Israel" or a "new Israel" or a "true Israel". That is a doctrine which stems from Augustine and the RCC. 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.Sorry Sheina that I missed this response to my post. I thought you were ignoring me.

(Rom 11:32) For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Once the elect remnant were saved the rest were shut up in unbelief. That puts them in the same boat as the rest of the world who does not believe. This is so that it is only by the grace of God thru faith in Christ that any will be counted among the righteous. The old way to God thru the covenants is thus ended, which leaves the new covenant without competition. You are wanting to pull out a promise reserved for Israel alone which is now only found in the new covenant that stands alone as the way to salvation. You cannot bypass the cross to continue to try and give Israel a hope under the old covenant because that has since passed. And that was the reason it passed. So that righteousness would only be found in Christ and not thru works.

Prophecied:
(Zec 12:10) And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

Fulfilled:
(John 19:36-37) For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. {37} And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

The remnant did mourn just as it said. That remnant which was saved. The ones who were not saved, who did not mourn but rejoiced in His death are the ones who were cut off. Have you read Peter's first sermon in Acts 3, because this is the people he was speaking to. Yes they were guilty and would face judgment as a result, but there is good news, they could escape that judgment thru repentance and faith in Christ. That is the only way that is open for Israel to be redeemed whether in the 1st century or in the last. Otherwise they will die in their sins with the condemned.

(John 8:24) I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

That is the message Israel today needs to hear, because the One whom God raised from the dead is going to be their judge.

Mograce2U
Oct 31st 2008, 06:21 AM
If we could draw a line from Genesis 1 through Revelation 22 we would hit on something throughout history that is just as true today as it was in the beginning. Faith. Being a part of God's chosen, a remnant, promised ones, whatever you want to call it - has been through faith. Adam, Able, Noah, Moses, Abraham, Lot, David, etc - it would be quite a list.

Israel always had a remnant. There was always someone, or a group, that remained faithful to God. The rest - God smote, no holds barred. National Israel meant nothing to God without faith in Him, first and foremost. It is our hearts he wants and has always wanted. When we make it this huge issue of who Israel is - we take our focus off of faith and begin to bicker and low and behold we are turning into those whom God will smite.

Faith. Nothing more, nothing less. That includes today us who are gentiles, grafted into the branch. There is not one iota of difference here any longer, no distinction. It's still by faith. Always has been and always will be. God doesn't change.

The Israel of old was God's tool, His chosen. God uses His chosen people, just as He uses us today, to be a light to the world. For 4,000 years foundation was laid until salvation came through His Son. God does hold a special place for spiritual Israel, and we ought to learn from what the Lord has done through them.The difference is that there is no remnant today who can be considered to be in faith who is not also in Christ. An elect remnant apart from faith in Christ does not exist in Israel or anywhere else.

Lamplighter
Oct 31st 2008, 06:40 AM
Also, the Nation of Israel is obviously still special to God because of where he sets up his eternal kingdom. It's not in New Chicago, New China, New Brazil, it's in New JERUSALEM. If God is done with the Nation of Israel, then why is the capital of God's eternal kingdom going to be established in Jerusalem? Why not in Japan instead? Japan is after all now just as special a place as Jerusalem is to God as well as New York City or Russia is.

Israel is still married to God the father, just as the OT states it is.

The church is the bride of Christ, not the Father.

sheina maidle
Oct 31st 2008, 07:18 AM
The difference is that there is no remnant today who can be considered to be in faith who is not also in Christ. An elect remnant apart from faith in Christ does not exist in Israel or anywhere else.
There is a believing remnant living in Israel today. Are you saying there is no believing remnant living in Israel today? Your statement is very confusing.

sheina maidle
Oct 31st 2008, 07:40 AM
If one is excommunicated from a church, are they still a member in good standing? Do not the members who are in good standing continue in fellowship while the others are outside of it? I am trying to find a way to make your claim that Israel in her cut off state is still entitled to what has been taken from her and given to another understandable. As long as she is in unbelief - what part of the promise belongs to her? Paul seems clear that there is nothing she has outside of Christ but that she can come in anytime thru repentance and faith. Must we try and take away from the brethren what rightly belongs to them in order to give some hope to those who do not want it at all? Israel cares not one whit for the promise else they would have it. This smacks of universalism to me and we know that ain't part of the plan. So what is it that makes one so wanting to defend the apostate and give him an excuse? An excuse which by the way will not justify him in the day of judgment.
Have you ever read Romans 11? God is not finished with the nation of Israel.

Romans 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (not forsaken)
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear; ) unto this day.
9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
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 graffed in among them, and with them partakest 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 graffed in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, 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 also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. (this is the New Covenant: Jeremiah 31:31)
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?
35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

Back2Front
Oct 31st 2008, 09:26 AM
I feel a tugging at my robe.

:saint:

Firstfruits
Oct 31st 2008, 11:24 AM
What you teach is Replacement Theology. Romans 4 has nothing to do with Israel...its main topic is justification by faith. All who are "justified by faith" are Abraham's "spiritual" seed. This does not make a Gentile a "spiritual" Jew nor does it make believing Gentiles "spiritual" Israel.

The Seed of Abraham is both the nation Israel and Jesus Christ.

No matter how much you want to debate Romans 4 to prove your point, as far as I'm concerned, this discussion is fruitless.

I find it strange that you don't know what Covenant Theology is...becaues what you are teaching is Covenant Theology and Replacement Theology is what the Covenant Theologians teach.

How do you go from agreeing that there is one body in Christ where there is neither Jew nor Gentile and then say that there are in fact two nations?

Gal 3:28 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Col 3:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=51&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

Those of National/Natural/of the flesh, that are not born again according to Romans are not of the body of Christ.

God has not discarded Israel, but Jesus has stated that they must be born again. Without this they cannot be saved.

Firstfruits

Veretax
Oct 31st 2008, 11:57 AM
The root has always been Christ. In John we know that Christ was there at the beginning and he will be there at the end also. God still has a plan for the Nation Israel, and I think it cheapens God's soverignty and power to suggest that he would not find a way to reserve a remnant of Israel even to the end of days.

Firstfruits
Oct 31st 2008, 02:09 PM
The root has always been Christ. In John we know that Christ was there at the beginning and he will be there at the end also. God still has a plan for the Nation Israel, and I think it cheapens God's soverignty and power to suggest that he would not find a way to reserve a remnant of Israel even to the end of days.

Sure enough, and the way God has given them is through Jesus, without which no man can come to the Father.

God bless you!!

Firstfruits

threebigrocks
Oct 31st 2008, 03:16 PM
This thread is very close to being closed. It has become less and less edifying as it has continued. No more attacks and look for common purpose.

David Taylor
Oct 31st 2008, 03:21 PM
It's real simple folks. There is no separate salvation plan for the Nation of Israel outside of Christ, however, Gods special plan to bring the Nation of Israel to Christ is revealed in the book of Revelation.

I found it elsewhere....in the book of Acts.

Acts 2:36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptizedevery one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. "

David Taylor
Oct 31st 2008, 03:23 PM
Have you ever read 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;

Love the reconciliation together part; of the natural and wild branches into the tree; both partaking of the fatness of the Root.

No wall of partition at all; but one group of faithful branches growing together in their Lord!

David Taylor
Oct 31st 2008, 03:25 PM
The root has always been Christ. In John we know that Christ was there at the beginning and he will be there at the end also.

What does Christ say at the end?

Revelation 22:17 "Whosoever will"

A purely raceless all-encompassing invitation.

drew
Oct 31st 2008, 05:10 PM
I find this thread very interesting, almost popcorn worthy. For reference I came from a Reformed teach that taught this sort of Covenental Replacement Theology, and I'm inclined to agree, the Church is indeed heirs through Abraham's spiritual heritage, but that does not make us in any way associated with Israel, other than we are associated via Christ.
I have never denied that national Israel is a "group" that God has intentions for and that He "uses" to bless the world. Following what Paul says so clearly, though, I am saying that this national Isreal was never, even from the beginning, the intended heir of the covenant promises.

I have never embraced any kind of "replacement" theology.

drew
Oct 31st 2008, 06:19 PM
These questions remain unengaged. For those of you who believe that God actually made covenant promises to Abraham as the father of the genetic nation of Israel, please address these questions about what Paul writes in Romans 4:

1. Does Paul not say that certain promises to Abraham were made outside of Abraham's status as an "ethnic" Jew?

2. Does Paul not make it clear that he is talking about the Genesis 15 promises - the very promises normally thought of as being for national Israel;

3. Does Paul not make it clear that Abraham's true family is a Jew + Gentile family?

sheina maidle
Oct 31st 2008, 06:52 PM
How do you go from agreeing that there is one body in Christ where there is neither Jew nor Gentile and then say that there are in fact two nations?

Gal 3:28 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Col 3:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=51&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
I never said there were two nations. The Church is not nor has ever been a nation. The Church is a called out body of born again believers (Jews and Gentiles) which is separate from the nation of Israel. There is also a believing remnant living within the nation of Israel today (according to the word spoken by the apostle Paul in Romans 11). That believing remnant living in Israel are members of the Body of Christ/the Church. National Israel is back in their land in UNBELIEF (the "dry bones" of Ezekiel 37). God has not forsaken that nation whom He foreknew.

Those of National/Natural/of the flesh, that are not born again according to Romans are not of the body of Christ.

God has not discarded Israel, but Jesus has stated that they must be born again. Without this they cannot be saved.
This is what I have been trying to say all along. God has set national Israel aside (they are in unbelief) and after the "fulness of the Gentiles has come in" and the Body of Christ/the Church is complete, He will remove the Body of Christ/the Church/His Bride from this earth at the Rapture...then He will resume His prophetic plan with that nation of Israel, beginning with the Tribulation period and ending with 1,000 year reign of Christ/Messiah on the earth from Jerusalem.

This does not discount the covenants and promises made to ethnic/national Israel in the Old Testament, which will be fulfilled at the Second Coming: i.e. the Abrahamic, Davidic and New Covenants which were given to Abraham and his physical descendants (national Israel). The promise of the land and the Millennial Kingdom and King Jesus on the throne of David. National Israel will return to their God and be saved (Romans 11:27; Zechariah 12:10). The nation of Israel is not just another "nation" among the nations of the world:

Deuteronomy 7:6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

Deuteronomy 7:7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:

Deuteronomy 7:8 But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

Deuteronomy 7:9 Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

drew
Oct 31st 2008, 07:26 PM
The nation of Israel is not just another "nation" among the nations of the world:


The descendants of Abraham did not include the Gentiles.


The Seed of Abraham is both the nation Israel and Jesus Christ.

These statements are very hard to square with statements like this from Galatians, as specifically further qualified by what Paul says in Romans 4. Here is the Galatians text

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise

Now, to be fair all of sheina's statements here could be squared with the Galatians text. After all, one could argue that in the Galatians text, Paul is talking "spiritually" - about how the church are the "spiritual" seed of Abraham, thereby leaving national Israel as the physical seed. Fine. And one could also argume that, here in Galatians, Paul is talking about the church as "heirs" to a different set of promises than the ones made to Abraham in his capacity as father of ethnic Israel. Fine. And one could say that Paul is saying that there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile in a "spiritual" sense while the distinction that "Israel is not 'just another nation'" is meant in a different sense.

Well all these possibilities are closed off by Paul in Romans 4. I raised these questions in relation to Romans 4:

1. Does Paul not say that certain promises to Abraham were made outside of Abraham's status as an "ethnic" Jew?

2. Does Paul not make it clear that he is talking about the Genesis 15 promises - the very promises normally thought of as being for national Israel;

3. Does Paul not make it clear that Abraham's true family is a Jew + Gentile family?

Please answer these questions. If these questions are left ignored, what do you suppose the "non-committed" reader will conclude?

sheina maidle
Oct 31st 2008, 08:32 PM
These statements are very hard to square with statements like this from Galatians, as specifically further qualified by what Paul says in Romans 4. Here is the Galatians text

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise

Now, to be fair all of sheina's statements here could be squared with the Galatians text. After all, one could argue that in the Galatians text, Paul is talking "spiritually" - about how the church are the "spiritual" seed of Abraham, thereby leaving national Israel as the physical seed. Fine. And one could also argume that, here in Galatians, Paul is talking about the church as "heirs" to a different set of promises than the ones made to Abraham in his capacity as father of ethnic Israel. Fine. And one could say that Paul is saying that there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile in a "spiritual" sense while the distinction that "Israel is not 'just another nation'" is meant in a different sense.

Well all these possibilities are closed off by Paul in Romans 4. I raised these questions in relation to Romans 4:

1. Does Paul not say that certain promises to Abraham were made outside of Abraham's status as an "ethnic" Jew?

2. Does Paul not make it clear that he is talking about the Genesis 15 promises - the very promises normally thought of as being for national Israel;

3. Does Paul not make it clear that Abraham's true family is a Jew + Gentile family?

Please answer these questions. If these questions are left ignored, what do you suppose the "non-committed" reader will conclude?
I will repeat, the topic of Romans 4 is justification by faith. I have read and studied this chapter (without the aid of commentaries) and I find nothing about promises being "transferred" to the Church. The KEY WORDS in Romans chapter 4 are "believe" and "faith." These key words are found in Romans 4, verses 3,5,11,12,13,14,16,18,19,20, and 24. Justification is by faith and not by works. The reason we know this is because the Old Testament proves it...as shown by the examples of Abraham and David. This chapter in Romans does not deal with Israel, nor the covenants and promises made with that nation. I do not find it. IMO, I think one really has to stretch their interpretation to come up with this.

All born again Jews and Gentiles are members of the Body of Christ/the Church. This is an entirely separate entity and does not include national Israel. ( the Church was an unrevealed mystery in the Old Testament--Ephesians 3:1-21).

Galatians 3:26-29:

Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

These verses are speaking of the Body of Christ/the Church...all come to Christ the same way...there is no difference. In verse 29, Abraham's seed is his "spiritual" seed, not his physical descendants (although some in this group are physical descendants).

I have a few questions: If you say that God did not give any promises or covenants to ethnic/national Israel, what do you believe the future holds for the nation of Israel? Do you believe that Israel is just another "nation" among all the "nations of the world"? Why do you believe there is so much conflict in Israel..i.e. especially in the area of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount?

drew
Oct 31st 2008, 08:55 PM
I will repeat, the topic of Romans 4 is justification by faith.
You have claimed this is in the past. I showed evidence, lots of it, that Romans 4 was centrally concerned with the covenant promises and the nature of Abraham's family. You really need to engage those arguments. A mere re-assertion of your position is not that convincing.


This chapter in Romans does not deal with Israel, nor the covenants and promises made with that nation.
The reader who has been following this thread will have read my post number 157 in which I provided lots of texts from Romans 4 that demonstrated the opposite of what you are claiming.

One of the pillars of that argument is that no less than three times in Romans 4 - three times mind you - Paul quotes directly from Genesis 15 and 17 - two chapters which are widely seen as major covenant initiation chapters. It is exceedingly difficult to imagine that, in Romans 4, Paul is not exploring the nature of the covenant promises made to Abraham.

And verse 9 through 17 - basically half the chapter - is concerned with the circumstances under which the covenant promises were made to Abraham, embodying an argument about how such promises were not for ethnic Israel after all, but rather for a Jew+Gentile.

9Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

13It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression. 16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations."[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ROmans%204&version=31#fen-NIV-28025c)] He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.

And why not answer my questions about Romans 4? A simple yes or no to each will suffice. Refusal to answer these questions does not reflect well on the coherence of the position you are advocating.

sheina maidle
Oct 31st 2008, 09:22 PM
You have claimed this is in the past. I showed evidence, lots of it, that Romans 4 was centrally concerned with the covenant promises and the nature of Abraham's family. You really need to engage those arguments. A mere re-assertion of your position is not that convincing.


The reader who has been following this thread will have read my post number 157 in which I provided lots of texts from Romans 4 that demonstrated the opposite of what you are claiming.

One of the pillars of that argument is that no less than three times in Romans 4 - three times mind you - Paul quotes directly from Genesis 15 and 17 - two chapters which are widely seen as major covenant initiation chapters. It is exceedingly difficult to imagine that, in Romans 4, Paul is not exploring the nature of the covenant promises made to Abraham.

And verse 9 through 17 - basically half the chapter - is concerned with the circumstances under which the covenant promises were made to Abraham, embodying an argument about how such promises were not for ethnic Israel after all, but rather for a Jew+Gentile.

9Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

13It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression. 16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations."[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ROmans%204&version=31#fen-NIV-28025c)] He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.

And why not answer my questions about Romans 4? A simple yes or no to each will suffice. Refusal to answer these questions does not reflect well on the coherence of the position you are advocating.
I did answer your questions on Romans 4...I do not find what you are teaching there. All I find in Romans 4 is justifcation by faith. BTW, it's not my position...it's what the Holy Spirit teaches me. I've been saved for 34 years and have yet to find this teaching anywhere in Romans 4. I would suggest that you simply answer my questions about Israel's covenants and promises. Once you do this, then perhaps I will understand your position better. In the meantime, this teaching is totally foreign to me and what the Holy Spirit has been teaching me for the last 34 years.

threebigrocks
Oct 31st 2008, 10:03 PM
Guys, I see both of your arguments in there.

It explains with the hindsight of grace and Christ why Abraham was found righteous through faith and not the law. The fact it is by faith is enough to help those who did understand that teaching grasp where the new Christian is by faith. It's like Abraham.

In the same breath, we can also see that even with the Law faith was still required. There was something new, and an establishment of a promise which would succeed down from Abraham's seed. It was not only Christ, but for all who believed faith. The Law didn't save - but faith was key. Don't rely on the law but truly believe in God. Look at 14 - 16. If you follow the law but have not faith - so what. This whole thing added in the fact that faith was more important than works of the Law. A covenant through faith was established.

This is a very, very rich piece of scripture.

drew
Oct 31st 2008, 10:05 PM
I did answer your questions on Romans 4...
You did not answer my questions.

An answer to my questions would be a "yes" or a "no" to each one (or a statement that the question was incomprehensible or meaningless).

Here are the questions again. Please answer them in relation to Romans 4. A statement that Romans 4 is about justification by faith is not an answer:

1. Does Paul say that certain promises to Abraham were made outside of Abraham's status as an "ethnic" Jew?

2. Does Paul make it clear that he is talking about the Genesis 15 promises - the very promises normally thought of as being for national Israel;

3. Does Paul make it clear that Abraham's true family is a Jew + Gentile family?

I would expect that just the first two will be difficult for a person holding your position to answer.

If you say "yes" to both, you undermine the claim that the covenant promises are for national Israel. And if you say "no" to both, you deny the plain of words of Paul - which I will gladly repost.

But, please, do answer them.


I do not find what you are teaching there. All I find in Romans 4 is justifcation by faith.
I have shown that this is simply incorrect. All I needed to do was list the texts and that basically makes the case. Please do not simply repeat your unsubstantiated claim - please explain how these texts do not support my position.


I would suggest that you simply answer my questions about Israel's covenants and promises.
I think that I have answered them - repeatedly. I have argued that there never were covenant promises made to national Israel. Now perhaps you can point me to a specific post which you think I have not engaged a question of yours and I will happily address it.

But I have not merely stated my position, I have provided scriptural arguments for it. Please feel free to critique my arguments.

drew
Oct 31st 2008, 10:08 PM
I actually invite all readers to answer the "big three" questions that I posed and have repeated a few times. They are in post 181.

drew
Oct 31st 2008, 10:13 PM
Actually, let me simplify my questions. How about just these 2, to be understood as posed in relation to Romans 4:

1. Does Paul say that certain promises to Abraham were made outside of Abraham's status as an "ethnic" Jew?

2. Does Paul make it clear that he is talking about the Genesis 15 and 17 promises - the very promises normally thought of as being for national Israel;

threebigrocks
Oct 31st 2008, 10:28 PM
I think that I have answered them - repeatedly. I have argued that there never were covenant promises made to national Israel.

Unless they believed and had faith in addition to the Law, they were not national Israel. Even today you can be from Israel and be an atheist. If you have faith, believe and follow what is commanded God will see you as a child of His. If not - you are just and Israeli. In OT times, there were those who practiced the law but had not one drop of faith. That was not what God desired. Not the repetitious prayer, not the incense, not the festivals or feasts or sabbaths. Those things meant nothing if there was no faith. I agree with you drew.

Richard H
Oct 31st 2008, 10:32 PM
Rom 4:13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.

Rom 4:16 For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,

Verse 16 seems to indicate not an “either or”, but rather an “also”.

Romans 11 tells of Jacob, the olive tree, and some of his branches being broken off.
You can read about it in Jeremiah 3, but who was cut off?
It was the northern kingdom. AKA: The house of Israel.
Judah, the southern kingdom, was not cut off from the promise to Abraham.

We may be grafted in where the house of Israel was, but I see no place where Judah was cut off from the promise of the land.
Having been grafted in by faith in Christ, we are now heir to a greater promise – eternal life.

It is not the present Jerusalem where people will be denied access without having their names in the Lamb’s book of life, but the New Jerusalem

Still, in order to be “heir” of heaven, one must be born again.
Certainly there are Jews (Judah) who now embrace Christ. Fulfilling this:
Rom 11:23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

But I think it is a hint at what God has in store for those in Judea, when Christ comes again. Those who survive will see the One whom they have pierced and morn.
However, still being alive and protected from the mark (Rev 12:14), they will have the opportunity to accept Him as Savior.

So the first shall be last.
:2cents:

sheina maidle
Nov 1st 2008, 04:34 AM
Actually, let me simplify my questions. How about just these 2, to be understood as posed in relation to Romans 4:

1. Does Paul say that certain promises to Abraham were made outside of Abraham's status as an "ethnic" Jew?

2. Does Paul make it clear that he is talking about the Genesis 15 and 17 promises - the very promises normally thought of as being for national Israel;
In other words, what you are saying is that God has forsaken the nation of Israel because they rejected Christ...would that be correct? There will be no 1,000 year reign of Christ on David's throne from Jerusalem and Abraham's physical descendants will not inherit the land which God promised (Genesis 15:18-21).

Please explain what is the future for the nation of Israel? How do you interpret Romans 9-11 as a whole, and in context...without pulling any of the verses out of context.

sheina maidle
Nov 1st 2008, 05:02 AM
Unless they believed and had faith in addition to the Law, they were not national Israel. Even today you can be from Israel and be an atheist. If you have faith, believe and follow what is commanded God will see you as a child of His. If not - you are just and Israeli. In OT times, there were those who practiced the law but had not one drop of faith. That was not what God desired. Not the repetitious prayer, not the incense, not the festivals or feasts or sabbaths. Those things meant nothing if there was no faith. I agree with you drew.
The Jews are back in their land (national Israel) in unbelief...the fulfillment of Ezekiel 37:1-11. It is true that many ethnic Jews living in Israel are atheists. However, there is a believing remnant (I know many believing Israeli Jews personally) living in Israel at the present time. They are persecuted for their faith in Christ by the unsaved Jews. That believing remnant are members of the Body of Christ.

God does have a prophetic plan for the nation of Israel. At the present time, He has set them aside, and is calling out a people for His Name, the Church. When the "fulness of the Gentiles has come in", Jesus will "catch His Bride away" and then God will again turn to Israel to complete His prophetic plan for that nation. God has indeed made covenants and promises to the nation of Israel (even in their unbelief)...and those covenants and promises will be fulfilled at the Second Coming of Christ. Romans 9-11 in context teaches what God's plan is for the nation of Israel.

John146
Nov 1st 2008, 01:00 PM
The Church is the church...Israel is Israel.

Israel is the nation chosen and created by God to preserve His truth in the world and to prepare the way for Christ's coming.

The Church was an unrevealed mystery in the Old Testament (Ephesians 3:1-10).

To this special people, God gave a Land (Palestine) so they could live separated from the heathen peoples in order to fulfill God's purposes.

God delivered the Scriptures to the world through Israel (Romans 3:1-2). He also gave the Savior to the world through Israel (Romans 9:4-5).

Today He is creating a special body of saved people composed both of Jews and Gentiles (Acts 15:14-16; Ephesians 3:1-21).

When one replaces (yes I said replaces) Israel with the Church, one has to spiritualize almost the entire OT and the book of Revelation to make the Replacement doctrine "fit". Also, the Church is not an "extension" of the nation of Israel. Israel never "becomes" the Church.

Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: (1 Corinthians 10:32)

A careful and prayerful study of the Word of God (rightly dividing the Word of Truth) will show that Israel is not the Church, nor an "extension" of the Church.No one is replaced. Stop talking about something that no one here is claiming. When Paul said "they are not all Israel which are of Israel" what do you think that means? It seems like you are not acknowledging that there is the nation of Israel but there is also spiritual Israel, which has nothing to do with one's nationality but rather with having faith in Christ.

John146
Nov 1st 2008, 01:09 PM
In other words, what you are saying is that God has forsaken the nation of Israel because they rejected Christ...would that be correct? There will be no 1,000 year reign of Christ on David's throne from Jerusalem and Abraham's physical descendants will not inherit the land which God promised (Genesis 15:18-21). They already did inherit the land.

Joshua 21
43And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.
44And the LORD gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand.
45There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.

Abraham looked for a city whose builder and maker is God. A heavenly city and a heavenly country. He would not understand this obsession with land that people have today.

Hebrews 11
8By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
9By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
10For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
11Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.
12Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.
13These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
14For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
15And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
16But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

I think we should look for the same thing Abraham looked for. Land didn't mean anything to him. God promised something much better than land. And this promise was to Abraham and His seed, which is Christ (Gal 3:16) and all who belong to Christ (Gal 3:29).

John146
Nov 1st 2008, 01:26 PM
The Jews are back in their land (national Israel) in unbelief...the fulfillment of Ezekiel 37:1-11. It is true that many ethnic Jews living in Israel are atheists. However, there is a believing remnant (I know many believing Israeli Jews personally) living in Israel at the present time. They are persecuted for their faith in Christ by the unsaved Jews. That believing remnant are members of the Body of Christ.

God does have a prophetic plan for the nation of Israel. At the present time, He has set them aside, and is calling out a people for His Name, the Church. When the "fulness of the Gentiles has come in", Jesus will "catch His Bride away" and then God will again turn to Israel to complete His prophetic plan for that nation. God has indeed made covenants and promises to the nation of Israel (even in their unbelief)...and those covenants and promises will be fulfilled at the Second Coming of Christ. Romans 9-11 in context teaches what God's plan is for the nation of Israel.What do you mean that God will again turn to Israel? He never turned away from them.

Romans 11
1I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
3Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

Salvation has been offered to the Jews for the last 2,000 years. They were never cast aside. The only difference that occurred was that Gentiles, too, were able to be grafted in to the olive tree. That was a mystery in OT times.

Also, are you trying to say there will be a time when Gentiles are no longer saved and only Jews are saved at that point? Scripture doesn't teach that.

David Taylor
Nov 1st 2008, 01:58 PM
What do you mean that God will again turn to Israel? He never turned away from them.

Romans 11
1I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.

5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

Salvation has been offered to the Jews for the last 2,000 years. They were never cast aside. The only difference that occurred was that Gentiles, too, were able to be grafted in to the olive tree.

You sound like Peter:

Acts 2:36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptizedevery one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. "

Peter spoke this to all the house of Israel and their Children from the 1st century A.D. generation onward.

No "Replacing" but rather "Joining Together" in the promises of God.

drew
Nov 1st 2008, 02:29 PM
Rom 4:13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.

Rom 4:16 For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,

Verse 16 seems to indicate not an “either or”, but rather an “also”.

Romans 11 tells of Jacob, the olive tree, and some of his branches being broken off.
You can read about it in Jeremiah 3, but who was cut off?
It was the northern kingdom. AKA: The house of Israel.
Judah, the southern kingdom, was not cut off from the promise to Abraham.

We may be grafted in where the house of Israel was, but I see no place where Judah was cut off from the promise of the land.
I was waiting for someone to raise this issue.

Things get complicated because "true" Israel and "national" Israel actually overlap - there are "ethnic" Jews who are also members of "true" Israel. And, of course, Paul himself is one.

So, while I have not dwelt on this point, I have never intended the reader to understand that there are no members of national Israel who are also members of "true" Israel.

But you seem to think that there remains a distinct promise of "land" for national Israel. I suggest that Paul rules this out and is saying "What seemed like a land promise to the Jews is actually a 'whole world' promise to this 'true Israel'"

And here is why: When Paul makes his statement above in Romans 4:13-16, he has just finished quoting from Genesis 15. Here is the stuff from Genesis 15:

6 Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.

7 He also said to him, "I am the LORD, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to take possession of it." 8 But Abram said, "O Sovereign LORD, how can I know that I will gain possession of it?"

In order to hold the view that there ever was a separate promise of land to national Israel, that is separate from the promise that Paul refers to in verses 13 and 16 (as you pointed out), you have to believe this:

Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 in Romans 4, and yet expects the reader to believe that we says immediately next - the promse of the land in 7 and 8 - does not fall under the principal set forth in Romans 4, namely that the "promise" never was for ethnic Israel.

This is really untenable. In Romans 4, Paul mounts an argument that a certain promise - that Abraham's "descendents "would be heir to the world - is in fact a promise for a people who are not Abraham's physical descendents (national Israel). Fine.

But we really are forced to understand that this "world" promise is, in fact, the self-same land promise of Genesis 15:7. Why are we forced to do this?

Simply because of the "Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness" is connected, in Romans 4, to the content of verse 13 to 16. And back in Genesis 15, the very same statement is connected to the promise of the land. So, it really seems clear that Paul intends to see the land promise as falling under the "Jew + Gentile" and not "Jew-only" implications 4:16-17

You might counter-argue that I am reaching in saying that the "Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness" in Genesis 15:6 is really connected to the land promise of 15:7. Specifically, you might argue that in verse 7 we get "He also said to him...." and that Paul is moving on to a different promise that, despite the connection of Gen 15:6 to Romans 4, remains a promise for Jews and Jews only.

Well, Paul would have to be an exceedingly misleading writer to do that. But, as I hope to show in another post, references to Genesis 17 seal the deal and really do force us to see that there never was a covenant promise of land made only to national Israel.

Richard H
Nov 1st 2008, 02:32 PM
...
Also, are you trying to say there will be a time when Gentiles are no longer saved and only Jews are saved at that point? Scripture doesn't teach that.To this point alone and then I'll "butt-out" again. J

I think the point when gentiles are no longer able to be saved - the "fullness of the gentiles" - would be the resurrection/rapture.

For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;
and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB."
"THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS."
From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;
for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
Rom 11:25-29(caps due to NASB)

drew
Nov 1st 2008, 02:41 PM
In other words, what you are saying is that God has forsaken the nation of Israel because they rejected Christ...would that be correct? There will be no 1,000 year reign of Christ on David's throne from Jerusalem and Abraham's physical descendants will not inherit the land which God promised (Genesis 15:18-21).

Please explain what is the future for the nation of Israel? How do you interpret Romans 9-11 as a whole, and in context...without pulling any of the verses out of context.
Why do you persistently refuse to answer my questions? The answers Paul gives to these question are clearly "yes" from Romans 4:

1. Does Paul say that certain promises to Abraham were made outside of Abraham's status as an "ethnic" Jew?

Answer: YES.

2. Does Paul make it clear that he is talking about the Genesis 15 and 17 promises - the very promises normally thought of as being for national Israel;

Answer: YES

It is perhaps understandable that you refuse to answer these question. The answers are clearly "yes", and this very fact undermines your view that there was a covenant promise of land made to Abraham in his capacity of head of national Israel.

I am not saying that God has forsaken national Israel. In fact, Paul argues for mission to the Jews in Romans 11.

And, while we have not yet talked about the 1000 years, I do indeed believe that there will be no 1,000 year reign of Christ on David's throne from Jerusalem.

And, as I have written repeatedly, I do not believe that God ever promised land to the Jews.

As for Romans 9 to 11 as a whole, I will have to get back to you. There is a tremendous amount that needs to be said. But I will say this: I believe that national Israel's "reason for existence" came to an end at the Cross. So now, the ethnic Jew is entirely of same status of the other members of the worldwide family of God. The Jew is entirely in the same "place" as the Gentile.

And please not represent this as "replacement" theology since I clearly have shown I do not ascribe to that view. I have been crystal clear all along - I do not believe any of the standard "covenant promises" ever were for national Israel in the first place.

David Taylor
Nov 1st 2008, 02:42 PM
To this point alone and then I'll "butt-out" again. J

I think the point when gentiles are no longer able to be saved - the "fullness of the gentiles" - would be the resurrection/rapture.

For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;
and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB."
"THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS."
From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;
for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
Rom 11:25-29(caps due to NASB)

When the above happens, the grafting of wild and natural branches together into the fatness of the Root will be completed!

threebigrocks
Nov 1st 2008, 03:11 PM
To this point alone and then I'll "butt-out" again. J

I think the point when gentiles are no longer able to be saved - the "fullness of the gentiles" - would be the resurrection/rapture.

For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;
and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB."
"THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS."
From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;
for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
Rom 11:25-29(caps due to NASB)

Why would the gospel change Richard? If the Law, the scripture,will not fade away until all is complete (meaning judgement and satan locked up) and the gospel is for all until that time, is it only Jews, a remnant, left during the millennial reign to be tempted when satan is loosed for a time? Seem contradictory to what you intended.

As David said, it's the coming together of all who believe, the fatness of the unity of the bride of Christ with 1 root. That is who Christ draws up to Him at the second coming or rapture.

Richard H
Nov 1st 2008, 03:36 PM
Why would the gospel change Richard? If the Law, the scripture,will not fade away until all is complete (meaning judgement and satan locked up) and the gospel is for all until that time, is it only Jews, a remnant, left during the millennial reign to be tempted when satan is loosed for a time? Seem contradictory to what you intended.

As David said, it's the coming together of all who believe, the fatness of the unity of the bride of Christ with 1 root. That is who Christ draws up to Him at the second coming or rapture.I didn't exactly mean it as it came out.
Certainly there will be new people during the millennium and they will have the opportunity of accepting Jesus as Savior.
But the "fullness of the gentiles" seems, in my mind, to be deliniated by the resurrection/rapture.


EDIT: My wording came from the original words I was replying to.

John146
Nov 1st 2008, 03:43 PM
You sound like Peter:

Acts 2:36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptizedevery one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. "

Peter spoke this to all the house of Israel and their Children from the 1st century A.D. generation onward.

No "Replacing" but rather "Joining Together" in the promises of God.Well, Paul sounds like Peter, anyway. The joining together of Jew and Gentile believers is taught repeatedly, yet people want to keep them separate as if God has separate plans for each. That is simply not the case.

threebigrocks
Nov 1st 2008, 03:47 PM
I didn't exactly mean it as it came out.
Certainly there will be new people during the millennium and they will have the opportunity of accepting Jesus as Savior.
But the "fullness of the gentiles" seems, in my mind, to be deliniated by the resurrection/rapture.


EDIT: My wording came from the original words I was replying to.

How did you come to the conclusion that the "rapture" (which I consider not a rapture but all who believe being caught up with Christ at His coming on the clouds) is the end of the time of gentiles?

Sometimes we get things in our minds that lead us to more, it's only a fraction. Where in scripture does it say that the time of the gentile ends when Christ comes again? I think we need to look at it as when does grace end.

drew
Nov 1st 2008, 03:47 PM
For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;
and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB."
As I (and perhaps others) have argued much earlier in this thread, I think a strong case can be made that the reference to Israel here is not, despite appearance, a reference to national Israel at all. It is instead a reference to "true" Israel, that is "the church".

Please see post number 61 for the details.

This claim may seem odd - after Paul does use the word "Israel" - but I am only following Paul's precedent here. Paul himself uses the term "Israel" to denote something other than the nation of Israel right here in Romans 9:

6It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.

Richard H
Nov 1st 2008, 04:17 PM
As I (and perhaps others) have argued much earlier in this thread, I think a strong case can be made that the reference to Israel here is not, despite appearance, a reference to national Israel at all. It is instead a reference to "true" Israel, that is "the church".

Please see post number 61 for the details.

This claim may seem odd - after Paul does use the word "Israel" - but I am only following Paul's precedent here. Paul himself uses the term "Israel" to denote something other than the nation of Israel right here in Romans 9:

6It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.OK. I've now looked at #61.
I think "all Israel" refers to Jacob - the whole house.
"Israel" in verse 25 means national Israel - else how they have a partial hardening until the fullness of the gentiles?
This cannot be the church who has a partial hardening until the times of the gentiles are complete.
It must be national Israel.

Rom 11:28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;

Richard H
Nov 1st 2008, 04:26 PM
How did you come to the conclusion that the "rapture" (which I consider not a rapture but all who believe being caught up with Christ at His coming on the clouds) is the end of the time of gentiles?

Sometimes we get things in our minds that lead us to more, it's only a fraction. Where in scripture does it say that the time of the gentile ends when Christ comes again? I think we need to look at it as when does grace end.The "rapture" I speak of is not a "pre-trib" rapture, but the changing and being caught up of those who survive - following the resurrection.

Perhaps I assumed that at that point everyone on earth will be unsaved. Revelation 12 seems to indicate that the only people on earth who will not have the mark will be those who are protect in the desert. The woman who I believe to represent national Israel.

Edit: A remnant of Judah.

Lamplighter
Nov 1st 2008, 09:01 PM
I am not saying that God has forsaken national Israel. In fact, Paul argues for mission to the Jews in Romans 11.


And please not represent this as "replacement" theology since I clearly have shown I do not ascribe to that view. I have been crystal clear all along - I do not believe any of the standard "covenant promises" ever were for national Israel in the first place.

You are right on.

But there are those Christian groups(replacement theologians), who think that God has taken his protective hand and plan of salvation through Christ away from the nation of Israel, which Biblical prophecy clearly shows to be false.

sheina maidle
Nov 1st 2008, 09:05 PM
Why do you persistently refuse to answer my questions? The answers Paul gives to these question are clearly "yes" from Romans 4:
1. Does Paul say that certain promises to Abraham were made outside of Abraham's status as an "ethnic" Jew?
Answer: YES.The land promise begins in Genesis 15:7...but what was the “promise” which Abraham believed in Genesis 15:6? The answer is in the first 5 verses of that chapter. It was the “promise” of a seed, an heir. I don’t believe he was talking about a “spiritual” seed because Abraham had no children at that time. God further demonstrated His faithfulness in the rest of Chapter 15…which was an unconditional promise …Genesis 15:9-21: In this ceremony God solemnized His covenant with Abraham and the Jewish nation. God alone walked through the divided animals to signify that this was an unconditional covenant dependent strictly upon God’s veracity. Abraham did not deserve these promises; he did not earn them; and he could not lose them. God made the covenant, and He would fulfill it

Just because Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 in Romans 4:5 & 9 does not mean he is also speaking of the Abrahamic Covenant in the rest of Romans 4. The “promise” of which Paul speaks in the rest of the chapter is justification by faith. It had nothing to do with the Abrahamic Covenant, no matter how much one tries to make it fit.
2. Does Paul make it clear that he is talking about the Genesis 15 and 17 promises - the very promises normally thought of as being for national Israel;

Answer: YESNO

The key word here is "faith"

Romans 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

Romans 4:13

Remember the context. The key word in the chapter is "faith" ("believe"). Abraham’s children are "all them that believe" (v.11). We need to bear the family resemblance! We need to follow in Abraham’s faithful steps (v.12). We need to believe like he believed! We need to take God at His Word like Abraham did (v.3).

Heir = possessor

The promise mentioned in verse 13 is not found anywhere in the Old Testament in these exact words. Nowhere in the O.T. does God say, "Abraham, you will be heir of the world." There is no such verse. This is Paul’s way of describing the blessings and the riches which would belong to Abraham and to his seed.

Notice that this promise is not to Abraham alone, but to all his seed also (see verse 13 and verse 16--"to all the seed"). Thus the promise is to Abraham and to all his spiritual, children ("all them that believe"--v.11). The promise is that Abraham and all believers will be heirs of the world and will possess the earth!

Abraham’s true Seed is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:16). It is Jesus Christ (God’s Messiah, God’s anointed King--Psalm 2:1-2) who will possess the earth according to Psalm 2:8 (compare also verse 12). The earth belongs to Him. It is His Kingdom! Abraham and all His spiritual seed (believers) will share in the blessings of this kingdom.

Thus the expression "heir of the world" essentially means "to be part of Christ’s kingdom." According to Romans 4:13, how does a person become part of the kingdom? How does a person become heir of the world? Not through the law but through faith! If it were through the law, then this would involve the following: works, seeking to meet God’s requirements as given in the law, trying to earn God’s favor by obeying God’s law, trying to earn God’s blessings, trying to make yourself worthy, looking to get a reward as payment for work done, striving, achieving, etc. Faith operates on another principle entirely: God gives and I receive. I’m not worthy of any of it but God gives me what I do not deserve (that’s grace!).
****************************************
Romans 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

Romans 4:16

The first part of this verse may be paraphrased as follows: "Therefore since law cannot realize anything but wrath, it (the promised heritage) is by faith in order that it might be by grace (God’s free gift to believing sinners)."

Justification by the works of the law depends on man and must fail because man is a sinner. Justification by grace depends only on God and on the finished work of Christ. It cannot fail because God cannot fail!

"Sure"--It’s a sure thing! The promise is SURE to every believer whether Jew or Gentile! Blessed security! Every believer should be able to say, "I’m sure that the promised inheritance is mine! I’m sure that I am an heir!" (see the discussion under Romans 4:13).

Abraham is the father of all who believe (4:11), whether Jew or Gentile (4:11, 4:16)! He is the "father of many nations" (4:17). He is the spiritual father of those who believe out of every kindred and tongue and people and nation (cf. Rev.5:9).

If the promise were by the law then it would be limited to the Jews because it was to them that the law was given (see Romans 9:4). But the promise was by grace so that all believers (whether Jews or Gentiles) could possess and enjoy the promise.

Romans Chapter 4 (http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/romans/romans4.htm)
It is perhaps understandable that you refuse to answer these question. The answers are clearly "yes", and this very fact undermines your view that there was a covenant promise of land made to Abraham in his capacity of head of national Israel.
The “promise” in Romans 4 is “justification by faith”…Abraham being our example. One really has to stretch the interpretation to come up with the “promise” being the Abrahamic Covenant which God made with “ethnic” Israel. (Genesis 12:1-3; 15:9-21) I have read this chapter many times and have done many Bible studies on the book of Romans….what you are saying just ain’t there. God promised Abraham a literal “land” and a literal “seed”(physical "seed")…and that tiny piece of real estate in the Middle East which we call “Israel” is that literal “land” and the ethnic Jews living in that literal “land”..saved and unsaved…are the literal “seed”. (physical "seed")
I am not saying that God has forsaken national Israel. In fact, Paul argues for mission to the Jews in Romans 11.That's basically what this interpretation sounds like to me. I am a born again Jew...I learned about the Abrahamic Covenant before I was saved...I believed it then and I still believe it now. I have unsaved relatives living in the land of Israel. Israel is God's land...why do you suppose Israel is called "The Promised Land"? Israel is not in full possession of all God promised to His people at the present time, but when Christ returns, all the land promised in Genesis 15:18-21 will be hers. The reason: God promised that Israel would inherit all that land.
And, while we have not yet talked about the 1000 years, I do indeed believe that there will be no 1,000 year reign of Christ on David's throne from Jerusalem.How do you interpret these verses then?:

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
And, as I have written repeatedly, I do not believe that God ever promised land to the Jews.I strongly disagree with you.

As for Romans 9 to 11 as a whole, I will have to get back to you. There is a tremendous amount that needs to be said. But I will say this: I believe that national Israel's "reason for existence" came to an end at the Cross. So now, the ethnic Jew is entirely of same status of the other members of the worldwide family of God. The Jew is entirely in the same "place" as the Gentile.You stated in this post that you didn't believe that God had forsaken the nation of Israel that 'Paul argues for mission to the Jews in Romans 11'....yet here you state just the opposite by saying that "national Israel's 'reason for existence' came to an end at the Cross'. Those two statements contradict each other. Are you saying that the ethnic unsaved Jews living in Israel have no reason to live? Remember, I have unsaved relatives living in Israel. Do you know what national Israel's 'reason for existence' really is?

And please not represent this as "replacement" theology since I clearly have shown I do not ascribe to that view. I have been crystal clear all along - I do not believe any of the standard "covenant promises" ever were for national Israel in the first place.Your interpretation of Romans 4 is an interpretation I have never heard before...I even asked my pastor about that interpretation, and he said it was also unknown to him.

Lamplighter
Nov 1st 2008, 09:33 PM
You stated in this post that you didn't believe that God had forsaken the nation of Israel that 'Paul argues for mission to the Jews in Romans 11'....yet here you state just the opposite by saying that "national Israel's 'reason for existence' came to an end at the Cross'.

:eek: I didn't notice this statement.

This is hard core replacement theology, and also antisemitism.

The Nation of Israel has just as much right to exist and flourish as the USA or any other country does, even though the rest of the World says otherwise. But due to Satan, the World(and a lot of the Church) hates Israel, no big surprise here, it's Satan's doing.


"Seed of Abraham" is used in different ways in Scripture. First it is used in reference to ethnic, biological Jews (Romans chapters 9 &11). Second, it is used in a political sense. Third, it is used in a spiritual sense to refer to people, whether Jew or Gentile, who are spiritually related to God by faith ( Romans 4:11-12; Galatians 3:7). The spiritual sense of the title does not take over the physical sense to such an extent that the physical seed of Abraham is no longer related to the biblical covenants.

drew
Nov 1st 2008, 10:41 PM
"Israel" in verse 25 means national Israel - else how they have a partial hardening until the fullness of the gentiles?
I agree that Israel in verse 25 means national Israel, I think that its use in verse 26 is a reference to the church.

And if people think this is suspicious - how could Paul use the same term - Israel - to denote "national" Israel in one verse and then the church in the next? Well, again, Paul has already done this in Romans 9:

6It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.

Here he uses the same word in the same sentence to mean different things.

And I certainly agree with you that the "they" in the following refers to members of national Israel.

Rom 11:28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; [/quote]

sheina maidle
Nov 1st 2008, 11:22 PM
Romans 11:26

After the fullness of the Gentiles (v.25) will come the fullness of Israel (v.12; v.26 "all Israel shall be saved"). This verse clearly predicts the future salvation of the nation Israel. It also tells us when this will happen: at the time when the great DELIVERER will come out of Zion (a clear reference to Jesus Christ at the second coming--compare Isaiah 59:20). Israel has a bright future. It should be noted that the nation Israel today is not a GODLY nation. It is an unbelieving nation, and for the most part a God-rejecting nation (those who do not honor the Son do not honor the Father--John 5:23, and those who deny the Son do not have the Father-- I John 2:23). But the day is coming when Christ the Deliverer will turn away ungodliness from this nation, and Israel will be a God-fearing and God-honoring nation.

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

Verse 26 is speaking of national Israel, not the Church.

There is only ONE Israel. Israel is not divided into the "house of Israel" and the "house of Judah" (Ezekiel 37:21-28) After the exile (there were three stages of the return from the exile) there was only one kingdom. The three stages of the return were: 1. Zerubbabel; 2. Ezra; 3. Nehemiah.

Richard H
Nov 1st 2008, 11:24 PM
I agree that Israel in verse 25 means national Israel, I think that its use in verse 26 is a reference to the church.

And if people think this is suspicious - how could Paul use the same term - Israel - to denote "national" Israel in one verse and then the church in the next? Well, again, Paul has already done this in Romans 9:

6It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.

Here he uses the same word in the same sentence to mean different things.

And I certainly agree with you that the "they" in the following refers to members of national Israel.


Rom 11:28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;
Yes. Paul does not always seem to make a clear distinction – perhaps because he was speaking of a people who identified with being of Jacob/Israel, rather than the branch of Judah alone.
It sure can make it confusing – especially if one is unaware of the two kingdoms.
I read the Bible for years, before I realized that it was particularly significant.

Richard H
Nov 2nd 2008, 12:00 AM
I agree that Israel in verse 25 means national Israel, I think that its use in verse 26 is a reference to the church.

Perhaps I agreed too soon. :D
In verse 26, I think “Israel” is referring to the church, but it includes the remnant of Judah - those who will be born again, after the time of the gentiles. (verses 23 & 24)

In looking at Revelation 12, I can only conclude that the woman is this remnant – who will be protected in the desert from the reach of the anti-Christ and thus – the mark.
They will not be “raptured” at the time of the resurrection – as they are not yet born again, yet they are preserved for a purpose.

They might be the (portion of the) elect – yet still flesh – for whom the days are cut short – lest no flesh be saved.
As I understand it, Christians will not be flesh at the end and will not need saving in the temporal sense.

Mat 24:22 "Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.

drew
Nov 3rd 2008, 01:44 AM
I would like state that I am going to change my position - I am going to re-work the argument I have been advocating.

I have been, to this point, claiming that God never made covenant promises to Israel, including a promise of land.

I am now thinking that the correct position is basically this: God indeed made certain promises to national Israel, including the promise that they would get the land of Palestine. But these were temporary promises in the purposes of God. Israel's key role in the purposes of God indeed came to its fulfillment on the cross. From the cross forward, there is absolutely zero distinction between Jew and Gentile - there are no promises "still on the table" for national Israel.

I am inspired to this change partly by John146's quoting of a text (from Joshua, I think) where it is clearly stated that a promise of giving Palestine to the Jews has indeed been fulfilled.

Of course, I suspect that this change does not put me in agreement with people like Sheina, whom I think still believe that, even now, national Israel has a God-given right to Palestine.

But I am confident I made an error in claiming that God never made any promise of land to national Israel. And even my modified view is not a "replacement" theology, although I will only make that case if called on it.

drew
Nov 3rd 2008, 02:11 AM
Just because Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 in Romans 4:5 & 9 does not mean he is also speaking of the Abrahamic Covenant in the rest of Romans 4. The “promise” of which Paul speaks in the rest of the chapter is justification by faith. It had nothing to do with the Abrahamic Covenant, no matter how much one tries to make it fit..


The “promise” in Romans 4 is “justification by faith”…Abraham being our example.

I do not agree, with either of these statements, even though I now believe that God did indeed, in the context of the Abrahamic covenant, make promises to national Israel.

10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised

Clearly, this is an argument about Abraham being, in some sense at least, a father not only of Jews, but of Gentiles also. It needs to be pointed out that this is not an argument about Abraham being an example of justification, it is an argument about him being a father of a people. Of course, I am not denying that Abraham was justified by faith. I am simply pointing out what Paul is talking about here - and it is clearly his status as a father of a "Jew + Gentile" family. Now what does Paul say immediately next?

It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.

The "law" here is the Torah. Paul is saying that Abraham was given the stated the promise that he would be heir of the world, outside of Torah. Well it is precisely the Torah which is the hallmark identifier of national Israel.

Now sheina is claiming that the "promise" referred to here is not a "covenant promise" made to Abraham, but rather a promise about justification by faith.

But if you look at the Genesis texts of relevance, it becomes clear that the "promise" is indeed a covenant promise:

Then the word of the LORD came to him: "This man will not be your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir." 5 He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars—if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be.

This is a promise that God makes to Abraham and it is rather clearly the same promise Paul refers to in Romans 4 - the one about being "heir to the world". Now sheina is saying the essence of this promise is "justification by faith". But this is simply not what the Genesis text says. The Genesis text means what it says - Abraham is being promised that he will be "heir of the word - the father of a worldwide family.

So we know that the promse that Paul is referring to is indeed a promise about Paul being the father of a wordwide family. And it is indeed a covenantal promise.

drew
Nov 3rd 2008, 02:28 AM
Just because Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 in Romans 4:5 & 9 does not mean he is also speaking of the Abrahamic Covenant in the rest of Romans 4. The “promise” of which Paul speaks in the rest of the chapter is justification by faith. It had nothing to do with the Abrahamic Covenant, no matter how much one tries to make it fit..


The “promise” in Romans 4 is “justification by faith”…Abraham being our example.

As per my previous post, I do not agree with either of these statements. In the last post, I argued from Genesis 15, which Paul quotes in Romans 4. In the present post, I will argue from a different part of Romans 4 which quotes both Genesis 15 and 17 - both covenant initiation chapters. It will be seen that Paul is clearly alluding to specific elements of the promises of the Abrahamic covenant, and not making an allusion to a promise about "justification by faith":

Here is the chunk of Romans 4 text in which Genesis 15 and 17 is quoted from:

16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations." {***reference to Genesis 17:5} He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.
18Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, "So shall your offspring be." {***Reference to Genesis 15:5}

It really could not be more clear. In verse 16 we have the promise. In verse 17, Paul tells us what the promise is. Is it "justification by faith"? No. It is a promise that Abraham will be made the father of many nations - a covenant promise made in Genesis 17:5. In verse 18, Paul again alludes to a covenant promises of Genesis 15:5.

Then Paul writes this in Romans 4:

19Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah's womb was also dead. 20Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised.

Again, it is clear that Paul is talking about the promise of a family, not that he would be "justified by faith". Of what possible relevance is Abrahams age and Sarah's barrenness to a promise of "justification by faith"? None, of course. But Abraham's age and Sarah's barrenness are precisely the relevant issues if Paul is reflecting on a covenantal promise to give Abraham a worldwide family.

So the promise that Paul is reflecting on in Romans 4 is the covenant promise of worldwide family.

sheina maidle
Nov 3rd 2008, 03:36 AM
I am now thinking that the correct position is basically this: God indeed made certain promises to national Israel, including the promise that they would get the land of Palestine. But these were temporary promises in the purposes of God. Israel's key role in the purposes of God indeed came to its fulfillment on the cross. From the cross forward, there is absolutely zero distinction between Jew and Gentile - there are no promises "still on the table" for national Israel.
None of the covenants God made with the nation of Israel were temporary. Both the Abrahamic Covenant and the Davidic Covenant are everlasting covenants which God made with the nation of Israel:

Genesis 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
Genesis 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

Genesis 48:4 And said unto me, Behold, I will make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, and I will make of thee a multitude of people; and will give this land to thy seed after thee for an everlasting possession.

1 Chronicles 16:13 O ye seed of Israel his servant, ye children of Jacob, his chosen ones.
1 Chronicles 16:14 He is the LORD our God; his judgments are in all the earth.
1 Chronicles 16:15 Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations;
1 Chronicles 16:16 Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac;
1 Chronicles 16:17 And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant,

Psalms 105:5 Remember his marvellous works that he hath done; his wonders, and the judgments of his mouth;
Psalms 105:6 O ye seed of Abraham his servant, ye children of Jacob his chosen.
Psalms 105:7 He is the LORD our God: his judgments are in all the earth.
Psalms 105:8 He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations.
Psalms 105:9 Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac;
Psalms 105:10 And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant:

2 Samuel 7:12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
2 Samuel 7:13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
2 Samuel 7:14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
2 Samuel 7:15 But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.
2 Samuel 7:16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever. (Davidic Covenant)

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

God was speaking to the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The Abrahamic and Davidic covenants have absolutely nothing to do with the Church. Everlasting does not mean temporary. For ever also does not mean temporary.

In the Body of Christ/Church there is no distinction. However, there is a distinction between the Church and national Israel. God's purpose for Israel did not end at the cross.

sheina maidle
Nov 3rd 2008, 03:43 AM
As per my previous post, I do not agree with either of these statements. In the last post, I argued from Genesis 15, which Paul quotes in Romans 4. In the present post, I will argue from a different part of Romans 4 which quotes both Genesis 15 and 17 - both covenant initiation chapters. It will be seen that Paul is clearly alluding to specific elements of the promises of the Abrahamic covenant, and not making an allusion to a promise about "justification by faith":

Here is the chunk of Romans 4 text in which Genesis 15 and 17 is quoted from:

16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations." {***reference to Genesis 17:5} He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.
18Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, "So shall your offspring be." {***Reference to Genesis 15:5}

It really could not be more clear. In verse 16 we have the promise. In verse 17, Paul tells us what the promise is. Is it "justification by faith"? No. It is a promise that Abraham will be made the father of many nations - a covenant promise made in Genesis 17:5. In verse 18, Paul again alludes to a covenant promises of Genesis 15:5.

Then Paul writes this in Romans 4:

19Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah's womb was also dead. 20Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised.

Again, it is clear that Paul is talking about the promise of a family, not that he would be "justified by faith". Of what possible relevance is Abrahams age and Sarah's barrenness to a promise of "justification by faith"? None, of course. But Abraham's age and Sarah's barrenness are precisely the relevant issues if Paul is reflecting on a covenantal promise to give Abraham a worldwide family.

So the promise that Paul is reflecting on in Romans 4 is the covenant promise of worldwide family.
I continue to disagree with your interpretation of Romans 4...therefore to continue to try and convince me of this interpretation is fruitless.

Lamplighter
Nov 3rd 2008, 04:27 AM
.
1 Chronicles 16:17 And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant,

Psalms 105:10 And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant:


But for those who think that Israel now means the Bride of Christ as a replacement, these verses won't effect their opinions.

Every time they read the word Israel, they replace it with the Church in their minds.

It makes no logical sense, but they do it anyway. Israel is not the same word as Church, Saints, or bride of Christ in either the Hebrew or Greek manuscripts.

Israel is always Israel, and there are no replacement words for Israel in the Hebrew or Greek manuscripts to represent the Church, the Bride, or the Saints.

drew
Nov 3rd 2008, 04:31 AM
.None of the covenants God made with the nation of Israel were temporary. Both the Abrahamic Covenant and the Davidic Covenant are everlasting covenants which God made with the nation of Israel:

Genesis 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
Genesis 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
I agree that these statements appear to constitute an eternal promise of Canaan to national Israel. But, unless we are going to toss Paul out the window, we are forced to the realization that this simply is not so.

Note what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 1:

For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ.

This statement alone forces us to reconsider the meaning of the covenant promises. Paul here states that, mysteriously, all of God's promises have been strangely and unpredictably fulfilled in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. For Paul, the destiny and role of Israel has passed to her faithful Messiah - Jesus. And so too, have her covenant promises.

Jesus is the true recipient of the "real" covenant promises. Remember - I have acknowledged that there was a "temporary" promise of land to national Israel.

Paul does not write "no matter matter how many promises God has made, they are 'Yes' in Christ, except for the one about the land - that promise in not fulfilled in Christ"

I would also add that a scriptural case can be made for the use of the word "forever" to not actually denote forever. There are a number of cases where the word "forever" is used where we know that the intent of the author was to denote a limited time interval.

We need to look at the entire corpus of Scripture. And when we do this, I think the case is overwhelming - the promises made to Israel have all been fulfilled for the single man Jesus. This is a central theme of Paul as he tries to make sense of the whole Scriptural story.

Israel expected to be vindicated in front of her enemies - Jesus is vindicated in front of the "principalities and powers".

Israel expected to get a land forever - Jesus is resurrected as the agent of new creation of the entire world.

Israel expected to experience return from exile - Jesus is rescued from exile into death.

Paul thinks big picture. In Romans 3 he points out how the Jews have been faithless in keeping their side of a covenant, which really had at its heart the purpose of saving the entire world. So does God abandon his covenant and look for a new way to rescue the world?

No he does not, He finds a faithful Israelite to fulfill it - Jesus. And as the faithful Israelite, Jesus becomes the heir of the covenant promises. This is why Paul says that "all the promises that God has made are 'yes' in Christ.

And over and above all these considerations, it is exceedingly difficult to reconcile the following statements from Paul with the notion that the Jews have some kind of special status - that there are promises still on the table that are for them alone:

26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

sheina maidle
Nov 3rd 2008, 04:39 AM
But for those who think that Israel now means the Bride of Christ as a replacement, these verses won't effect their opinions.

Every time they read the word Israel, they replace it with the Church in their minds.

It makes no logical sense, but they do it anyway. Israel is not the same word as Church, Saints, or bride of Christ in either the Hebrew or Greek manuscripts.

Israel is always Israel, and there are no replacement words for Israel in the Hebrew or Greek manuscripts to represent the Church, the Bride, or the Saints.
I agree!!! Those verses are a confirmation that God is not finished with Israel, and that God will keep His covenants (which are not temporary) to the nation of Israel because He is a covenant-keeping God. If God did not keep His covenants to the nation of Israel, how can we believe that He will keep His promises to the Church?

Lamplighter
Nov 3rd 2008, 04:43 AM
Replacement theology in not biblical because the apostle Paul says: ‘’As concerning the Gospel, they are enemies for your sakes; but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father’s sakes. For the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance’ (Romans 11:28,29). Here Paul states: Notwithstanding the fact that the Jewish people as a whole did not (yet) accept Jesus as Messiah, they remained beloved by God. For the ‘father’s sake’. That means that the promises and the covenants with the ‘fathers’ (like Abraham) are still valid for Israel. God has given many gifts and promises to Israel and HE sticks to His holy Word. God once called Israel and HE never canceled His call. Israel was and is and will be the servant of the Holy God.

It is clear that the covenants with Abraham, Moses and David concern Israel in the very first place. But what about the New Covenant? Let us turn to the Bible. In Rom 9:4-5 Paul speaks about his Jewish brothers who do not believe in Jesus, the Messiah. He says of them: They ‘are Israelites, to whom pertaines (belong) the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants,and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises. Whose are the fathers, as of whom as concerning the the flesh Christ came, Who is over all, God blessed for ever, Amen’. So not only the ‘law’ and the promises, but also the covenants still belong to Israel. This is why we read: ‘Behold, the days come says the LORD that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah’ (Heb 8:8). So, for whom is the New Covenant? For Israel and Judah. For the Jewish people. For whom are the covenants, mind the plural ‘covenants’ Old and New Covenant (Old and New Testament)? For the people of Israel. Immediately a lot of questions are coming up.

sheina maidle
Nov 3rd 2008, 04:43 AM
I agree that these statements appear to constitute an eternal promise of Canaan to national Israel. But, unless we are going to toss Paul out the window, we are forced to the realization that this simply is not so.

Note what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 1:

For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ.

This statement alone forces us to reconsider the meaning of the covenant promises. Paul here states that, mysteriously, all of God's promises have been strangely and unpredictably fulfilled in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. For Paul, the destiny and role of Israel has passed to her faithful Messiah - Jesus. And so too, have her covenant promises.

Jesus is the true recipient of the "real" covenant promises. Remember - I have acknowledged that there was a "temporary" promise of land to national Israel.

Paul does not write "no matter matter how many promises God has made, they are 'Yes' in Christ, except for the one about the land - that promise in not fulfilled in Christ"

I would also add that a scriptural case can be made for the use of the word "forever" to not actually denote forever. There are a number of cases where the word "forever" is used where we know that the intent of the author was to denote a limited time interval.

We need to look at the entire corpus of Scripture. And when we do this, I think the case is overwhelming - the promises made to Israel have all been fulfilled for the single man Jesus. This is a central theme of Paul as he tries to make sense of the whole Scriptural story.

Israel expected to be vindicated in front of her enemies - Jesus is vindicated in front of the "principalities and powers".

Israel expected to get a land forever - Jesus is resurrected as the agent of new creation of the entire world.

Israel expected to experience return from exile - Jesus is rescued from exile into death.

Paul thinks big picture. In Romans 3 he points out how the Jews have been faithless in keeping their side of a covenant, which really had at its heart the purpose of saving the entire world. So does God abandon his covenant and look for a new way to rescue the world?

No he does not, He finds a faithful Israelite to fulfill it - Jesus. And as the faithful Israelite, Jesus becomes the heir of the covenant promises. This is why Paul says that "all the promises that God has made are 'yes' in Christ.

And over and above all these considerations, it is exceedingly difficult to reconcile the following statements from Paul with the notion that the Jews have some kind of special status - that there are promises still on the table that are for them alone:

26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Does "eternal/everlasting" mean temporary? Paul did not contradict the Old Testament...it is simply your interpretation of what Paul wrote. This discussion is going nowhere.

drew
Nov 3rd 2008, 04:53 AM
I agree!!! Those verses are a confirmation that God is not finished with Israel, and that God will keep His covenants (which are not temporary) to the nation of Israel because He is a covenant-keeping God. If God did not keep His covenants to the nation of Israel, how can we believe that He will keep His promises to the Church?
But we know from this statement of Paul that the covenant promises have indeed been fulfilled in the work of Christ:

For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ.

And we know that there is no sense in which the Jew has special status in the post-resurrection world:

26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

We need to take Paul seriously here. You are not engaging these texts. You need to do something with them. For my part, I have not simply ignored texts which challenge my position. I have pointed out that the word "forever" need not literally mean forever in Scriptural usage. Consider this:

Edom's streams will be turned into pitch,
her dust into burning sulfur;
her land will become blazing pitch!
10 It will not be quenched night and day;
its smoke will rise forever.
From generation to generation it will lie desolate;
no one will ever pass through it again.

This prophecy against Edom has already been fulfilled. Is Edom still smoking? No. Therefore we conclude that, in this instance "forever" does not means forever.

drew
Nov 3rd 2008, 05:01 AM
It is clear that the covenants with Abraham, Moses and David concern Israel in the very first place.
Let the reader decide:

In the following, is Paul not talking about the promises set forth in the covenant initiation chapters of Genesis 15 and 17? Paul quotes three times from these very chapters in Romans 4.

Is Paul not saying that it is in some role other than the father of Israel that these promises are made?

10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
13It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world,

Verse 13 makes the case all by itself: It is not by being under the Torah (the law) - the national charter of the Jews - that Paul received the covenant promise about being heir of the world. Instead, and here I will invoke the context of the preceding verses, it is in his role as the father of a Jew + Gentile family that Abraham received this promise.

sheina maidle
Nov 3rd 2008, 05:08 AM
But we know from this statement of Paul that the covenant promises have indeed been fulfilled in the work of Christ:

For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ.

And we know that there is no sense in which the Jew has special status in the post-resurrection world:

26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

We need to take Paul seriously here. You are not engaging these texts. You need to do something with them. For my part, I have not simply ignored texts which challenge my position. I have pointed out that the word "forever" need not literally mean forever in Scriptural usage. Consider this:

Edom's streams will be turned into pitch,
her dust into burning sulfur;
her land will become blazing pitch!
10 It will not be quenched night and day;
its smoke will rise forever.
From generation to generation it will lie desolate;
no one will ever pass through it again.

This prophecy against Edom has already been fulfilled. Is Edom still smoking? No. Therefore we conclude that, in this instance "forever" does not means forever.
Galatians 3:26-29 speak of the Body of Christ/the Church...NOT the nation of Israel. Paul wrote Galatians and all his other epistles to the CHURCHES, not to the nation of Israel!

Since you gave no Scripture reference for the prophecy of Edom, I will have to look it up for myself.

sheina maidle
Nov 3rd 2008, 05:32 AM
Isaiah 34:8 For it is the day of the LORD'S vengeance, and the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion.
Isaiah 34:9 And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch.
Isaiah 34:10 It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever.

This prophecy has not been fulfilled. It will happen during the Great Tribulation...and the smoke from the burning pitch will never be quenched. Therefore, forever means forever.

Emanate
Nov 3rd 2008, 03:05 PM
Galatians 3:26-29 speak of the Body of Christ/the Church...NOT the nation of Israel. Paul wrote Galatians and all his other epistles to the CHURCHES, not to the nation of Israel!

Since you gave no Scripture reference for the prophecy of Edom, I will have to look it up for myself.


Israel has always been "the church"

Firstfruits
Nov 3rd 2008, 03:33 PM
Galatians 3:26-29 speak of the Body of Christ/the Church...NOT the nation of Israel. Paul wrote Galatians and all his other epistles to the CHURCHES, not to the nation of Israel!

Since you gave no Scripture reference for the prophecy of Edom, I will have to look it up for myself.

What is the difference of assemblies in the following, if any knowing that those mentioned are of God and worship God?

Ps 89:7 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=19&CHAP=89&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=7) God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him.

Ps 107:32 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=19&CHAP=107&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=32) Let them exalt him also in the congregation of the people, and praise him in the assembly of the elders.

Ps 111:1 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=19&CHAP=111&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=1) Praise ye the LORD. I will praise the LORD with my whole heart, in the assembly of the upright, and in the congregation.

Heb 12:23 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=12&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=23) To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

Jas 2:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=59&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;

Is the assembly of God not made up of all that believe and are born again?

Is the church not that assembly?

Acts 7:38 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=7&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=38) This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

Is Christ divided that all that call upon his name and assemble together would not be one church/assembly?

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Richard H
Nov 3rd 2008, 03:39 PM
Israel has always been "the church"Hi Emanate, :)
I know you are a man of understanding, but I'm curious about when "the church" began.

drew
Nov 3rd 2008, 03:44 PM
Isaiah 34:8 For it is the day of the LORD'S vengeance, and the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion.
Isaiah 34:9 And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch.
Isaiah 34:10 It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever.

This prophecy has not been fulfilled.
I do not believe that most historians are with you on this. From teh wikipedia article on Edom:

Judas Maccabeus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_Maccabeus) conquered their territory for a time in around 163 BC.[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edom#cite_note-41) They were again subdued by John Hyrcanus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hyrcanus) (c. 125 BC), who forced them to observe Jewish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish)rites and laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halakha).[43] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edom#cite_note-42) They were then incorporated with the Jewish nation.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edom#cite_note-JEnc-13)The Hasmonean official Antipater the Idumaean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipater_the_Idumaean) was of Edomite origin. He was the progenitor of the Herodian Dynasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodian_Dynasty) that ruled Judea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea) after the Roman conquest. Under Herod the Great (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great) Idumaea was ruled for him by a series of governors, among whom were his brother Joseph ben Antipater (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_ben_Antipater&action=edit&redlink=1) and his brother-in-law Costobarus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costobarus).
Immediately before the siege of Jerusalem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem) by Titus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus), 20,000 Idumaeans, under the leadership of John, Simeon, Phinehas, and Jacob, appeared before Jerusalem to fight in behalf of the Zealots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealots) who were besieged in the Temple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Jerusalem).[44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edom#cite_note-43)
After the Jewish Wars the Idumaean people are no longer mentioned in history, though the geographical region of "Idumea" is still referred to at the time of St. Jerome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Jerome).

Isaiah is doing something very typically Jewish. In Isaiah 34, he uses apocalyptic "end of the world" language to describe much more earthly events. So this establishes a precedent that we need to be careful when we read words like "forever" in the scriptures.

Firstfruits
Nov 3rd 2008, 03:54 PM
Hi Emanate, :)
I know you are a man of understanding, but I'm curious about when "the church" began.

With understanding from what Paul has said the church is the assembly of Gods people.

Acts 7:38 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=7&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=38) This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

The church is Gods people.

Firstfruits

drew
Nov 3rd 2008, 04:02 PM
The promise mentioned in verse 13 is not found anywhere in the Old Testament in these exact words. Nowhere in the O.T. does God say, "Abraham, you will be heir of the world." There is no such verse.
The fact that Paul uses different wording does not change the fact that the evidence from Romans 4 leaves us no choice - we are forced to conclude that when Paul refers to the "promise" made to Abraham, he is referring to the covenant promises of Genesis 15 and 17.

13It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith

We can see from the following text, and the references that Paul makes to Genesis texts, that Paul is indeed referring to the covenant promises: Here is what Paul says next:

14For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations."

And. of course, verse 17 is a reference to what is clearly a covenantal promise.

1. In verse 13, Paul says that a certain "promise" is received by faith;
2. In verses 14 and 15, more things are said about this same promise;
3. In verse 16, Paul is clearly on the same topic - he is talking about the promise
4. In verse 17, Paul makes it indisputable - this promise is the Genesis 17 promise of being the father of many nations.

So there is a clean unbroken line from the "promise" of verse 13 to an exact quoting of a Genesis 17 covenant promise.

Paul would have to be the most schizophrenic of writers to be talking about a different promise in verse 13 from the obviously covenantal promise of verse 17.

Notice the "therefore" of verse 16. This clearly connects the verse 17 material to the verse 13 material. No one would say things about promise A, then give a "therefore", and then make a statement about an entirely different promise.

Besides, it is really easy to see how a promise that Abraham will become the "father of nations" is the same promise as a promise that he will become "heir of the world". How misleading and confusing a writer would Paul have to be to mean different things by these 2 statements, especially given the tight narrative stucture of the verse 13 to 17 block.

Richard H
Nov 3rd 2008, 04:27 PM
With understanding from what Paul has said the church is the assembly of Gods people.

Acts 7:38 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=7&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=38) This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

The church is Gods people.

FirstfruitsHi FirstFruits, :)
Your knowlege of Scripture never ceases to amaze me.

Firstfruits
Nov 3rd 2008, 04:38 PM
Hi FirstFruits, :)
Your knowlege of Scripture never ceases to amaze me.

Thanks Richard,

I try to apply the following scripture to what I do or say. I believe it helps.

1 Pet 3:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=60&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Emanate
Nov 3rd 2008, 04:42 PM
Hi Emanate, :)
I know you are a man of understanding, but I'm curious about when "the church" began.


The Church began in the wilderness, upon leaving Egypt as Firstfruits stated.

Richard H
Nov 3rd 2008, 05:40 PM
The Church began in the wilderness, upon leaving Egypt as Firstfruits stated.I think it's wise to occasionally define things, so we are all on the same page. Thanks. :)

sheina maidle
Nov 3rd 2008, 06:22 PM
The Church began in the wilderness, upon leaving Egypt as Firstfruits stated.
THE MEANING OF "CHURCH. " Ekklesia means a lawful, organized assembly. It is used in three ways in the N.T:

(1) Israel in the wilderness (Acts 7:38).

(2) A political assembly (Acts 19:32-41).

(3) Christ's assembly (Matthew 16:18).

Of the 115 N.T. references to the "church," 111 refer to Christ's assembly.

The word "church" is not used in the Old Testament. The Church/Body of Christ began a Pentecost. The Jews never called their "assembly" a church. The first time the word "church" is used in the New Testament is in Matthew 16:18...and it is used there in the future tense: "I will build my Church".

The "church"/"ekklesia" in Acts 7:38 was simply a "lawful, organized assembly". Stephen was not referring to the Body of Christ here.

The word "assembly" in the Old Testament is:

Strong's Hebrew Dictionary
6951. qahal
qahal kaw-hawl'

from 6950; assemblage (usually concretely):--assembly, company, congregation, multitude.

Exodus 16:3 And the children of Israel said unto them, Would to God we had died by the hand of the LORD in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the flesh pots, and when we did eat bread to the full; for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger.

David Taylor
Nov 3rd 2008, 06:57 PM
The word "church" is not used in the Old Testament. The Church/Body of Christ began a Pentecost. The Jews never called their "assembly" a church. The first time the word "church" is used in the New Testament is in Matthew 16:18...and it is used there in the future tense: "I will build my Church".

The "church"/"ekklesia" in Acts 7:38 was simply a "lawful, organized assembly".

Ekklesia is a greek word; of course you won't find it used in a Hebrew O.T.

However, the word Ekklesia is used throughout the Greek Septuagint (LXX) which was written nearly 300 years before Stephen's sermon in Acts 7.

The Ekklesia wasn't an unknown term whatsoever to the O.T. faithful members of the church nor the Greek O.T. writers; for it was written about all thoughout it's pages; wherever faithful followers of the Lord gathered together to serve Him.



Hebrews 2:12 "Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the (Ekklesia) will I sing praise unto thee."

quoted Psalms:

Psalms 22:22 "I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the (Ekklesia) will I praise thee."

One Body of Believers, spanning the church of all ages.

Ephesians 3:21 "Unto him be glory in the (Ekklesia) by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen."


Many faithful of Israel were members of the O.T. Church that followed and trusted in the true Lord God....what Acts brought us was a new growth-period, to reach out and grow the church to extent to all the nations of the Earth.

Acts 2:41 "..there were added unto them.."
Acts 2:47 "..the Lord added to the church daily.."
Acts 5:14 "..And believers were the more added.."
Acts 11:24 "..and much people was added unto the Lord.."

Emanate
Nov 3rd 2008, 07:08 PM
THE MEANING OF "CHURCH. " Ekklesia means a lawful, organized assembly. It is used in three ways in the N.T:

(1) Israel in the wilderness (Acts 7:38).

(2) A political assembly (Acts 19:32-41).

(3) Christ's assembly (Matthew 16:18).

Of the 115 N.T. references to the "church," 111 refer to Christ's assembly.

The word "church" is not used in the Old Testament. The Church/Body of Christ began a Pentecost. The Jews never called their "assembly" a church. The first time the word "church" is used in the New Testament is in Matthew 16:18...and it is used there in the future tense: "I will build my Church".

The "church"/"ekklesia" in Acts 7:38 was simply a "lawful, organized assembly". Stephen was not referring to the Body of Christ here.

The word "assembly" in the Old Testament is:

Strong's Hebrew Dictionary
6951. qahal
qahal kaw-hawl'

from 6950; assemblage (usually concretely):--assembly, company, congregation, multitude.

Exodus 16:3 And the children of Israel said unto them, Would to God we had died by the hand of the LORD in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the flesh pots, and when we did eat bread to the full; for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger.


As I previously posted, Ekklesia is used to translate Kahal in the Septuagaint. There are not two aeemblies of YHWH, not two Churches, not two seperate people of God. There is only one Kahal/Ekklesia/Church throughout the entirety of Scripture.

sheina maidle
Nov 3rd 2008, 07:08 PM
There was no Body of Christ in the Old Testament. The Body of Christ began at Pentecost...not before. The Israelites were called an assembly/congregation in the Old Testament. I don't use the Greek Septuagint...I use the Hebrew Masoretic text. Being raised Jewish, the word "church" was pagan....and it still is in the Messianic movement (of which I am no longer a part).

Emanate
Nov 3rd 2008, 07:14 PM
There was no Body of Christ in the Old Testament. The Body of Christ began at Pentecost...not before. The Israelites were called an assembly/congregation in the Old Testament. I don't use the Greek Septuagint...I use the Hebrew Masoretic text. Being raised Jewish, the word "church" was pagan....and it still is in the Messianic movement (of which I am no longer a part).


Ekklesia does not mean "body of Christ." In Rabbinic Judaism, "Messianic Judaism" is no less pagan than "church." I doubt you truly have a copy of the NT in Hebrew Masoretic. So we line up the Greek NT with its Greek predecessor, the Septuagint, (as all NT translators have done) to look for correlations in the Greek language.

sheina maidle
Nov 3rd 2008, 07:23 PM
As I previously posted, Ekklesia is used to translate Kahal in the Septuagaint. There are not two aeemblies of YHWH, not two Churches, not two seperate people of God. There is only one Kahal/Ekklesia/Church throughout the entirety of Scripture.
I never said that there were two Churches. All I said is that the "assembly" in the wilderness was not the Body of Christ/the Church. The Body of Christ/the Church is not the same as Israel...nor is it an extension of Israel. The Church began at Pentecost. (Acts 2:1-11). 3,000 were added to the Church that was formed and empowered at Pentecost. Acts 2:41 follows Acts 2:1-11.

Emanate
Nov 3rd 2008, 07:28 PM
I never said that there were two Churches. All I said is that the "assembly" in the wilderness was not the Body of Christ/the Church. The Body of Christ/the Church is not the same as Israel...nor is it an extension of Israel. The Church began at Pentecost. (Acts 2:1-11). 3,000 were added to the Church that was formed and empowered at Pentecost. Acts 2:41 follows Acts 2:1-11.


The Church did began at Pentecost. The first pentecost at Sinai. That is why 3,000 were added at Shavuot in the book of Acts.

sheina maidle
Nov 3rd 2008, 07:41 PM
The Church did began at Pentecost. The first pentecost at Sinai. That is why 3,000 were added at Shavuot in the book of Acts.
What does Matthew 16:18 mean?

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

How do you get the word "continue" out of the word "build"? If the church was already existing in the wilderness, why did Jesus say "I will build", which indicates a future event? What Jesus said, was that He would build His church on the truth Peter spoke. What truth was that? The truth was that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God. Jesus said He would build on that Truth.

On the day of Pentecost, Peter preached to all in the Upper Room what he had affirmed in the presence of Jesus Christ and the Apostles (Matthew 16:18). He preached Christ, the Son of the Living God. And Jesus did indeed build His church upon that Truth.

Emanate
Nov 3rd 2008, 07:52 PM
What does Matthew 16:18 mean?

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

How do you get the word "continue" out of the word "build"? If the church was already existing in the wilderness, why did Jesus say "I will build", which indicates a future event? What Jesus said, was that He would build His church on the truth Peter spoke. What truth was that? The truth was that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God. Jesus said He would build on that Truth.

On the day of Pentecost, Peter preached to all in the Upper Room what he had affirmed in the presence of Jesus Christ and the Apostles (Matthew 16:18). He preached Christ, the Son of the Living God. And Jesus did indeed build His church upon that Truth.


Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build (οἰκοδομέω) my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

οἰκοδομέω - to build, restore, repair or to edify.

sheina maidle
Nov 3rd 2008, 09:08 PM
Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

The Apostle Peter is speaking of the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2)as "the beginning".

David Taylor
Nov 3rd 2008, 09:33 PM
What does Matthew 16:18 mean?

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

How do you get the word "continue" out of the word "build"? If the church was already existing in the wilderness, why did Jesus say "I will build", which indicates a future event?

Because he was going to take something small (the OT church) and build it into a great and giant church that would grow to include people from all nations, tribes, and tongues; first the Jew, then later to include the Gentile.

That is exactly what He did; on the same faith that Peter had, of which before Him Abraham had, and which all followers of the Lord God have.

Emanate
Nov 3rd 2008, 09:51 PM
Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

The Apostle Peter is speaking of the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2)as "the beginning".


Amen, Y'shus did bring the beginning of the Restoration as was never seen before.

sheina maidle
Nov 3rd 2008, 11:13 PM
Because he was going to take something small (the OT church) and build it into a great and giant church that would grow to include people from all nations, tribes, and tongues; first the Jew, then later to include the Gentile.

That is exactly what He did; on the same faith that Peter had, of which before Him Abraham had, and which all followers of the Lord God have.
There was no church/Body of Christ in the Old Testament. The Church was an unrevealed mystery in the Old Testament (Ephesians 3:1-21)

David Taylor
Nov 4th 2008, 03:15 AM
There was no church/Body of Christ in the Old Testament. The Church was an unrevealed mystery in the Old Testament (Ephesians 3:1-21)

There most certainty was the church/Body of Christ in the Old Testament. The latter building of the OT church to include the Gentiles was the mystery.

Eph3,1-21's Context of "Mystery" in OT times, was summarized by Paul as being: "3:4 the mystery of Christ Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise"

...showing the OT church would later grow to include the Gentiles.

"3:21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen. "

John146
Nov 4th 2008, 03:32 AM
God was speaking to the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The Abrahamic and Davidic covenants have absolutely nothing to do with the Church. Everlasting does not mean temporary. For ever also does not mean temporary.

In the Body of Christ/Church there is no distinction. However, there is a distinction between the Church and national Israel. God's purpose for Israel did not end at the cross.You are simply mistaken in trying to say that the Abrahamic Covenant has nothing to do with the church.

Let scripture speak for itself:

Galatians 3
16Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Ephesians 2
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: 13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15Having 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;
16And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. 19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

Clearly, Gentile believers are included in the Abrahamic covenant. This is undeniable. There is no separation between Jews and Gentiles, but Christ made both one new man in Himself.

John146
Nov 4th 2008, 03:37 AM
There was no church/Body of Christ in the Old Testament. The Church was an unrevealed mystery in the Old Testament (Ephesians 3:1-21)Not true.

1 Cor 10
1Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Lamplighter
Nov 4th 2008, 04:36 AM
Clearly, Gentile believers are included in the Abrahamic covenant. This is undeniable. There is no separation between Jews and Gentiles, but Christ made both one new man in Himself.

True.

But the Nation of Israel is still not the Church. In the Bible we find the Church is not Israel the nation, but a separate entity under an entirely new covenant. Israel is called the wife of Jehovah, while the Church is called the bride of Christ, showing distinctions in how God relates to each. The word Israel is always descriptive of the physical descendants of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. It was Jacob who’s name was changed to Israel and had 12 sons that became that nation.
Many transfer the promises and the covenants to Israel to the Church, but there is absolutely no reason to do this. The Church is not spiritual Israel. Look it up you’ll never find the term or concept in the Bible.

The name Israel is used 20 times and the church 19 times in the book of Acts, both are kept distinct While there is no difference in salvation for both, Gods plans are different for each. In the book of Acts Israel and the church exist alongside each other, nowhere is the church called the new or spiritual Israel.There are certain areas the differences of Jew and gentile are erased but in all areas.Such as we becoming one in Christ all the same way 1 Cor.12:13 , according to the NT a Jew is one that is not only outwardly by the flesh but inwardly,this obviously can't be for a gentile so for a gentile. there is no such thing as a spiritual Jew from the inside only, but there is such a thing as spiritual gentiles.
If you claim to be Israel then you were cut off according to Romans.11. And where the natural branch once was, God grafted in unnatural ones the Gentiles. It doesn't get any clearer. The teaching of God abandoning Israel the nation or replaced by the Church did quite well for almost 1,500 hundred years until he actually gave them back their land AND STARTED TO REGATHER THEM FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD JUST AS HE SAID HE WOULD. God said in Neh. 1:8 if you are unfaithful I will scatter you.' but he also said...
Jer.30:18, 31:8 "Behold I will bring them from the north country and gather them from the ends of the earth."
Isa.43:5 I will bring your descendants from the east and gather you from the west...
It is a nation that is being gathered today for the tribulation, they are gathered first in unbelief until that fateful day where in Romans 11 Paul says they will all be saved after the fullness of the gentiles has come in. The Church is dealt with differently than the nation of Israel, God has a different plan for both.