PDA

View Full Version : Replacement Theology



ZAB
Aug 5th 2009, 04:20 AM
What are your thoughts on replacement theology? I'm not exactly sure of all the "ins and outs" of this doctrine, but I am interested to hear.


Z.

David Taylor
Aug 5th 2009, 04:30 AM
There is no such doctrine.

It is a pejorative term that a very small minority of dispensationalists
use to assail non-dispensationalists.

I've been a member on this board for nearly 5 years and never seen anyone here posting infavor of replacement theology....it is always brought up by dispensationalists as a red herring against an evil invisible foe.

Non-dispensationalists here reject replacement theology just as much as our resident dispensationalists.

sparrow hawk
Aug 5th 2009, 04:59 AM
There is no such doctrine.


Yes there is, it's called successionism. And it has been taught by a great many teachers which I respect very much, although I don't agree with them on this subject. Some of my favorite teachers and apologists teach successionism, D. James Kennedy, Hank Hannegraaff, and R.C. Sproul Jr. for example. However, I don't agree with them when it comes to their replacement theology teachings.

They teach that the Church is the New Israel, a continuation of the concept of Israel from the Old Testament. This view teaches that the Church is the replacement for Israel and that the many promises made to Israel in the Bible are fulfilled in the Christian Church, not in biblical, literal, Israel. So, the prophecies in Scripture concerning the blessing and restoration of Israel to the Land of Promise are "spiritualized" into promises of God's blessing for the Church. The prophecies of condemnation and judgment, however, still remain for national Israel and the Jewish people. This view has been called Replacement Theology because the Church replaces Israel in the program of God. Major problems exist with this view, such as the continuing existence of the Jewish people throughout the centuries and especially with the revival of the modern state of Israel. If Israel has been condemned by God, there being no future for the Jewish nation, how do we account for the supernatural survival of the Jewish people, Israel's rebirth among the gentile nations, victories in major wars with the Arabs and a flourishing modern democratic Jewish state?

How did the thinking in the Church change toward Israel? Slowly, the Gentile majority in the Church began to view Israel as a relic of the past. With spiritual competition between the two groups, we can see why the Church adopted the view that it was the new Israel. The view of the Church was that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD was brought about divinely, that God had ordained the end of Jewish unbelieving Israel. Since Jerusalem was in ruins and the Jewish people were scattered throughout the world, it seemed evident that God was finished with national Israel. Theologians now proposed that Israel in the Scriptures did not really mean literal Israel, instead, it meant the Church. The Church now became the new Israel and through this spiritualization, wherever blessings are spoken of to Israel in the Old Testament, it was interpreted to mean the Church. In essence they simply replaced Israel with the Church. Replacement Theology become the position of the Church during the time of Augustine (A.D. 354-430), who popularized it in his book The City of God.

Sirus
Aug 5th 2009, 05:09 AM
Really....there are professed believers that reject the restoration of the twelve tribes of Israel spiritually (inserting christians) and physically in the land God gave them.

Naphal
Aug 5th 2009, 07:03 AM
There is no such doctrine.

I also disagree. Not only is there such a doctrine, there is a biblical FACT that proves the original Jews were replaced as God's wife by Christians who are now wedded to Christ. Jesus Christ is the difference.

David Taylor
Aug 5th 2009, 12:43 PM
Peter said Israel wasn't nor ever would be replaced.


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 baptized every 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.





Paul said believing Gentiles are joined in together with believing Israel.

Romans 11:16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. 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;






Jesus ends racial divides

Galatians 3:25 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 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. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.


Ephesians 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord"






As you can see from the scriptures, no-one is replaced; only joined to.

wenlock
Aug 5th 2009, 01:49 PM
They teach that the Church is the New Israel, a continuation of the concept of Israel from the Old Testament. This view teaches that the Church is the replacement for Israel and that the many promises made to Israel in the Bible are fulfilled in the Christian Church, not in biblical, literal, Israel. So, the prophecies in Scripture concerning the blessing and restoration of Israel to the Land of Promise are "spiritualized" into promises of God's blessing for the Church. The prophecies of condemnation and judgment, however, still remain for national Israel and the Jewish people. This view has been called Replacement Theology because the Church replaces Israel in the program of God. Major problems exist with this view, such as the continuing existence of the Jewish people throughout the centuries and especially with the revival of the modern state of Israel. If Israel has been condemned by God, there being no future for the Jewish nation, how do we account for the supernatural survival of the Jewish people, Israel's rebirth among the gentile nations, victories in major wars with the Arabs and a flourishing modern democratic Jewish state?
God does not fit into human notions of reality. It's the other way around, and politicians must and will learn humility. The present state of Israel is nothing to do with God, any more than Albania or Zaire is. The very name of Israel is an awful misnomer. The present state arose from secular forces, through political agitation and manoeuvring, not a Joshua of any sort. 'Israel' today is a worldly state doing worldly things (and quite often in disobedience of natural law and conscience).

There is no such thing as a Jew unless he is a Christian. And if well over 2000 years of silence for 'the Jews' does not tell them something, and if the total destruction of everything of Moses, Joshua and David for most of that time does not tell them something, I don't know what can. One might surmise that the only reason to continue to be a 'Jew' is to oppose Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah; and, were the church to disappear, 'Judaism' would also.

God has not condemned Israel or anyone else. He holds out his arms for all, 'Jew', Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and most Westerners with their hypocritical veneer of Christianity. God has only two categories: saints, and non-saints, though Paul's view was that the promises made to Israel (Jacob) would eventually take effect. That's another subject, but Paul was crystal clear that the OT practices were but a shadow of what pertains in Christ. So the Promised Land, for which a passing piece of earthly surface was a model, is really eternal life in the eternal heavenly 'places'. In every respect, the model that was Israel has its counterpart, its reality, in the church. Incense represented prayer, sacrifice pre-figured the cross, manna, lamps, bread, you name it, all of it is fulfilled in Christ and his church.

One can play with a model train, or one can get on a real one. Those who wish to chase 'shadows', living in darkness, may do so, of course.

thepenitent
Aug 5th 2009, 02:27 PM
God does not fit into human notions of reality. It's the other way around, and politicians must and will learn humility. The present state of Israel is nothing to do with God, any more than Albania or Zaire is. The very name of Israel is an awful misnomer. The present state arose from secular forces, through political agitation and manoeuvring, not a Joshua of any sort. 'Israel' today is a worldly state doing worldly things (and quite often in disobedience of natural law and conscience).

There is no such thing as a Jew unless he is a Christian. And if well over 2000 years of silence for 'the Jews' does not tell them something, and if the total destruction of everything of Moses, Joshua and David for most of that time does not tell them something, I don't know what can. One might surmise that the only reason to continue to be a 'Jew' is to oppose Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah; and, were the church to disappear, 'Judaism' would also.

God has not condemned Israel or anyone else. He holds out his arms for all, 'Jew', Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and most Westerners with their hypocritical veneer of Christianity. God has only two categories: saints, and non-saints, though Paul's view was that the promises made to Israel (Jacob) would eventually take effect. That's another subject, but Paul was crystal clear that the OT practices were but a shadow of what pertains in Christ. So the Promised Land, for which a passing piece of earthly surface was a model, is really eternal life in the eternal heavenly 'places'. In every respect, the model that was Israel has its counterpart, its reality, in the church. Incense represented prayer, sacrifice pre-figured the cross, manna, lamps, bread, you name it, all of it is fulfilled in Christ and his church.

One can play with a model train, or one can get on a real one. Those who wish to chase 'shadows', living in darkness, may do so, of course.

Absolutely spot on! My term for this is "fulfillment theology" which I believe is a more accurate term for this very Biblical and correct analysis of what the NT teaches.

matthew94
Aug 5th 2009, 02:28 PM
David Taylor, I would imagine, is pointing out that basically nobody (or nobody) on this board believes that God has replaced Jews with Gentiles as the people of God. Often, as he pointed out, when the term 'replacement theology' is being utilized it is by dispensationalists trying to make non-dispensationalists sound anti-semitic.

There is little to no debate on this board or in the church that BOTH believing Jews AND believing Gentiles are, today, what make up the people of God. There is some debate as to whether the Jewish people, as a distinct group, will convert to Christ at the end of the age. But denying such a mass & last-second conversion is not really well described as 'replacement theology,' since Jews are welcome into the Kingdom of God at all times on the exact same terms as everyone else.

wenlock
Aug 5th 2009, 02:43 PM
Absolutely spot on! My term for this is "fulfillment theology" which I believe is a more accurate term for this very Biblical and correct analysis of what the NT teaches.
'Fulfillment' is much better, thanks.

David Taylor
Aug 5th 2009, 02:53 PM
'Fulfillment' is much better, thanks.

I've also heard the terms: "Completion Theology" and "Adoption Theology"....both better denote the concept.

"Replacement" is just a slur that doesn't accurate describe anything.

Beckrl
Aug 5th 2009, 06:56 PM
Rev.21:
12And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:

Yeah, Replacement Theology, when I get to the new Jerusalem i'm going to replace their names with mind. :D

Beck

BroRog
Aug 5th 2009, 07:36 PM
David Taylor, I would imagine, is pointing out that basically nobody (or nobody) on this board believes that God has replaced Jews with Gentiles as the people of God. Often, as he pointed out, when the term 'replacement theology' is being utilized it is by dispensationalists trying to make non-dispensationalists sound anti-semitic.

There is little to no debate on this board or in the church that BOTH believing Jews AND believing Gentiles are, today, what make up the people of God. There is some debate as to whether the Jewish people, as a distinct group, will convert to Christ at the end of the age. But denying such a mass & last-second conversion is not really well described as 'replacement theology,' since Jews are welcome into the Kingdom of God at all times on the exact same terms as everyone else.

Matthew, I was told that Replacement Theology was a forbidden subject on this board and that no debate about this subject would be allowed. Was I mistaken?

Naphal
Aug 5th 2009, 08:26 PM
Peter said Israel wasn't nor ever would be replaced.

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 baptized every 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.


It surely doesn't say no one won't be replaced. The important part of those verses is "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins"

which a majority of Jews refuse to do. And there is a consequence for those Jews that refuse Christ which you quoted:







Romans 11:16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. 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;

"if some of the branches be broken off"

Why would some be broken off?


Romans 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
Romans 11:21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

The natural branchjes are Jews but unbelief will cause God to brake them off of Israel, not sparing them.

So we have an Israel that believes in Christ, with gentile believers being graffed in and unbelieving Jews being cast away. Now, "replacement theology" is a name created by those that opose the concept spoken of in Romans 11 but be it that name or any number of other terms, there is a braking off and casting off from thje tree of Israel along with a graffing onto that same tree of believing gentiles. Technically there is no replacing, just adding and removing of the good and bad.

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

Without Christ you are a gentile in God's eyes. "those who are of the flesh, these are not the children of God" as Paul teaches.



Jesus ends racial divides

Indeed!





As you can see from the scriptures, no-one is replaced; only joined to.

As I said above: Technically there is no replacing, just adding and removing of the good and bad.

John146
Aug 5th 2009, 10:04 PM
I also disagree. Not only is there such a doctrine, there is a biblical FACT that proves the original Jews were replaced as God's wife by Christians who are now wedded to Christ. Jesus Christ is the difference.Nonsense. Gentile believers are grafted in with Jewish believers. No one is replaced. Some were broken off and some are grafted in, as it talks about in Romans 11. The ones grafted in do not replace the ones broken off. Even if none were broken off Gentile believers would still be grafted in so it has nothing to do with anyone being replaced.


Technically there is no replacing, just adding and removing of the good and bad.Okay, please make up your mind. Do you think anyone is replaced or not?

matthew94
Aug 5th 2009, 10:13 PM
Matthew, I was told that Replacement Theology was a forbidden subject on this board and that no debate about this subject would be allowed. Was I mistaken?

As far as I understand it, we are certainly free to debate whether or not there will be a future mass conversion of Jewish people at the end of the world.

What is probably off limits is the anti-semitic position that the Jews USED to be God's people, but now Gentiles are and Jews aren't allowed. But I doubt anyone on the board takes that position anyways.

In other words, the question of whether God has a particular and future plan for the Jewish people as a physical group is open for discussion, but any position that God is eternally against any physically Jewish person is banned, as it should be (since that is just anti-semitism)

Naphal
Aug 6th 2009, 02:14 AM
Gentile believers are grafted in with Jewish believers.

Absolutely but that's only half of the story. The other part is the breaking off of the unbelievers.



No one is replaced. Some were broken off and some are grafted in, as it talks about in Romans 11. The ones grafted in do not replace the ones broken off.


If you remove one and replace it with another isn't that replacing?

All who are Christians, regardless of their race, have replaced those who practice Judaism as God's chosen people. In the past God chose by race but now its based on those who follow Jesus Christ.



Even if none were broken off Gentile believers would still be grafted in so it has nothing to do with anyone being replaced.




Okay, please make up your mind. Do you think anyone is replaced or not

I look at it more as a whole rather than on an individual level. As I said above the Christian religion replaced Judaism but certainly any Jews that converted simply remain on that tree as a natural branch while non believers are removed.

Naphal
Aug 6th 2009, 02:18 AM
As far as I understand it, we are certainly free to debate whether or not there will be a future mass conversion of Jewish people at the end of the world.

What is probably off limits is the anti-semitic position that the Jews USED to be God's people, but now Gentiles are and Jews aren't allowed. But I doubt anyone on the board takes that position anyways.

In other words, the question of whether God has a particular and future plan for the Jewish people as a physical group is open for discussion, but any position that God is eternally against any physically Jewish person is banned, as it should be (since that is just anti-semitism)

I just saw this so I want to make sure I won't be violating any rules in the current thread. I do believe those broken off are no longer chosen. I think that's pretty obvious but I don't believe "God is eternally against any physically Jewish person" and I am hopeful that there will be a future conversion of unbelievers. If any of that is still something not allowed someone please let me know and I'll edit out that info from the posts :) And just for the record I and my family are Jewish Christians.

sparrow hawk
Aug 6th 2009, 02:34 AM
In other words, the question of whether God has a particular and future plan for the Jewish people as a physical group is open for discussion, but any position that God is eternally against any physically Jewish person is banned, as it should be (since that is just anti-semitism)

Amen.

And is it simply the term "replacement theology" that is what offends so many? Should we use different terms instead? Thanks.

My heart's Desire
Aug 6th 2009, 04:51 AM
Jeremiah 31 and Jeremiah 33 gives proof positive the Church will Never "replace" Israel as a Nation and as a people there will be a remnant whose sins will be cleansed.

My heart's Desire
Aug 6th 2009, 04:57 AM
What are your thoughts on replacement theology? I'm not exactly sure of all the "ins and outs" of this doctrine, but I am interested to hear.


Z.
We've had several good discussions on this. Here is one of them.
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=165425

Naphal
Aug 6th 2009, 05:25 AM
We've had several good discussions on this. Here is one of them.
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=165425

That's a great thread. I want to quote a great post that was there:


I believe there is a sense of "replacement" in Scripture... but not in the idea of "the church replaces Israel".

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

The New Covenant replaces the Old Covenant.

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

Christ as the High Priests replaces the temple priests.

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

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

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

My heart's Desire
Aug 6th 2009, 06:29 AM
Exactly. At the present time Jews, Gentiles, people are coming into the Church UNTIL the fullness of the Gentiles has come in as Romans states. So, doesn't that mean that the partial hardening of Israel will stop when the full number of Gentiles come into the Church? Then what happens and why is this distinction even made of Israel and gentiles if all are Israel? If the church is still being populated then it appears the full number of Gentiles have not yet come in. If they have come in, then the Church "Israel" would be complete, would it not?

This qoute

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

Would I be restating it incorrectly if I were to say it this way as it seems to read to me....
Those in Christ are the Church in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile and this body is now called "Israel"?
Possibly it means when the full number of people come into the Church then Christ turns again to Israel as a Nation, dealing with Israel or the remnant,in that way thus fulfilling Jeremiah's prophecy that Israel (the earthly Kingdom after Christ returns) will never cease to be a Nation as long as the elements, stars etc continue to be?

Naphal
Aug 6th 2009, 07:11 AM
Would I be restating it incorrectly if I were to say it this way as it seems to read to me....

Those in Christ are the Church in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile and this body is now called "Israel"?


Sure. That's what I believe it to be.

My heart's Desire
Aug 7th 2009, 05:53 AM
Sure. That's what I believe it to be.Well, I believe the Church is the church and later Israel is still Israel (Israeli blood flowing in their veins). The new covenant was given to Israel in the O.T before the church came into being. If the church was to be called the "new" Israel or what not then why didn't Christ say "Upon this rock, I will build a new Israel? Sometimes I think too much and I try to get a feel for what someone is really trying to say. Saying that, if Jeremiah says in chapter 33 (before the church came into being) that a covenant will be made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah saying that God's Law will be within them and in their heart and God will be their God and they His people. Their sin and iniquity is forgiven and remembered no more. Also, If the fixed order of moon and stars for light departs so shall the the offspring of Israel cease from being a nation before Him.
Well, since the fixed order of moon and stars for light has not departed that tells me the the offspring of Israel have not ceased from being a nation before God. It appears to me that in saying that the church is now Israel (called Israel) then we are trying to take the covenant (given to Israel and Judah before the body of Christ was born) that was clearly for the house of Israel and Judah and making it our own. In clearer terms, if the church is now Israel, then one would have to see Jeremiah's prophecy as belonging to the church (or what is seen as just plain Israel). Tell me, how is that NOT trying to make the church replace Israel? And if it does not, and the church is the Israel of God, then why did Christ bother to say He will build His Church? Clearly the prophecy for Israel still stands for the moon and stars still shine.
I believe the Body of Christ, (His church) is just that made up of all who trust Him in this age (Jew, Gentile, any who come) and yet Israel is still Israel in His mind (rather by blood or nation) of which there will be a remnant, since the stars still shine, then Israel will one day indeed have His law on their hearts and their sins forgiven, and they will have the Kingdom with a King just as they've been promised, just as Romans says and that will probably be when the partial hardening is over when they can finally accept their Messiah, just as we have. If the Church becomes Israel then does the church cease to be the Church?

Just to be clear though this always is an interesting topic and I am far away from being set on a certainity of opinion.
I'm not of those who believe that Israel becomes saved just because they are Israel and I know for certain that all who come to Christ to be saved no matter what race, nationality etc they are become a part of His body which is the church, until the church is complete and Romans says that depends upon when the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

My heart's Desire
Aug 7th 2009, 06:29 AM
I hope I said what I was trying to say and that it is a little clearer than mud! :D It is late here.

Eben
Aug 7th 2009, 07:00 AM
Yes there are a lot of believers in my country that believe this. They fail to see or understand the Gospel that Paul was preaching. A lot of references were made to chapter 11 of Romans. There are a few verses that must also be read in this context.
Rom 11:25 There is a secret truth, my friends, which I want you to know, for it will keep you from thinking how wise you are. It is that the stubbornness of the people of Israel is not permanent, but will last only until the complete number of Gentiles comes to God.
Rom 11:26 And this is how all Israel will be saved. As the scripture says, "The Savior will come from Zion and remove all wickedness from the descendants of Jacob.
Rom 11:27 I will make this covenant with them when I take away their sins."
Rom 11:28 Because they reject the Good News, the Jews are God's enemies for the sake of you Gentiles. But because of God's choice, they are his friends because of their ancestors.
Rom 11:29 For God does not change his mind about whom he chooses and blesses.
Take note that this unbelief of Israel is only temporary, they will become Gods people again as a nation!
The question is when this is going to happen, because it has not happened as yet.
Remember that this was written just before Paul were caught the last time in Jerusalem, in other word years after Pentecost.

Naphal
Aug 7th 2009, 07:08 AM
Well, I believe the Church is the church and later Israel is still Israel (Israeli blood flowing in their veins).


What do you think of these verses?

Ephesians 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
Ephesians 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

Commonwealth

4174
4174 politeia {pol-ee-ti'-ah}

from 4177 ("polity"); TDNT - 6:516,906; n f

AV - freedom 1, commonwealth 1; 2

1) the administration of civil affairs
2) a state or commonwealth
3) citizenship, the rights of a citizen


So, to be without Christ means:

1: alien from the commonwealth of Israel. That means to not be a citizen of Israel.
2: stranger to the covenants of promise
3: having no hope. That is no hope of a life after death for eternity.
4: without God


But to be with Christ is the opposite:

1: Non-alien of the commonwealth of Israel. That means to be a citizen of Israel, a legal Israelite as opposed to a natural born Israelite. This is how the church is Israel today and how natural born Israelites without Christ are aliens to Israel!

2: not a stranger to the covenants of promise. The covenant belongs to those in Christ, Christians!

3: have hope! That is hope of a life after death for eternity.

4: with God!

Is the Christian Church just the church or are they also citizens of the commonwealth of Israel?



If the church was to be called the "new" Israel or what not then why didn't Christ say "Upon this rock, I will build a new Israel?

I believe God has said something to that effect elsewhere like I posted above.



Well, since the fixed order of moon and stars for light has not departed that tells me the the offspring of Israel have not ceased from being a nation before God.

That's correct but that nation is also known as the Chistian church :) which is filled with Jews and Gentiles who are all considered the same in Christ.





It appears to me that in saying that the church is now Israel (called Israel) then we are trying to take the covenant (given to Israel and Judah before the body of Christ was born) that was clearly for the house of Israel and Judah and making it our own.

The covenant is for all who follow Christ. It was given first to the Jews and then a new covenant replaced the old and that allowed all Christians to partake in its promises.



Tell me, how is that NOT trying to make the church replace Israel?

I don't really see a difference between the concept of a Church (not just a building) and the concept of a nation of believers. So, the OT church was Israel and the NT church is still Israel but with natural branches and other branches added to it.

Scripture speaks of the natural branches which did not accept Christ:

Romans 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

Romans 11:21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

Romans 11:22 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.


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

And here is a way for a removed branch to be returned to the tree (Israel) by ending their unbelief and God graffing them back.

However God does warn of what shall happen to those that remain in unbelief:

John 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
John 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.


And if it does not, and the church is the Israel of God, then why did Christ bother to say He will build His Church?

Because he was :)



Clearly the prophecy for Israel still stands for the moon and stars still shine.

Certainly. Israel does still exist and always will but God will prune it a bit and add to it from other trees.



If the Church becomes Israel then does the church cease to be the Church?

It might make more sense to you if you looked at it more like believing Israel became the church, and believing gentiles joined that church and those that didn't believe were asked to leave but told they can return if they change their minds.





Just to be clear though this always is an interesting topic and I am far away from being set on a certainity of opinion.

We just have to allow scripture to show us what is true :)

John146
Aug 7th 2009, 02:49 PM
If you remove one and replace it with another isn't that replacing?Not in this case. You are acting as if there are a certain number of slots available on the tree and the Gentiles could not be grafted in unless some (most?) Israelites were broken off. The fact is, though, that there is no limit to the number who can be grafted in. Even if no Israelites were broken off, Gentile believers would still have been grafted in.

If the idea of being broken off and grafted in has to do with replacement then would that mean one who was broken off and supposedly replaced could not be grafted in again? It couldn't possibly mean that because Paul said this:

Romans 11
20Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

Because of unbelief they were broken off. This is speaking of Israelites who did not believe in Christ. But it doesn't say they were broken off forever. It says "they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in". So, even though they were broken off they still had the opportunity to believe and be grafted in after that. If they had been replaced then how could they be grafted in again? They couldn't because their spot would have been taken by someone else.


All who are Christians, regardless of their race, have replaced those who practice Judaism as God's chosen people. In the past God chose by race but now its based on those who follow Jesus Christ.Where does it ever say that God chose by race? We're talking about salvation here, right? Read Hebrews 11. It's always been about faith, not race.


I look at it more as a whole rather than on an individual level.Why? Romans 11 speaks of individual branches and that the basis for being broken off, remaining or being grafted in was faith or the lack thereof.

David Taylor
Aug 7th 2009, 04:54 PM
Take note that this unbelief of Israel is only temporary, they will become Gods people again as a nation!


False.

Unbelief of any Israelite ends when the repent and turn to Jesus for the remission of sin.

The invitation has already been made, and is presently available now!

Any of them can participate immediately, just like Paul, and the disciples, and Timothy, and Silas, and Barnabas, and millions of Jews have already done.


Who does the N.T. tell us the children of God are?

"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 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 3:26

A misunderstanding of the shadowed and pre-type promises of the O.T...

...doesn't earn the right to dismiss the clear explanations of there fulfillment in the N.T.

John146
Aug 7th 2009, 07:38 PM
Yes there are a lot of believers in my country that believe this. They fail to see or understand the Gospel that Paul was preaching. A lot of references were made to chapter 11 of Romans. There are a few verses that must also be read in this context.
Rom 11:25 There is a secret truth, my friends, which I want you to know, for it will keep you from thinking how wise you are. It is that the stubbornness of the people of Israel is not permanent, but will last only until the complete number of Gentiles comes to God.
Rom 11:26 And this is how all Israel will be saved. As the scripture says, "The Savior will come from Zion and remove all wickedness from the descendants of Jacob.
Rom 11:27 I will make this covenant with them when I take away their sins."
Rom 11:28 Because they reject the Good News, the Jews are God's enemies for the sake of you Gentiles. But because of God's choice, they are his friends because of their ancestors.
Rom 11:29 For God does not change his mind about whom he chooses and blesses.
Take note that this unbelief of Israel is only temporary, they will become Gods people again as a nation!
The question is when this is going to happen, because it has not happened as yet.
Remember that this was written just before Paul were caught the last time in Jerusalem, in other word years after Pentecost.Romans 11 does not speak of the "unbelief of Israel". You're speaking as if all Israelites were in unbelief, but some did believe (Rom 11:5-7). Notice it speaks of both natural and wild branches (plural) being either in unbelief or having faith.

Rom 11
17And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; 18Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.
20Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

There are two individual olive trees mentioned but each has many branches. It's not the olive trees that either have faith or are in unbelief, it's the individual branches that either have personal faith in Christ or not.

So, it's speaking of the faith or lack thereof of individual Israelites and individual Gentiles. Any individual Israelite who did not believe in Christ was broken off. Any individual Gentile who believed in Christ was grafted in. Any individual Israelite who "abided not still in unbelief" was grafted back in. Since that time any individual Israelite or Gentile who has believed in Christ has been grafted in.

It has nothing to do with an entire nation being broken off or grafted in. How could it? Not all Israelites were broken off and not all Gentiles were grafted in. Individual branches were broken off or grafted in. It's about salvation and having faith in Christ. That is what grafts someone in. Rejecting Christ is what resulted in being broken off.

Eben
Aug 7th 2009, 07:47 PM
All I can do Is quote scripture. What I read here is that Israel will become Gods people again.

Rom 11:28 Because they reject the Good News, the Jews are God's enemies for the sake of you Gentiles. But because of God's choice, they are his friends because of their ancestors.
Rom 11:29 For God does not change his mind about whom he chooses and blesses.
I am not going to argue the point all I am doing is to read scripture and believe it as it stands

John146
Aug 7th 2009, 07:53 PM
All I can do Is quote scripture. What I read here is that Israel will become Gods people again.When did that stop?

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.


Rom 11:28 Because they reject the Good News, the Jews are God's enemies for the sake of you Gentiles. But because of God's choice, they are his friends because of their ancestors.
Rom 11:29 For God does not change his mind about whom he chooses and blesses.
I am not going to argue the point all I am doing is to read scripture and believe it as it standsRomans 11 (and other NT scripture) tells us the basis for being one of God's children. It's not based on one's nationality.

Rom 11
20Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

Romans 11 is not about people corporately being broken off from God's people or grafted in with God's people. It's about individuals (branches) being broken off or grafted in. Salvation is an individual issue, not a corporate issue.

Naphal
Aug 7th 2009, 08:19 PM
Not in this case. You are acting as if there are a certain number of slots available on the tree and the Gentiles could not be grafted in unless some (most?) Israelites were broken off. The fact is, though, that there is no limit to the number who can be grafted in. Even if no Israelites were broken off, Gentile believers would still have been grafted in.

Absolutely. I don't believe in slots or only a limited number can be on that tree.



If the idea of being broken off and grafted in has to do with replacement then would that mean one who was broken off and supposedly replaced could not be grafted in again? It couldn't possibly mean that because Paul said this:

Romans 11
20Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.



Sure and I posted those same verses in my last post. If they accept Christ they can and will be returned to the tree.


Because of unbelief they were broken off. This is speaking of Israelites who did not believe in Christ. But it doesn't say they were broken off forever.

Correct. Its only forever if they don't convert to Christ. When they are unblinded I assume a large number will accept the true Messiah.




Where does it ever say that God chose by race?

God favored one race/Jews above others in the OT but in the NT he no longer does this.

David Taylor
Aug 7th 2009, 09:07 PM
All I can do Is quote scripture. What I read here is that Israel will become Gods people again.

Rom 11:28 Because they reject the Good News, the Jews are God's enemies for the sake of you Gentiles. But because of God's choice, they are his friends because of their ancestors.
Rom 11:29 For God does not change his mind about whom he chooses and blesses.


Nothing in Roman's 11 tells us Israel isn't presently apart of God's plan, and doesn't currently contain God's people.

Notice carefully, that Roman's 11 speaks of that same plan and that same set of God's people including believing Gentiles alongside and together with believing Israel....

Romans 11:16 "For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. 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"

The olive tree contains BOTH Israel and Gentiles (the believing Natural Branches together with the believing Wild Branches).

David Taylor
Aug 7th 2009, 09:09 PM
God favored one race/Jews above others in the OT but in the NT he no longer does this.

And there purpose then (O.T.) was to bring the Messiah through the line of Abraham to the world.

Mission Accomplished.

Now, every single human begin, regardless of race - has the same opportunity, thanks to Calvary's blood.

Eternal Life through Jesus Christ our Lord, if they will only repent and follow Him.

Naphal
Aug 7th 2009, 09:11 PM
And there purpose then (O.T.) was to bring the Messiah through the line of Abraham to the world.

Mission Accomplished.

Now, every single human begin, regardless of race - has the same opportunity, thanks to Calvary's blood.

Eternal Life through Jesus Christ our Lord, if they will only repent and follow Him.

Yes, Amen to that!

John146
Aug 7th 2009, 09:15 PM
Absolutely. I don't believe in slots or only a limited number can be on that tree.




Sure and I posted those same verses in my last post. If they accept Christ they can and will be returned to the tree.



Correct. Its only forever if they don't convert to Christ. When they are unblinded I assume a large number will accept the true Messiah.





God favored one race/Jews above others in the OT but in the NT he no longer does this.The only issue I have with what you're saying here is that you act as if Romans 11 is speaking on a corporate level rather than individual. It's referring to salvation and being broken off due to unbelief or grafted in due to faith so it has to be an individual thing, not corporate. Each individual Israelite who was in unbelief was spiritually blinded and any one of them could have chosen to "abide not still in unbelief" and been grafted in as a result. That's what Romans 11:23 says. It's not a case of them all having to "abide not still in unbelief" in order to be grafted in. Again, it's an individual issue.

BroRog
Aug 7th 2009, 09:49 PM
The only issue I have with what you're saying here is that you act as if Romans 11 is speaking on a corporate level rather than individual.

He IS speaking on the corporate level. That's why he uses the term "Israel" rather than "Jew." Israel is the term he uses to talk about the nation as a corporate entity; and Jew is the term uses to talk about the Jews individually.

Naphal
Aug 7th 2009, 10:57 PM
The only issue I have with what you're saying here is that you act as if Romans 11 is speaking on a corporate level rather than individual.


Its definetely on individual level but if you look at everyone that was removed as a group it would be all of the unbelieving and that's why I mentioned looking at all the unbelievers as a whole but the specific passage does deal with individuals as branches. Elsewhere it speaks of all of them as a group, unbelievers. Sorry if I was too confusing as I was speaking of several passages rather than just the one in Romans.

BroRog
Aug 8th 2009, 12:03 AM
Its definetely on individual level but if you look at everyone that was removed as a group it would be all of the unbelieving and that's why I mentioned looking at all the unbelievers as a whole but the specific passage does deal with individuals as branches. Elsewhere it speaks of all of them as a group, unbelievers. Sorry if I was too confusing as I was speaking of several passages rather than just the one in Romans.

Why do the branches have to be individuals?

Naphal
Aug 8th 2009, 12:31 AM
Why do the branches have to be individuals?

Context. Paul is speaking of groups of people then breaks it down to individuals using analogies of trees and their branches

(Rom 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;

Here he speaks of individuals as branches who had once been branches on a "wild" tree which symbolizes gentiles corporately.



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


Here branches are referred to as "they"...people who had unbelief in Jesus and so they were removed from their own tree.


(Rom 11:21) For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

Again, speaking of branches in reference to singular persons "thee" and above "they"


(Rom 11:22) 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.
(Rom 11:23) And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.


"Them"

(Rom 11:24) 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?

And from the entire context of this chapter we know Paul is speaking about Jews being natural branches so each branch would represent each person.

BroRog
Aug 8th 2009, 12:43 AM
Context. Paul is speaking of groups of people then breaks it down to individuals using analogies of trees and their branches

(Rom 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;

Here he speaks of individuals as branches who had once been branches on a "wild" tree which symbolizes gentiles corporately.



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


Here branches are referred to as "they"...people who had unbelief in Jesus and so they were removed from their own tree.


(Rom 11:21) For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

Again, speaking of branches in reference to singular persons "thee" and above "they"


(Rom 11:22) 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.
(Rom 11:23) And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.


"Them"

(Rom 11:24) 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?

And from the entire context of this chapter we know Paul is speaking about Jews being natural branches so each branch would represent each person.


Do you really believe that a person can be cut off the tree and then grafted back on? Typically, the Bible uses the phrase "cut off" to indicate permanent removal, especially in terms of being cut off from the people of God.

Naphal
Aug 8th 2009, 12:58 AM
Do you really believe that a person can be cut off the tree and then grafted back on?

Yes because God says it can happen:

Romans 11
20Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.




Typically, the Bible uses the phrase "cut off" to indicate permanent removal, especially in terms of being cut off from the people of God.


It doesn't have to be permanent in this specific example. They are removed but can return again.

sparrow hawk
Aug 8th 2009, 03:06 AM
Jesus said "And this gospel of the kingdom(not grace) shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

Why does John in his letters to the Jews(1 &2 John, etc.. not his gospel) never mention grace or the cross? He always says that Christ was the messiah and talked of the coming messiah's kingdom, which is what the Jews have always been looking for, which is why millions of the law abiding sinless(according to the law) Jews refuse Christ as the messiah, still to this very day. They are not looking for a crucified king, they are looking for the messianic kingdom.

Because John was not the evangelist of grace to the Gentiles(Paul was), he was just like Christ, he preached to his own people the Jews of the coming kingdom of God.

This is why John in his letters to the Jews talks about keeping the law and not sinning(according to the law), instead of grace.

This is also why John talked in the book of Revelation about the Jews who were sinless(not without sin) through obeying the law and told them to prepare for the future tribulation, where they will preach the gospel of "the kingdom"(not grace) to the entire world.

The Gentiles and Jews who have accepted the gift of salvation of grace, will be long gone in the rapture before the "gospel of the kingdom is preached to the entire world by the law abiding Jews of the tribulation.

This is why it's clear that God still has a plan for the Law abiding Jews after the rapture, and this is why the Nation of Israel was restored in the 20th century, and this is why the church and Israel are not the same.

My heart's Desire
Aug 8th 2009, 04:27 AM
What do you think of these verses?

Ephesians 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
Ephesians 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

Commonwealth

4174
4174 politeia {pol-ee-ti'-ah}

from 4177 ("polity"); TDNT - 6:516,906; n f

AV - freedom 1, commonwealth 1; 2

1) the administration of civil affairs
2) a state or commonwealth
3) citizenship, the rights of a citizen


So, to be without Christ means:

1: alien from the commonwealth of Israel. That means to not be a citizen of Israel.
2: stranger to the covenants of promise
3: having no hope. That is no hope of a life after death for eternity.
4: without God


But to be with Christ is the opposite:

1: Non-alien of the commonwealth of Israel. That means to be a citizen of Israel, a legal Israelite as opposed to a natural born Israelite. This is how the church is Israel today and how natural born Israelites without Christ are aliens to Israel!

2: not a stranger to the covenants of promise. The covenant belongs to those in Christ, Christians!

3: have hope! That is hope of a life after death for eternity.

4: with God!

Is the Christian Church just the church or are they also citizens of the commonwealth of Israel?




I believe God has said something to that effect elsewhere like I posted above.




That's correct but that nation is also known as the Chistian church :) which is filled with Jews and Gentiles who are all considered the same in Christ.






The covenant is for all who follow Christ. It was given first to the Jews and then a new covenant replaced the old and that allowed all Christians to partake in its promises.




I don't really see a difference between the concept of a Church (not just a building) and the concept of a nation of believers. So, the OT church was Israel and the NT church is still Israel but with natural branches and other branches added to it.

Scripture speaks of the natural branches which did not accept Christ:

Romans 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

Romans 11:21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

Romans 11:22 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.


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

And here is a way for a removed branch to be returned to the tree (Israel) by ending their unbelief and God graffing them back.

However God does warn of what shall happen to those that remain in unbelief:

John 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
John 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.



Because he was :)




Certainly. Israel does still exist and always will but God will prune it a bit and add to it from other trees.




It might make more sense to you if you looked at it more like believing Israel became the church, and believing gentiles joined that church and those that didn't believe were asked to leave but told they can return if they change their minds.






We just have to allow scripture to show us what is true :)I can see what you are saying but.....
Church means if I remember correctly a called out assembly. So are you saying that all those who believe in Christ, who are members of that called out assembly simply are Israel having become a part of that tree? I know there are unfullfilled promises made to Israel from the O.T. So you believe scripture states those promises now apply to the called out assembly (church) which if I understand you would simply call Israel and not the called out assembly which Christ builds? Isn't that making NO distinction at all between Israel and the assembly that Christ builds? So it's not really a "replacement" but a joining and that's all?

John146
Aug 8th 2009, 05:19 AM
He IS speaking on the corporate level. That's why he uses the term "Israel" rather than "Jew." Israel is the term he uses to talk about the nation as a corporate entity; and Jew is the term uses to talk about the Jews individually.I'm not sure if you really understand what I was talking about or not. Do you believe that people are still being grafted into the olive tree today? If so, does that happen corporately or individually?

John146
Aug 8th 2009, 05:29 AM
Why do the branches have to be individuals?How can they be anything but individuals?

Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. 20Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

It says some of the branches were broken off because of unbelief. If each branch that was broken off does not represent an individual person who did not believe in Christ then what does a branch represent?

John146
Aug 8th 2009, 05:38 AM
I can see what you are saying but.....
Church means if I remember correctly a called out assembly. So are you saying that all those who believe in Christ, who are members of that called out assembly simply are Israel having become a part of that tree? I know there are unfullfilled promises made to Israel from the O.T. So you believe scripture states those promises now apply to the called out assembly (church) which if I understand you would simply call Israel and not the called out assembly which Christ builds? Isn't that making NO distinction at all between Israel and the assembly that Christ builds? So it's not really a "replacement" but a joining and that's all?Do you know that Paul talked about two different Israels? He said "they are not all Israel which are of Israel" (Rom 9:6). What do you think that means?

Naphal
Aug 8th 2009, 06:54 AM
I can see what you are saying but.....
Church means if I remember correctly a called out assembly. So are you saying that all those who believe in Christ, who are members of that called out assembly simply are Israel having become a part of that tree?


Gentiles that follow Christ and are members of that church are graffed onto what's known as Israel. So yes, they do become part of that tree. Jews that accept Christ are already part of that tree and Jews that deny Christ have been removed, according to NT scriptures. They can return if they change their minds which is likely when the blindness is removed.


I know there are unfullfilled promises made to Israel from the O.T.

Sure but who comprises Israel isn't exactly the same as what it used to be, namely some Jews have been removed and a great many Gentiles have been added. Those promises will apply to this larger, Christian Israel.




So you believe scripture states those promises now apply to the called out assembly (church) which if I understand you would simply call Israel and not the called out assembly which Christ builds?

Again, the two are the same... Israel=the called out assembly which Christ builds. Remember the verses I posted? To have citizenship in the commonwealth of Israel is to have Christ. No Christ means being an alien or foreigner to Israel.



Isn't that making NO distinction at all between Israel and the assembly that Christ builds?

Correct.


So it's not really a "replacement" but a joining and that's all?

Sure, a joining of gentiles and a removing of unbelieving Jews. Replacement fits better when we speak of Christianity replacing Judaism, the new covenant replacing the old covenant, even Christs sacrifices replacing the old sacrifices. So, replacement is closely involved but its not about gentiles replacing Jews as Israel but believing gentiles joining believing Jews while the Jews that don't yet believe are "pruned" from the olive tree (which I believe to symbolism Israel). I guess when you look at all the details carefully "replacement theology" is a bit crude and can be taken in the wrong way. "Jews and Gentiles merging as one Israel theology" is wordy but more accurate.

BroRog
Aug 8th 2009, 04:35 PM
Yes because God says it can happen:

Romans 11
20Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.




It doesn't have to be permanent in this specific example. They are removed but can return again.

I think if you review the scriptures you will find that being "cut off" is permanent. But in practical terms, anyone who does pruning will know that once a branch is cut off from support and nutrients it dies and is burned. The branches are not put in safe storage in hopes that they will be suitable for re-attachment. It doesn't work that way. :)

BroRog
Aug 8th 2009, 04:41 PM
I'm not sure if you really understand what I was talking about or not. Do you believe that people are still being grafted into the olive tree today? If so, does that happen corporately or individually?

I don't believe Paul is speaking about individuals. When he says that the Gentiles were grafted in, he is talking about the Gentiles as a group.

BroRog
Aug 8th 2009, 04:44 PM
How can they be anything but individuals?

Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. 20Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

It says some of the branches were broken off because of unbelief. If each branch that was broken off does not represent an individual person who did not believe in Christ then what does a branch represent?

Let me ask you this. In verse 18, which branches is Paul talking about, the branches that remain on the tree or the branches that were broken off?

sparrow hawk
Aug 8th 2009, 05:16 PM
Sure but who comprises Israel isn't exactly the same as what it used to be, namely some Jews have been removed and a great many Gentiles have been added. Those promises will apply to this larger, Christian Israel.


The nation has always been a hodgepodge of different colors and nationalities, just as it still is today. You are a Jew by religion, not color or nationality. There are 2 gospels, the gospel of the kingdom(Christ's gospel to the Jews, the one the thief on the cross believed for example, that Christ was the "messiah"), and the gospel of grace(Paul's gospel to the Gentiles about the saving "grace" of Christ) and both lead to Christ as the messiah, and to the salvation of mankind through Christ.

I'm not saying there are 2 different slavation methods, but that both methods led to the same salvation through Christ in the first century(and before), and still today.

Say a person from the Sudan never had a Bible in his language to read for himself, and the only thing he was taught from a missionary was the gospel of John. Could he attain salvation? John did not teach grace, only that Christ was the messiah of the Jews and of the Kingdom of God. Could this man from the sudan be saved, he has never heard of Paul's Biblical letters to the gentiles about grace, only that Christ is the living messiah, and that violation of the law is sin. Can this man still come to Christ? Or what if the man was only taught from 1 John? No grace taught, no cross taught, only the coming kingdom of God, Christ as the messiah, and that violating the law is sin. Can this man still come to Christ with only being read to him 1 John?

I would say yes, and many did(Jews and Gentiles) and still do to this very day after reading John's letters to the Jews and hearing his teachings.

John 3:16 has nothing to do with grace. It's all about believing on Christ as the messiah, which the entire nation of Israel will do some day in the future, according to the book of Revelation.

Isreal(Jews by religion, not color or nationality) and the church are not the same thing in the scriptures.

Naphal
Aug 8th 2009, 10:02 PM
I think if you review the scriptures you will find that being "cut off" is permanent.

Here are the scriptures for review and they clearly say they can be grafted back in. Do you not believe verse 23?

Romans 11
20Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.




But in practical terms, anyone who does pruning will know that once a branch is cut off from support and nutrients it dies and is burned. The branches are not put in safe storage in hopes that they will be suitable for re-attachment. It doesn't work that way. :)


For mortal beings it doesn't work that way, for God he can heal the sick, the withered and the dead. He does these very such things within the scriptures so when he says he can prune and reattach he is able to do as he says. "for God is able to graft them in again"

Besides, God doesn't prune healthy, fruit producing branches anyways. He prunes the dead, withered, unfruitful, unbelieving..

Naphal
Aug 8th 2009, 10:25 PM
The nation has always been a hodgepodge of different colors and nationalities, just as it still is today.


More now than in OT times. Then it was mostly the Children of Jacob.



You are a Jew by religion, not color or nationality.

A person can be born Jewish, convert to Judaism and be Jewish or be a citizen of Israael and be Jewish. It isn't solely determined by religion. I know of Jews who do not believe in God so they aren't Jews because of religion.




There are 2 gospels, the gospel of the kingdom(Christ's gospel to the Jews, the one the thief on the cross believed for example, that Christ was the "messiah"), and the gospel of grace(Paul's gospel to the Gentiles about the saving "grace" of Christ) and both lead to Christ as the messiah, and to the salvation of mankind through Christ.

I'm not saying there are 2 different slavation methods, but that both methods led to the same salvation through Christ in the first century(and before), and still today.



I don't believe in two Gospels. Possibly one with different facets but not two different ones.



Say a person from the Sudan never had a Bible in his language to read for himself, and the only thing he was taught from a missionary was the gospel of John. Could he attain salvation? John did not teach grace, only that Christ was the messiah of the Jews and of the Kingdom of God.

One book isn't really enough for the full picture. Whether John "taught grace" or not, better put did John cover the topic of grace in some of his writings, isn't relevant to me. Just because something isn't mentioned doesn't mean the writer was opposed to or refused to teach something.




Could this man from the sudan be saved, he has never heard of Paul's Biblical letters to the gentiles about grace, only that Christ is the living messiah, and that violation of the law is sin. Can this man still come to Christ? Or what if the man was only taught from 1 John? No grace taught, no cross taught, only the coming kingdom of God, Christ as the messiah, and that violating the law is sin. Can this man still come to Christ with only being read to him 1 John?

It's a bit too much of a strawman argument or me. God is the judge and if a man only knew one book of the bible God will judge fairly.




John 3:16 has nothing to do with grace. It's all about believing on Christ as the messiah, which the entire nation of Israel will do some day in the future, according to the book of Revelation.

I am not aware of Revelation showing such a future fact occuring.

BroRog
Aug 8th 2009, 11:14 PM
Here are the scriptures for review and they clearly say they can be grafted back in. Do you not believe verse 23?

Romans 11
20Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.




For mortal beings it doesn't work that way, for God he can heal the sick, the withered and the dead. He does these very such things within the scriptures so when he says he can prune and reattach he is able to do as he says. "for God is able to graft them in again"

Besides, God doesn't prune healthy, fruit producing branches anyways. He prunes the dead, withered, unfruitful, unbelieving..

What is clear is this. If one assumes that the branches are individual people, then it clearly says that individuals can be grafted back on the tree. But the idea that the branches are individuals is an assumption.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Eric. In verse 18, who are the branches, the ones on the tree or the ones cut off?

sparrow hawk
Aug 9th 2009, 12:22 AM
More now than in OT times. Then it was mostly the Children of Jacob.




A person can be born Jewish, convert to Judaism and be Jewish or be a citizen of Israael and be Jewish. It isn't solely determined by religion. I know of Jews who do not believe in God so they aren't Jews because of religion.





I don't believe in two Gospels. Possibly one with different facets but not two different ones.




One book isn't really enough for the full picture. Whether John "taught grace" or not, better put did John cover the topic of grace in some of his writings, isn't relevant to me. Just because something isn't mentioned doesn't mean the writer was opposed to or refused to teach something.





It's a bit too much of a strawman argument or me. God is the judge and if a man only knew one book of the bible God will judge fairly.





I am not aware of Revelation showing such a future fact occuring.

My brother, do you rightly divide the scriptures to the people to which they were written? If not, you can't understand the historical, cultural, and grammatical context of the letters, and you will take everything out of context in your Bible study.

If you read Romans for example out of it's cultural context, you miss the entire meaning of the chapter. It was not written to Jews, Arabs, or China men for example. It's the epistle of Paul to the Romans. 1 John is a letter to new Jewish converts, not the Romans or any other civilization for example.

The Bible is just like any other form of written literature, you have to understand the cultural and historical context of to who the letters were written, to understand the true meaning of what the author is relating to the recipients of the letter. Contrary to what most American Christians believe, the Biblical authors did not write the letters to or live in 21st century America. Sorry to shock some of you guys with this news. The Bible was not written in English, to English speaking folk either, sorry to disappoint.;)

Naphal
Aug 9th 2009, 01:34 AM
What is clear is this. If one assumes that the branches are individual people, then it clearly says that individuals can be grafted back on the tree. But the idea that the branches are individuals is an assumption.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Eric. In verse 18, who are the branches, the ones on the tree or the ones cut off?

We have to look at the context to see that:


Romans 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

He is speaking TO the gentiles.


Romans 11:14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
Romans 11:15 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?


Here he speaks of his own lost Jewish brothers who are essentially dead and how it can be possible for them to live again. This is EXACTLY the same concept that will be covered in the metaphor of the pruned unbeliving Jews that can be reattached if they accept Christ.


Romans 11:16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
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;


Here we have two kinds of branches which from context above are Jews and Gentiles. Jews later called natural branches, born on the tree and grafted branches which are believing gentiles added to the tree.


Romans 11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

Now, He is still speaking TO the gentiles about the Jewish branches. The Gentile Christians thought themselves above the Jews (I think more towards the pruned ones) and they were boastful....probably along the lines of how many more non Jews were believing in Christ than Jews. That's my opinion. Either way they were boasting and Paul was going to stop that.

So to answer your question, branches here are the Jews.

Naphal
Aug 9th 2009, 01:38 AM
My brother, do you rightly divide the scriptures to the people to which they were written? If not, you can't understand the historical, cultural, and grammatical context of the letters, and you will take everything out of context in your Bible study.

If you read Romans for example out of it's cultural context, you miss the entire meaning of the chapter. It was not written to Jews, Arabs, or China men for example. It's the epistle of Paul to the Romans. 1 John is a letter to new Jewish converts, not the Romans or any other civilization for example.

The Bible is just like any other form of written literature, you have to understand the cultural and historical context of to who the letters were written, to understand the true meaning of what the author is relating to the recipients of the letter. Contrary to what most American Christians believe, the Biblical authors did not write the letters to or live in 21st century America. Sorry to shock some of you guys with this news. The Bible was not written in English, to English speaking folk either, sorry to disappoint.;)

I am already aware of such things but they do not affect that the bible isn't only one book of John to any one people. The whole of the book is what is needed for the full picture regardless of culture, language or history.

It also does not equate to two different gospels IMO.

If you wouldn't mind going back to my responses and responding to them point by point then we can continue the previous discussion :) Thank you.

My heart's Desire
Aug 9th 2009, 01:45 AM
Do you know that Paul talked about two different Israels? He said "they are not all Israel which are of Israel" (Rom 9:6). What do you think that means?
Perhaps Jewish members of Israel who become believers in Christ?

Naphal
Aug 9th 2009, 01:48 AM
Perhaps Jewish members of Israel who become believers in Christ?

Except it speaks of Israel saying that not only Jews are part of Israel. So we have to wonder what non Jews can claim Israel? Well it goes back to the grafting in of Gentiles into that tree of Israel, joining Jews and Gentiles together because of their faith in Jesus.

My heart's Desire
Aug 9th 2009, 02:55 AM
I believe the Church is different from Israel. I believe that Romans is describing a partially hardened remnant from Isaac that will be saved. Romans says it is because of their transgression that salvation has come to the Gentiles. Why? In order to make them jealous. Romans tells us that since we, Gentiles have received riches because of their transgression, there is still to come a fulfillment of salvation to this remnant of Israel. As Romans 11:26 says and so all Israel will be saved. I do not believe this is the church, for as it goes on to say.
The Deliverer (Christ) will come from Zion and He will remove ungodliness from Jacob (not from the Church but from Jacob).
As 28 and 29 makes clear though they are enemies from the standpoint of the gospel for our sakes, they are still from the standpoint of God's choice, beloved for the sake of the Fathers and God's gifts and His calling cannot be revoked.
Verses 30 and 31 tells us that when they were disobedient we were shown mercy and that just as we were shown mercy, they also will be shown mercy.
Having said that I believe that just as this remnant was mentioned to Elijah, this remnant is also of those believing Jews who come to Christ during this church age and I believe the remnant will be seen again during the time of Jacob's trouble in the Trib.

sheina maidle
Aug 9th 2009, 04:22 AM
There is no such thing as a Jew unless he is a Christian. And if well over 2000 years of silence for 'the Jews' does not tell them something, and if the total destruction of everything of Moses, Joshua and David for most of that time does not tell them something, I don't know what can. One might surmise that the only reason to continue to be a 'Jew' is to oppose Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah; and, were the church to disappear, 'Judaism' would also.
Wenlock,

You have just eliminated my entire family. I am an ethnic Jew (born and raised in Reform Judaism), but I am also a born again Jew (March 1, 1974). One is either a Jew or Gentile (I'm speaking about ethnicity...not religion). I have met Jews who were practicing Buddhists and the majority of Jews living in Israel today are atheists or agnostics.

Judaism is a corrupted religion presently followed by unbelieving Jews. It is a corrupt mixture of O.T. teaching and human tradition. Judaism is a man-made religion which has rejected the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

God is not finished with the nation of Israel. The Bible prophesies that there will come a day when the nation Israel will receive Jesus Christ when He returns from Heaven in power and glory:

Zechariah 12:9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

Zechariah 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.

Zechariah 13:1 In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness.

Zechariah 13:6 And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.

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 (Acts 15:14-16; Ephesians 3). 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 (Romans 11:25-27).

The church is not "New/spiritual" Israel.

kay-gee
Aug 9th 2009, 05:13 AM
Wenlock,

You have just eliminated my entire family. I am an ethnic Jew (born and raised in Reform Judaism), but I am also a born again Jew (March 1, 1974). One is either a Jew or Gentile (I'm speaking about ethnicity...not religion). I have met Jews who were practicing Buddhists and the majority of Jews living in Israel today are atheists or agnostics.

Judaism is a corrupted religion presently followed by unbelieving Jews. It is a corrupt mixture of O.T. teaching and human tradition. Judaism is a man-made religion which has rejected the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

God is not finished with the nation of Israel. The Bible prophesies that there will come a day when the nation Israel will receive Jesus Christ when He returns from Heaven in power and glory:

Zechariah 12:9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

Zechariah 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.

Zechariah 13:1 In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness.

Zechariah 13:6 And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.

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 (Acts 15:14-16; Ephesians 3). 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 (Romans 11:25-27).

The church is not "New/spiritual" Israel.

all the prophesies of Zechariah were fulfilled in Christ. Finished, complete
Gods purpose from the beginning of time wa mans redemption. It is finished. It is complete in Christ. Israel was no more than a stepping stone toward that completed work. How could God send Himself into the world without a royal lineage. He had to be born to a nation that had he LAW so that He could prove that He could live it perfectly. Israel was the chosen method to bring that all about.
Almighty God has not put any plan aside. Do you suppose He is some cosmic juggler out there who is having difficulty managing his plans so he has to set one down to concentrate on the other?
Jesus wll return one day and that will be THE END

all the best...

My heart's Desire
Aug 9th 2009, 05:19 AM
Temporarily the nation Israel has been set aside in the purposes of God.
Thank you. I believe that is what is meant by a partial hardening. God didn't say a complete hardening, but only a partial one and that only UNTIL something else is complete which is the fullness of the Gentiles. I've looked for the definition of fullness of Gentiles according to what I've heard (can't find it) but someone said that fullness comes in is a nautical term meaning that when the ship is full then it is set to sail or something to that effect.

sheina maidle
Aug 9th 2009, 05:38 AM
all the prophesies of Zechariah were fulfilled in Christ. Finished, complete
Gods purpose from the beginning of time wa mans redemption. It is finished. It is complete in Christ. Israel was no more than a stepping stone toward that completed work. How could God send Himself into the world without a royal lineage. He had to be born to a nation that had he LAW so that He could prove that He could live it perfectly. Israel was the chosen method to bring that all about.
Almighty God has not put any plan aside. Do you suppose He is some cosmic juggler out there who is having difficulty managing his plans so he has to set one down to concentrate on the other?
Jesus wll return one day and that will be THE END

all the best...
How do you interpret the entire book of Revelation and most, if not all of the O.T prophecies?

Israel was not a "stepping stone" toward the completed work. Israel was and always has been God's chosen people:

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;

Deuteronomy 7:10 And repayeth them that hate him to their face, to destroy them: he will not be slack to him that hateth him, he will repay him to his face.

What you are saying, IMO, is that God "used" Israel and then cast Israel off. That's is NOT what God's Word says. My God is FAITHFUL....He keeps His promises. The promises He made to Israel WILL be literally fulfilled.

BTW, at what point in time do you believe Jesus Christ will return? What do you consider to be THE END?

sheina maidle
Aug 9th 2009, 05:47 AM
Thank you. I believe that is what is meant by a partial hardening. God didn't say a complete hardening, but only a partial one and that only UNTIL something else is complete which is the fullness of the Gentiles. I've looked for the definition of fullness of Gentiles according to what I've heard (can't find it) but someone said that fullness comes in is a nautical term meaning that when the ship is full then it is set to sail or something to that effect.
What I believe the "fulness of the Gentiles" to be is when the Body of Christ is complete...when Jesus Christ comes back to rapture His Bride/the Church. (1 Thess. 4:13-18; 1 Cor. 15:52-58)..."in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye".

The "fulness of the Gentiles" is not the same as the "times of the Gentiles" (Luke 21:24). The "times of the Gentiles" is the Gentile rule over Jerusalem and that will end at the Second Coming of Christ to the earth to set up the Millennial Kingdom, where He will rule from Jerusalem for 1,000 years.

My heart's Desire
Aug 9th 2009, 06:04 AM
I have to retire for the night, but one last thought is this. The complementary verse for Romans 11:1,2 is this. Jeremiah 33 Verse 24 is interesting in that then as it is now, people were saying that the Lord had rejected His people. To counteract that notion the Lord then gives us these verses.
Jeremiah 33:25-26
Thus says the Lord, If my covenant for day and night stand not, and the fixed patterns of heaven and earth I have not established,
then I would reject the descendants of Jacob and David My servant, not taking from his descendants rulers over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But I will restore their fortunes and will have mercy on them.
.

My heart's Desire
Aug 9th 2009, 06:11 AM
What I believe the "fulness of the Gentiles" to be is when the Body of Christ is complete...when Jesus Christ comes back to rapture His Bride/the Church. (1 Thess. 4:13-18; 1 Cor. 15:52-58)..."in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye".


Same thing. I just said it differently. I know it isn't the same as the "times of the Gentiles".
In keeping with the topic, the partial hardening may just be about over when the last Gentile (fullness of the Gentiles) comes into the Body of Christ (which of course doesn't mean the Jewish people are not coming in too through belief). Highly possible the rapture takes place for the Church and then Christ restarts His program for Israel i.e the time of Jacob's Trouble.

sheina maidle
Aug 9th 2009, 06:17 AM
Same thing. I just said it differently. I know it isn't the same as the "times of the Gentiles".
In keeping with the topic, the partial hardening may just be about over when the last Gentile (fullness of the Gentiles) comes into the Body of Christ (which of course doesn't mean the Jewish people are not coming in too through belief). Highly possible the rapture takes place for the Church and then Christ restarts His program for Israel i.e the time of Jacob's Trouble.
:agree: :amen:

We are close...the rapture is imminent!

Cyberseeker
Aug 9th 2009, 06:55 AM
Historic covenant theology has maintained (and rightly so) that the kingdom was taken from Israel and given to the Israel of faith – sons of Abraham, who trace their lineage, not by blood, but by faith in God. It was not a ‘replacement’ Israel; it was a ‘fulfilled’ Israel including those of natural descent who believed in anticipation of the promise, as well as those Gentiles who accepted Messiah after his confirmation of it. Thus, the substantial remnant of Israel who believed retained their previous covenant relationship with God (they were not replaced) and the believing Gentiles, after the heirs had responded, were then grafted in.

What then of the remaining Jews who refused to believe the news announced to them by God’s Anointed, demonstrated in the power of the Holy Spirit with signs and wonders? They were cut off! (Romans 10-11) They forfeited their exclusive covenant relationship.


The only beef I have with my fellow Covenant Theology friends is that they fail to address the matter of the re-emergence the national state of Israel. God has made it happen, but not because they have a unique covenant relationship any more. There is another reason.



Cyberseeker

BroRog
Aug 9th 2009, 04:38 PM
We have to look at the context to see that:


Romans 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

He is speaking TO the gentiles.


Romans 11:14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
Romans 11:15 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?


Here he speaks of his own lost Jewish brothers who are essentially dead and how it can be possible for them to live again. This is EXACTLY the same concept that will be covered in the metaphor of the pruned unbeliving Jews that can be reattached if they accept Christ.


Romans 11:16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
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;


Here we have two kinds of branches which from context above are Jews and Gentiles. Jews later called natural branches, born on the tree and grafted branches which are believing gentiles added to the tree.


Romans 11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

Now, He is still speaking TO the gentiles about the Jewish branches. The Gentile Christians thought themselves above the Jews (I think more towards the pruned ones) and they were boastful....probably along the lines of how many more non Jews were believing in Christ than Jews. That's my opinion. Either way they were boasting and Paul was going to stop that.

So to answer your question, branches here are the Jews.

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. That wasn't my question. The question is this. Which Jews? The one's that are still on the tree or the ones that are cut off?

Naphal
Aug 9th 2009, 07:55 PM
I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. That wasn't my question. The question is this. Which Jews? The one's that are still on the tree or the ones that are cut off?

First off it would be wrong to boast no matter who was doing it but in this case:



Romans 11:19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
Romans 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

The branches spoken of are the ones broken off. The gentiles were boasting that God broke off the branches because he favored the gentiles more but that's not the reason they were broken off. It was their unbelief only that caused them to be removed. It was totally unrelated to the gentiles being grafted on to the tree.

My heart's Desire
Aug 10th 2009, 04:30 AM
The only beef I have with my fellow Covenant Theology friends is that they fail to address the matter of the re-emergence the national state of Israel. God has made it happen, but not because they have a unique covenant relationship any more. There is another reason.



Cyberseeker
Same here. But....Israel still has the promise of an earthly kingdom for all those who trust Christ, finally accepting Him as their Messiah. The Kingdom will be with the King a descendant of David (who is Christ) reigning over the Kingdom promised to them, with the 12 Apostles eating and drinking at his table in the Kingdom, sitting on thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel. Luke 22:30.
Is it any wonder then that they asked in Acts of Jesus if it was at this time that He was going to restore the Kingdom to Israel? They were human just as we are.
They knew what the Kingdom would bring, and expected certain things.
Take the story of the mother of the sons of Zebedee when she came to Jesus and asked if her two sons (James and John) could sit one on His left and one on the right when He came into His Kingdom. The other 10 disciples became indignant that the mother would ask such a thing.
Notice again who they will be judging. The 12 tribes of Israel.
Some meat to chew on. I'm still studying just like everyone else.

sheina maidle
Aug 10th 2009, 06:04 AM
What then of the remaining Jews who refused to believe the news announced to them by God’s Anointed, demonstrated in the power of the Holy Spirit with signs and wonders? They were cut off! (Romans 10-11) They forfeited their exclusive covenant relationship.


The only beef I have with my fellow Covenant Theology friends is that they fail to address the matter of the re-emergence the national state of Israel. God has made it happen, but not because they have a unique covenant relationship any more. There is another reason.



Cyberseeker
God did not cast Israel off permanently...the "casting off was partial". ISRAEL’S REJECTION IS NOT TOTAL BUT PARTIAL. The great majority of Jews have rejected God’s gospel as found in the Person of Jesus Christ, but not all of them have. There was a remnant of Jews who trusted Christ, and Paul was part of this remnant.

Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

ISRAEL’S REJECTION IS NOT PERMANENT BUT TEMPORARY. The nation will not always reject God. There is coming a great future day when the nation will be saved.

Romans 11:25 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.

Israel still does have a unique covenant relationship with God. God will keep His covenant promises to His people Israel. If, as you say, Israel's re-emergence as a state is not because of that covenant relationship, would you please explain what "the reason" is?

I'll give you a hint: Genesis 12:1-3; 15:1-21; 2 Samuel 7:12-16; Jeremiah 31:31; 33:24-26

kay-gee
Aug 10th 2009, 12:13 PM
ALL prophecies were fulfilled in Christ. Israel can expect no more. All the nations have been blessed through her.

Present day Israel is Israel in name only. She will never again be the Israel of the OT.

I believe that the mosque on the temple site has been placed by Gods own providence to insure there will NEVER be another temple, much like the cherub with the flaming sword the guarded the way back to Eden.

The point is to get into Christ and occupy until He returns to judge the world!

all the best...

John146
Aug 10th 2009, 02:04 PM
I don't believe Paul is speaking about individuals. When he says that the Gentiles were grafted in, he is talking about the Gentiles as a group.Paul talked about branches (plural) being grafted in. Was he talking about multiple groups of Gentiles being grafted in or multiple individual Gentiles? What about now? How is someone grafted in now?

When Jesus says that He is the Vine and we are the branches is He not saying that we are individual branches in the Vine? It's no different than the fact that we are each individidual members of His body, which he talks about in the next chapter (Rom 12).

Romans 12
4For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:
5So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

Many individual members of the one body in Christ is the same concept as many individual branches in the good olive tree.

John146
Aug 10th 2009, 02:06 PM
Let me ask you this. In verse 18, which branches is Paul talking about, the branches that remain on the tree or the branches that were broken off?The branches that were broken off, which is what the surrounding context indicates. Why do you ask?

John146
Aug 10th 2009, 02:26 PM
The only beef I have with my fellow Covenant Theology friends is that they fail to address the matter of the re-emergence the national state of Israel.

God has made it happen, but not because they have a unique covenant relationship any more. There is another reason.I have addressed this before and as I recall I asked you to show me the scripture that prophesies about what happened in 1948 and I don't recall that you were able to give me any.

BroRog
Aug 10th 2009, 02:42 PM
Paul talked about branches (plural) being grafted in. Was he talking about multiple groups of Gentiles being grafted in or multiple individual Gentiles? What about now? How is someone grafted in now?

When Jesus says that He is the Vine and we are the branches is He not saying that we are individual branches in the Vine? It's no different than the fact that we are each individidual members of His body, which he talks about in the next chapter (Rom 12).

Romans 12
4For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:
5So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

Many individual members of the one body in Christ is the same concept as many individual branches in the good olive tree.

Jesus and Paul are using agricultural metaphors to say different things. Paul uses the Olive Tree as an analogy to support his contention that God has not ceased from dealing with natural Israel as a unit and that what the Gentiles are seeing is temporary.

The description of the natural branches being cut off, and the wild branches grafted in speaks in terms of an era when other nations, i.e. the Gentiles are taking from the root of the tree, while Israel is not. And as long as the Gentiles continue to have faith, they will continue to have benefit of the root. The Gentiles are not to be arrogant against Israel because one day, the Gentiles will be cut off and Israel grafted back on. As he says, when the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, then the deliverer will remove ungodliness from Jacob.

John146
Aug 10th 2009, 03:02 PM
Jesus and Paul are using agricultural metaphors to say different things.I disagree. Both speak of many individual branches being cut off, remaining or being grafted in and the basis for being cut off, remaining or being grafted in is whether or not one has faith in Christ.


Paul uses the Olive Tree as an analogy to support his contention that God has not ceased from dealing with natural Israel as a unit and that what the Gentiles are seeing is temporary. I have no idea what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?


The description of the natural branches being cut off, and the wild branches grafted in speaks in terms of an era when other nations, i.e. the Gentiles are taking from the root of the tree, while Israel is not. And as long as the Gentiles continue to have faith, they will continue to have benefit of the root.What do you mean "as long as the Gentiles continue to have faith"? Most Gentiles do not have faith. How many Gentiles need to have faith in order for Gentiles to "continue to have benefit of the root"?


he Gentiles are not to be arrogant against Israel because one day, the Gentiles will be cut off and Israel grafted back on. As he says, when the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, then the deliverer will remove ungodliness from Jacob.That's not what it says. Romans 11:26 does not say "And then...". It says "And so....". Big difference. The way that all Israel is saved is by the new covenant that was established by the blood of Christ long ago. The Deliverer has already come to remove ungodliness from Jacob. Just because not all believed in Him doesn't mean He failed to do that.

Acts 3
25Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. 26Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

Notice that Peter is speaking to his fellow Israelites here and tells them that God sent Jesus to turn away every one of them from their iniquities. So, how can you say that the Deliverer has not yet come to turn ungodliness away from Jacob?

BroRog
Aug 10th 2009, 04:35 PM
I disagree. Both speak of many individual branches being cut off, remaining or being grafted in and the basis for being cut off, remaining or being grafted in is whether or not one has faith in Christ.

Do you see how you might be thinking about Jesus' metaphor while reading Paul only to miss what Paul is actually saying?


I have no idea what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?
Okay, do you understand the concept of a team?


What do you mean "as long as the Gentiles continue to have faith"? Most Gentiles do not have faith. How many Gentiles need to have faith in order for Gentiles to "continue to have benefit of the root"? Paul's metaphor isn't about numbers. If you think in terms of numbers or individuals you will miss the point. Israel is a nation. The word "Gentiles" means "all the other nations." If we think in terms of individuals we suppose Paul is saying things that aren't true.

For instance, if we suppose that Paul were speaking of individuals, then we will conclude that no Jews are coming to faith in Jesus, which isn't true.

In Paul's analogy he never says that Jews are grafted onto the tree. They are natural branches that start on the tree from the beginning. If we suppose that Paul is talking about individual Jews, then we have him suggesting that individual Jews are saved as a birthright and only get removed after they refuse to believe. Do you believe salvation is a birthright?

In Paul's analogy, he says that natural branches were cut off to make room for wild branches. If we suppose he is talking about individuals, we have him saying that individual Jews needed to be cut off in order that individual Gentiles might be grafted in. Do you believe that an individual Jew must become apostate in order for a Gentile to have a place in "Israel?"


That's not what it says. Romans 11:26 does not say "And then...". It says "And so....". Big difference. The way that all Israel is saved is by the new covenant that was established by the blood of Christ long ago.

Romans 11:1 I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

Ever wonder why Paul didn't say, "God has not rejected his people because his people are now circumcised of heart and Israel is not "spiritual Israel?" He doesn't make that argument here does he? :)

John146
Aug 10th 2009, 05:18 PM
Do you see how you might be thinking about Jesus' metaphor while reading Paul only to miss what Paul is actually saying? Not at all.


Okay, do you understand the concept of a team? Yes. We could compare the branches of the olive tree to individual players on a team. It's worth noting that in the very next chapter (Romans 12) Paul speaks about believers each being individual members of the body of Christ. Branches of the tree. Members of His body, the church. Same thing. He is the root of the olive tree and if we have faith in Him then we are grafted into His body. The tree represents the body of Christ. He is the head and cornerstone of the church. The root of the olive tree. He holds the church together.


Paul's metaphor isn't about numbers. If you think in terms of numbers or individuals you will miss the point. Israel is a nation.Made up of individual people.


The word "Gentiles" means "all the other nations." If we think in terms of individuals we suppose Paul is saying things that aren't true. Are you trying to say you think the term Gentile can only refer to a nation and not to an individual?

Eph 4
17This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, 18Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:

Do nations have their own minds and hearts?


For instance, if we suppose that Paul were speaking of individuals, then we will conclude that no Jews are coming to faith in Jesus, which isn't true. What is this comment based on?


In Paul's analogy he never says that Jews are grafted onto the tree.He says they can be. Even the ones who were broken off.

Rom 11
20Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

The very ones who were broken off could be grafted back in if they would "abide not still in unbelief". Do you think the ones who were broken off could not be grafted back in despite what the above says? What about this:

Rom 11
30For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Notice that Paul tells the Roman beleivers that they in times past did not believe God but obtained mercy through the unbelief of those Israelite branches who were broken off. Then he says that though those Israelites now did not believe, they could obtain mercy through the mercy of the Gentiles towards them. That refers back to what Paul says here:

Rom 11:11 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.

The salvation of the Gentiles would provoke some of those Israelites who were broken off to jealousy so that they would want to be grafted back in. As it says, God "concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.". It doesn't say that "God hath concluded them all in unbelief forever and will never have mercy on them".


They are natural branches that start on the tree from the beginning. If we suppose that Paul is talking about individual Jews, then we have him suggesting that individual Jews are saved as a birthright and only get removed after they refuse to believe. Do you believe salvation is a birthright?They were not saved, but they were the ones "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 9:4). So, until they proved unfaithful they were assumed to be among God's people.


In Paul's analogy, he says that natural branches were cut off to make room for wild branches. If we suppose he is talking about individuals, we have him saying that individual Jews needed to be cut off in order that individual Gentiles might be grafted in. Do you believe that an individual Jew must become apostate in order for a Gentile to have a place in "Israel?"Where does it say that the natural branches were cut off to make room for the wild branches? Is there a limit to the number of branches that can be grafted onto the tree?


Romans 11:1 I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

Ever wonder why Paul didn't say, "God has not rejected his people because his people are now circumcised of heart and Israel is not "spiritual Israel?" He doesn't make that argument here does he? :)What is your point here? The only way one can be a child of God is by faith in Christ (Gal 3:26) and not by being a natural descendant of Israel (Rom 9:6-8).

If you read further the verses that follow Romans 11:1, you can see that He did not "cast away His people which He foreknew". Who was that? The "remnant according to the election of grace" (Rom 11:5). Those who were believers. The rest were cast away and broken off. But not permanently because "they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in". Though they were in unbelief and were broken off because of it they were not broken off forever if they did not abide in unbelief and came to faith in Christ any time after that.

David Taylor
Aug 10th 2009, 05:48 PM
In Paul's analogy he never says that Jews are grafted onto the tree.

Maybe not persae in Romans 11, but Paul and Peter both do so many times in the book of Acts. (not with the tree analogy, but with the same conceptual inclusion into the Body of Christ).

Peter said all Israelites are forever welcome to come by repentance to Christ!

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 they 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 baptized every 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."


Paul also shows Israelites coming into Christ's Olive tree via faithful belief and repentance....

Acts 13:43 "Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God."



Here is a great example of both Jews and Gentiles being graffed into the Olive Tree together...at the very same time!

Acts 14:1 "And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed."

BroRog
Aug 10th 2009, 06:54 PM
Maybe not persae in Romans 11, but Paul and Peter both do so many times in the book of Acts. (not with the tree analogy, but with the same conceptual inclusion into the Body of Christ).

Peter said all Israelites are forever welcome to come by repentance to Christ!

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 they 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 baptized every 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."


Paul also shows Israelites coming into Christ's Olive tree via faithful belief and repentance....

Acts 13:43 "Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God."



Here is a great example of both Jews and Gentiles being graffed into the Olive Tree together...at the very same time!

Acts 14:1 "And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed."


No argument that God is saving both Jews and Gentiles. But that's isn't the issue being discussed. We are assuming that universal access to salvation is a given. And so given that universal access to salvation is a reality, we consider the Olive Tree analogy and how it serves to make Paul's point.

It has been asserted by me that the Olive Tree analogy does not concern individual people. That is, the branches of the tree don't represent individual people. I have given two theological reasons why we err if we suppose that Paul is talking about individual believers.

To reiterate them briefly:

1. Individual Jews do not have salvation as a birthright.

2. Individual Jews are not taken from the tree to make room for individual Gentiles.

There may be other theological reasons to reject this interpretation, but these are the two that come readily to mind this morning.

Naphal
Aug 10th 2009, 07:33 PM
The Gentiles are not to be arrogant against Israel because one day, the Gentiles will be cut off and Israel grafted back on. As he says, when the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, then the deliverer will remove ungodliness from Jacob.

Thats not true. God will not cut off the Christian gentiles. Thats reverse boasting which would be equally as wrong as the boasting some did against the cut off Jews. No one should boast or be arrogant, Jew or Gentile alike. (all are one in Christ anyways so there is no better or lesser member)

one_lost_coin
Aug 10th 2009, 07:43 PM
I have never heard of this and still finding it diffucult to get my head around what it is.

The Church was literally built on the foundation of Jesus who is a Jew and its Apostolic origins the 12 pillars, the 12 heads of the tribes commissioned by Jesus Christ are all Jews.

Isnt that more of a fullfillment than a replacement? I am lost.

David Taylor
Aug 10th 2009, 08:06 PM
We are assuming that universal access to salvation is a given. And so given that universal access to salvation is a reality, we consider the Olive Tree analogy and how it serves to make Paul's point.

It has been asserted by me that the Olive Tree analogy does not concern individual people. That is, the branches of the tree don't represent individual people.

Are these references to the House of Israel speaking of individuals, or the nation as a whole?

Exodus 16:31 "And the house of Israel called the name thereof Manna: and it was like coriander seed, white; and the taste of it was like wafers made with honey. And Moses said, This is the thing which the LORD commandeth, Fill an omer of it to be kept for your generations; that they may see the bread wherewith I have fed you in the wilderness, when I brought you forth from the land of Egypt."

Joshua 21:43 "And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. And 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. There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass."

2 Samuel 6:5 "And David and all the house of Israel played before the LORD on all manner of instruments made of fir wood, even on harps, and on psalteries, and on timbrels, and on cornets, and on cymbals."

Psalms 98:2 "The LORD hath made known his salvation: his righteousness hath he openly shewed in the sight of the heathen. He hath remembered his mercy and his truth toward the house of Israel: all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God."

Psalms 115:12 "The LORD hath been mindful of us: he will bless us; he will bless the house of Israel; he will bless the house of Aaron. He will bless them that fear the LORD, both small and great."

Isaiah 63:7 "I will mention the lovingkindnesses of the LORD, and the praises of the LORD, according to all that the LORD hath bestowed on us, and the great goodness toward the house of Israel, which he hath bestowed on them according to his mercies, and according to the multitude of his lovingkindnesses. For he said, Surely they are my people, children that will not lie: so he was their Saviour. In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old."

Amos 9:9 "For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth. All the sinners of my people shall die by the sword, which say, The evil shall not overtake nor prevent us. In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old"

Isaiah 31:33 "But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

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 they 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 baptized every 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."

BroRog
Aug 10th 2009, 08:10 PM
Not at all.

Okay, but you often say you don't understand me. Being able to see another person's point of view will lead to being able to understand what they are saying.


Yes. We could compare the branches of the olive tree to individual players on a team. It's worth noting that in the very next chapter (Romans 12) Paul speaks about believers each being individual members of the body of Christ. Branches of the tree. Members of His body, the church. Same thing. He is the root of the olive tree and if we have faith in Him then we are grafted into His body. The tree represents the body of Christ. He is the head and cornerstone of the church. The root of the olive tree. He holds the church together.

Okay, Christ's body is a good example of individuals who are being considered as a unit. Paul uses the body as a metaphor for the sum total of all believers in Christ in order to emphasize, not their individuality, but their unity. This metaphor serves his point that, no matter what function we have in the body, we should love each other as we would love our hands, and our feet, and our head and other members of our body, just as it would be ridiculous if our actual hands and head fought with each other. The analogy with our body works to make his point because our body comes with a logical interrelationship between its members such that taken together they form a single identity.


Made up of individual people.

Yes, just as any team is made up of individuals. But the concept of a team places the focus on the team taken as a unit in which all of the members taken together comprise a single unit with a single identity. When the papers report that State beat the rival team from across town, the focus is on the team itself, the organized individuals who take their identity from the team and are being considered in the whole not individually.


Are you trying to say you think the term Gentile can only refer to a nation and not to an individual?

No. But the plural form of the word "Gentiles" can either refer to non-Jews, or it can refer to nations other than the country of Israel. In other words, it can refer to either peoples or nations depending on the context. When contrasted with the people group known as "Jews", the term refers to everyone else other than a member of that people group -- anyone other than a Jew. But when Paul contrasts the word Gentiles with Israel, then the term indicates any other nation other than the nation of Israel.


Do nations have their own minds and hearts?

In a sense, yes. Sometimes God holds individual citizens responsible for the actions of their leaders.

Consider Paul's earlier point. In the following passage, Paul speaks about Israel in terms of what the entire country did, even though, in reality, it was her leaders who handed Jesus over to the Romans to have him put to death.


11 I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation [has come] to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. 12 Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be!

In fact, it was the leadership of Israel that committed the transgression that became riches to the rest of the world. But Paul speaks of them in terms of a unified nation with a unified voice. The entire nation is being held accountable, as a nation not individually, for the crimes of the nation. In like manner, Paul looks forward to a time of fulfillment for his nation, taken as a whole.


What is this comment based on?


His analogy. :)

Notice, for instance, that Paul is silent about any Jews being grafted onto the tree. We understand from nature that natural branches are not added to a tree, they are already part of the tree itself. That's why he calls them "natural" branches.

And so, the interpretation which suggest that the Olive Tree represents the conglomeration of those individuals who have come to believe in Jesus would necessarily imply that Jews are born believers and continue to believe the rest of their life, unless or until they stop believing at which point they are trimmed off the tree. If each branch represents individual believers, then the analogy requires that the Jews start off in life as natural born believers.

Granted, Paul has the natural branches returning to belief, but the branches are being grafted back on to a tree from which they naturally belong. What we don't see, which would be required by the above interpretation, are any Jews initially coming to belief.


Notice that Paul tells the Roman beleivers that they in times past did not
The salvation of the Gentiles would provoke some of those Israelites who were broken off to jealousy so that they would want to be grafted back in. As it says, God "concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.". It doesn't say that "God hath concluded them all in unbelief forever and will never have mercy on them".

But I also take note of the fact that Paul refers to the Gentiles corporately and not individually. The above interpretation would have Paul say that the salvation of some Gentiles would make some Jews jealous. But his language leaves out the word "some". When he says that salvation has come upon the Gentiles, he is talking generally about the Gentiles. As we both know, individually we find some who come to faith and others that don't. So grammatically speaking, Paul is using the term "Gentiles" in order to make a general statement about the Gentiles, but has not guaranteed that all Gentiles are being saved.


They were not saved, but they were the ones "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 9:4). So, until they proved unfaithful they were assumed to be among God's people.

This goes back to the idea of the team. By analogy, if Israel was a team we would say that the playing field, the jerseys, the bats and the balls belong to the team. If a member of the team quits or is kicked off the team, they are no longer part of the team and can not take any of the equipment home with them. Likewise, the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the law, and the promises belong to them corporately. Individually, a kinsmen of Paul can not individually take possession of these items unless he or she is a member of Israel.


Where does it say that the natural branches were cut off to make room for the wild branches? Is there a limit to the number of branches that can be grafted onto the tree?


It comes from these two verses from this section.


19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." 20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith.

If branches are individuals, then the Gentiles would be saying, "Individual Jews were broken off so that I, as an individual, could be grafted in."


What is your point here? The only way one can be a child of God is by faith in Christ (Gal 3:26) and not by being a natural descendant of Israel (Rom 9:6-8).

The point is my contention that Paul is not thinking in terms of individual people in Romans 11. Had Paul wanted to make his earlier point that God has given universal access to salvation on the basis of faith, this would have been an opportune place. But Paul is making a different point in Romans 11, and that is why Paul emphasizes his pedigree, not his spiritual status.

BroRog
Aug 10th 2009, 08:32 PM
Thats not true. God will not cut off the Christian gentiles. Thats reverse boasting which would be equally as wrong as the boasting some did against the cut off Jews. No one should boast or be arrogant, Jew or Gentile alike. (all are one in Christ anyways so there is no better or lesser member)

It is my contention that Paul isn't speaking of individuals and so my view wouldn't have God cutting off individual people, whether they be Jews or Gentiles. And I certainly wouldn't say that God is going to cut off believers. :)

The idea that God is going to cut off Gentiles as a group comes from at least two places: one from this passage and one from 2Thess. 2.

In this passage Paul says there will come a time to be known as the "fullness of the Gentiles." What else could this mean other than there will come a time when no more Gentiles will come to belief?

The other passage comes from 2Thess. 2, in which Paul talks about a time of apostasy in which God will bring on the world a deluding influence because they did not love the truth. In my view, this period of Apostasy corresponds with the era in which the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

David Taylor
Aug 10th 2009, 08:44 PM
It is my contention that Paul isn't speaking of individuals and so my view wouldn't have God cutting off individual people, whether they be Jews or Gentiles. And I certainly wouldn't say that God is going to cut off believers. :)

The idea that God is going to cut off Gentiles as a group comes from at least two places: one from this passage and one from 2Thess. 2.

In this passage Paul says there will come a time to be known as the "fullness of the Gentiles." What else could this mean other than there will come a time when no more Gentiles will come to belief?



Gentiles stopping coming to believe isn't being cut off.

When the fulness occurs; then the spots on the tree taken up by Gentiles will be finished. completed. done.

It is no different than the Jews who faithfully come to Christ and get a spot on the tree.

Paul has a branch.
Timothy has a branch.
Barnabas has a branch.
Andrew has a branch.
Raybob has a branch.
Naphal has a branch.
You have a branch.
And the branches will continue to be graffed to the tree until Christ returns, and the door is shut.

As Paul clearly tells us just a few verses after the graffing verses...

Romans 12:4 "For as we have many members in one body, So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. "

Naphal
Aug 10th 2009, 09:36 PM
If branches are individuals, then the Gentiles would be saying, "Individual Jews were broken off so that I, as an individual, could be grafted in."

Branches were used by Christ as individuals so Paul using the same metaphor only with an olive tree rather than grape vine. Same difference.


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

Naphal
Aug 10th 2009, 09:38 PM
Romans 12:4 "For as we have many members in one body, So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. "

And naturally the body would be the tree and the branches would be its members.


.

Cyberseeker
Aug 10th 2009, 10:50 PM
I have never heard of this and still finding it diffucult to get my head around what it is.

The Church was literally built on the foundation of Jesus who is a Jew and its Apostolic origins the 12 pillars, the 12 heads of the tribes commissioned by Jesus Christ are all Jews.

Isnt that more of a fullfillment than a replacement? I am lost.

'Fulfillment Theology' :pp Hey Coin, you've started a new name for it! That's exactly what it is! :kiss:

BroRog
Aug 11th 2009, 12:32 AM
Branches were used by Christ as individuals so Paul using the same metaphor only with an olive tree rather than grape vine. Same difference.


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

First of all, Jesus and Paul are making two different and distinct points. Second, you have no answer for my objections to the branches of the Olive tree being individual people.

BroRog
Aug 11th 2009, 12:34 AM
Gentiles stopping coming to believe isn't being cut off.

When the fulness occurs; then the spots on the tree taken up by Gentiles will be finished. completed. done.

It is no different than the Jews who faithfully come to Christ and get a spot on the tree.

Paul has a branch.
Timothy has a branch.
Barnabas has a branch.
Andrew has a branch.
Raybob has a branch.
Naphal has a branch.
You have a branch.
And the branches will continue to be graffed to the tree until Christ returns, and the door is shut.

As Paul clearly tells us just a few verses after the graffing verses...

Romans 12:4 "For as we have many members in one body, So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. "

Since you did not answer to my objections, I assume you have none and are simply repeating yourself.

Naphal
Aug 11th 2009, 12:39 AM
First of all, Jesus and Paul are making two different and distinct points.

The points don't matter. When you speak of a tree and branches its speaking of individuals as branches. Jesus used it as such as thus so did Paul. Someone that doesn't believe in Jesus is individually removed on a person to person basis. God knows the heart and knows who denies Jesus. Same goes for all who accept Jesus. At the end of it there is a pile of branches that would have been removed and that represents individuals.



Second, you have no answer for my objections to the branches of the Olive tree being individual people.


Not answering is not akin to having no answer.




1. Individual Jews do not have salvation as a birthright.

No one has salvation as a birthright.


2. Individual Jews are not taken from the tree to make room for individual Gentiles.

The tree has unlimited ability to have branches. No one needs to be removed to make room for someone else. Fruitless branches are automatically removed.

BroRog
Aug 11th 2009, 01:37 AM
The points don't matter. When you speak of a tree and branches its speaking of individuals as branches.

Not necessarily. The plural form of the word "branch" can either refer to each branch taken individually or a whole group of branches taken all at once. But if Paul intended to speak about individual branches, he could get at his point much faster by using the singular as in the following example

But if a branch was broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among the other branches and became a partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward that branch; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you.
As you can see, the singular form of the word "branch" would work much better to make the point that individual Jews were broken off the tree. The plural form is ambiguous, however, if Paul is talking about individual people. Again, in the following example, the singular form of the word branch makes a clear statement concerning individual people.

You will say then, "A branch was broken off so that I might be grafted in." Quite right, that branch was broken off for his or her unbelief, but you stand by your faith.
The singular form does a much better job of making an argument concerning the individual, but it remains ambiguous in the plural form. Had Paul wanted to make a point concerning the individual, the clarity of his argument would greatly improve by using the singular form.



No one has salvation as a birthright.
Obviously. That's why I used this reason as the basis for my first objection. We all agree that no one has salvation as a right of birth. And so beginning with a point on which we both can agree, I built my first objection.

If we find that our interpretation of Paul's analogy leads to an absurd conclusion such as the one above, then we need to look for another interpretation. The interpretation that supposes Paul is speaking of individual people, leads to that conclusion due to his use of the terms "natural" and "wild".

A natural branch belongs on the tree by virtue of the fact that the branch is part of the flesh of the tree and an outgrowth of the tree's maturity. A wild branch belongs to an entirely different tree.

The wild branches in Paul's analogy are Gentile by definition and so a Jewish person is a natural branch by birth, a proper implication of the definition. If being on the tree represents salvation or being in Christ, then this leads to the absurd notion that Jewish people are saved by birth. Therefore, we conclude that being on the tree is not an issue of salvation and neither is it a analogy to the body of Christ.

Likewise, if the tree is an analogy to the body of Christ, then we have Jewish people who are part of the body of Christ by birth, i.e. natural members of the body, since natural branches are not removed UNTIL unbelief has manifest.

Therefore, to avoid the absurd conclusion that Jewish people are members of the Body of Christ at birth, we must reject the notion that the Olive Tree represents the sum total of all believers, the Body of Christ, Spiritual Israel, or anything like that.


The tree has unlimited ability to have branches. No one needs to be removed to make room for someone else. Fruitless branches are automatically removed.There is no such thing as a tree with unlimited capacity for branches. :) But there is no need to speculate about an infinite tree since the issue isn't a lack of room.

Paul explicitly stipulates that the purpose for removing the natural branches was to graft on wild ones.

You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.
In order for your interpretation to be self consistent and align with Paul's analogy, individual Jews had to be removed in order to make room for individual Gentiles.

Since this is not the case, the analogy can't apply to individuals.

Naphal
Aug 11th 2009, 02:33 AM
Not necessarily. The plural form of the word "branch" can either refer to each branch taken individually or a whole group of branches taken all at once.


:)

But in either case a branch is still an individual.




But if Paul intended to speak about individual branches, he could get at his point much faster by using the singular as in the following example

Sure but when you have a group of individuals all sharing the same thing in common you speak of them as a group not break it down to each person as that would take massive amounts of time.

Have you explained what you think each individual branch represents? It sounds like you believe a group of branches is a group of people so do you not see each branch as a singular person?




Obviously. That's why I used this reason as the basis for my first objection. We all agree that no one has salvation as a right of birth. And so beginning with a point on which we both can agree, I built my first objection.

If we find that our interpretation of Paul's analogy leads to an absurd conclusion such as the one above, then we need to look for another interpretation. The interpretation that supposes Paul is speaking of individual people, leads to that conclusion due to his use of the terms "natural" and "wild".



Not at all. Those terms do not suggest salvation by birthright because all on that tree have Christ rather than some being there without Christ but allowed to stay because of birthright. Some may have been born into that tree but they only remain in it if they have Christ. Birthright has no affect at all.




The wild branches in Paul's analogy are Gentile by definition and so a Jewish person is a natural branch by birth, a proper implication of the definition. If being on the tree represents salvation or being in Christ, then this leads to the absurd notion that Jewish people are saved by birth.

Your assumption is in error:If being on the tree represents salvation or being in Christ

Being born on the tree doesn't represent salvation. Remaining on it does. That's a key part that's missing in your explanation of how you view what Paul wrote.




Therefore, we conclude that being on the tree is not an issue of salvation and neither is it a analogy to the body of Christ.

That conclusion is in error based on an assumption also in error :)
You've basically created a scenario where it ends the way you believe it should but the "figures" within this "calculation" are very off.....no offense meant, I just see the mistakes being made.



Likewise, if the tree is an analogy to the body of Christ, then we have Jewish people who are part of the body of Christ by birth, i.e. natural members of the body, since natural branches are not removed UNTIL unbelief has manifest.

The tree began as Israel, then after Christ it became the body of Christ and purged non Christians.



Therefore, to avoid the absurd conclusion that Jewish people are members of the Body of Christ at birth, we must reject the notion that the Olive Tree represents the sum total of all believers, the Body of Christ, Spiritual Israel, or anything like that.

I understand how you've reached this conclusion but its based on the mistake that the tree was always the body of Christ. It was known differently pre-christ.....Israel, God's wife, the chosen....but it changed when Christ came and died for us and opened the doors to that "tree".



There is no such thing as a tree with unlimited capacity for branches. :)



Don't think carnally my friend, limiting yourself to the limitations of literal trees. This isn't a literal tree and it doesn't have limitations on how many branches it has anymore than how many people can accept Christ.


But there is no need to speculate about an infinite tree since the issue isn't a lack of room.

Haha!



Paul explicitly stipulates that the purpose for removing the natural branches was to graft on wild ones.

You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.



No, no, no! That was the false boasting the grafted branches said. God did NOT brake some off to bring some in.




Romans 11:19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
Romans 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

The mistaken assumption and boast is in 19, but the truth and correction is in 20.

My heart's Desire
Aug 11th 2009, 04:49 AM
ALL prophecies were fulfilled in Christ. Israel can expect no more. All the nations have been blessed through her.

Present day Israel is Israel in name only. She will never again be the Israel of the OT.

I believe that the mosque on the temple site has been placed by Gods own providence to insure there will NEVER be another temple, much like the cherub with the flaming sword the guarded the way back to Eden.

The point is to get into Christ and occupy until He returns to judge the world!

all the best...
I don't believe that to be the case. Jeremiah says as long as there is moon and stars there will be Israel. Last I looked we still have moon and stars. Jeremiah doesn't place in good light those who had said that the Lord had rejected them as a nation.
Jeremiah 33:24
Have you not observed what this people have spoken, saying, " The two families which the Lord chose, He has rejected them:? Thus they despise My people, no longer are they as a nation in their sight. But the Lord says that He will restore their fortunes and have mercy on them.

Israel and Jewish people have overcome great odds in order to be gathered into their Biblical homeland as they are now. The Land was desolate and they were and in a way still are scattered all over the place. The Lord has gathered them back and they are still being gathered.
But here we are, not with a nation claiming to be Israel and located say in Africa or NZ. Israel is in Biblical Israel and have Orthodox Jews who practice their religion.
I wasn't around back before 1948 but I'd almost have to say that people probably didn't have a big problem with Prophecy UNTIL Israel became a Nation again. Now, that they are folks have to rethink everything.

I believe you are right that Israel will NOT be the Israel of the O.T but the fact they are here means God will complete His plan for them.

Cyberseeker
Aug 11th 2009, 06:17 AM
I believe you are right that Israel will NOT be the Israel of the O.T but the fact they are here means God will complete His plan for them.
Yes, they are back in there ancient land for a reason but it is not the reason they (or some Christians) think. The old national covenant has not been given a dust down and re-started.

Gods plan for them is that they discover the new covenant which they rejected all those years ago. In other words they are back in there ancient land because God is positioning them for a second opportunity to accept Messiah. (Zech 12:10)

My heart's Desire
Aug 11th 2009, 06:52 AM
Yes, they are back in there ancient land for a reason but it is not the reason they (or some Christians) think. The old national covenant has not been given a dust down and re-started.

Gods plan for them is that they discover the new covenant which they rejected all those years ago. In other words they are back in there ancient land because God is positioning them for a second opportunity to accept Messiah. (Zech 12:10)
I think you are right. In fact, what is discussed in Jeremiah is the new covenant.

My heart's Desire
Aug 11th 2009, 06:55 AM
Yes, they are back in there ancient land for a reason but it is not the reason they (or some Christians) think. The old national covenant has not been given a dust down and re-started.

Gods plan for them is that they discover the new covenant which they rejected all those years ago. In other words they are back in there ancient land because God is positioning them for a second opportunity to accept Messiah. (Zech 12:10)
I think you are right. And to enter the Kingdom that has been promised to them. (or should I say, a remnant will enter) In fact, what is discussed in Jeremiah is the new covenant.

kay-gee
Aug 11th 2009, 01:03 PM
Yes, they are back in there ancient land for a reason but it is not the reason they (or some Christians) think. The old national covenant has not been given a dust down and re-started.

Gods plan for them is that they discover the new covenant which they rejected all those years ago. In other words they are back in there ancient land because God is positioning them for a second opportunity to accept Messiah. (Zech 12:10)

Naw! Bible teaches faith comes by hearing the gospel (Romans 10:17)

Millions have been converted in every corner of the globe by the preaching of the gospel. Why would people need to go to a certain geographic location to have a chance at being saved? Have you got insight into some other plan of God he did not tell us about?

The raising of Star of David over that place in 1948 has zero to do with the Bible. It was a measure taken by the UN in sympathy of the Holocaust. The Israel in modern day is not anything like the Israel of OT.
No King, No temple, and a secular government and culture.

Where is this mas gathering back to Israel? There are Orthodox Jews in every city in Noth America alone that have no intention what so ever of migrating to Israel. Life is better where they are!

all the best...

BroRog
Aug 11th 2009, 03:01 PM
:)

But in either case a branch is still an individual.

Yes, the singular form "branch" might represent an individual as I pointed out in my previous post. However, Paul doesn't use the singular form in his analogy.


Sure but when you have a group of individuals all sharing the same thing in common you speak of them as a group not break it down to each person as that would take massive amounts of time.

Exactly. Consequently I believe Paul is talking about Israel and the other nations as a group, not as individuals.


Have you explained what you think each individual branch represents? It sounds like you believe a group of branches is a group of people so do you not see each branch as a singular person?


Yes, I do not think Paul has focused on individual people. Since he never talks about each individual branch, we need not concern ourselves with what the individual branches represent. The natural branches, taken as a whole represent Israel taken as a whole. And the Wild branches taken as a whole, represent all Gentiles taken as a whole.


Not at all. Those terms do not suggest salvation by birthright because all on that tree have Christ rather than some being there without Christ but allowed to stay because of birthright. Some may have been born into that tree but they only remain in it if they have Christ. Birthright has no affect at all.


How can you ignore the analogy between being a natural branch and a wild branch? A natural branch is on the tree, not because it is special in any way, but simply because it grew up on that particular tree. Likewise, if the Tree represents Christ, which it doesn't, you must conclude that Jews are in Christ from birth. Otherwise the analogy has no meaning at all.


Being born on the tree doesn't represent salvation. Remaining on it does. That's a key part that's missing in your explanation of how you view what Paul wrote.


Again, we are working with the concepts that Paul gave us. To be a natural branch means the branch existed on the tree from the beginning. By analogy, the Jews are on the tree from the beginning. If the tree represents salvation, which it doesn't, then you must conclude that a Jew is born saved. Otherwise our interpretation causes Paul's analogy to break down.


That conclusion is in error based on an assumption also in error :)
You've basically created a scenario where it ends the way you believe it should but the "figures" within this "calculation" are very off.....no offense meant, I just see the mistakes being made.


Again, it's easy to call something an error. But proving it seems to be more difficult.


I understand how you've reached this conclusion but its based on the mistake that the tree was always the body of Christ. It was known differently pre-christ.....Israel, God's wife, the chosen....but it changed when Christ came and died for us and opened the doors to that "tree".

Where is this in the text? What part of a tree analogy leads one to conclude that the tree can morph into a completely different tree? This is incredible.


Don't think carnally my friend, limiting yourself to the limitations of literal trees. This isn't a literal tree and it doesn't have limitations on how many branches it has anymore than how many people can accept Christ.


Paul is not making an analogy with an Olive Tree. If his analogy was with an imaginary tree with super powers, how would anyone get his point? Please.


No, no, no! That was the false boasting the grafted branches said. God did NOT brake some off to bring some in.

It was not false boasting. Remember, as we discuss the text, that I have the text right here in front of me.

Paul affirms their statement is factual.

Okay, so I have presented my case.

John146
Aug 11th 2009, 04:20 PM
Notice, for instance, that Paul is silent about any Jews being grafted onto the tree.No, he is not.

Rom 11
20Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.
24For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

Who is he talking about in verse 20? Jews. Who is he talking about being grafted in in verses 23 and 24? Jews.


We understand from nature that natural branches are not added to a tree, they are already part of the tree itself. That's why he calls them "natural" branches. And he also speaks of natural branches being broken off and later being grafted in again "if they abide not still in unbelief". If any of the natural branches "abide not still in unbelief" then they are grafted in again. You can say all you want that natural branches can't be added to a tree, but Paul said otherwise.


And so, the interpretation which suggest that the Olive Tree represents the conglomeration of those individuals who have come to believe in Jesus would necessarily imply that Jews are born believers and continue to believe the rest of their life, unless or until they stop believing at which point they are trimmed off the tree. If each branch represents individual believers, then the analogy requires that the Jews start off in life as natural born believers. Do you see that Paul was speaking particularly of the Israelites of his day having been broken off the tree? Before Christ came and people were commanded to repent and believe the gospel the Israelites were in a way born into the kingdom because it was them "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 9:4). This doesn't mean they weren't required to have faith, but they were placed in God's family by default by virtue of being Israelites. But being found in unbelief resulted in them being broken off.

Since then the only way anyone can be grafted in is by having faith in Christ. That includes those who were broken off. They were not broken off forever. They could be grafted in again if they abided "not still in unbelief". If they did abide in unbelief the rest of their lives then they would remain broken off. Since then all people have had the opportunity to be grafted in by faith in Christ.


Granted, Paul has the natural branches returning to belief, but the branches are being grafted back on to a tree from which they naturally belong. What we don't see, which would be required by the above interpretation, are any Jews initially coming to belief.So what? Do you think no Jews have come to belief in the last 2,000 years or so? What is the basis for thinking no Jews could be grafted in until a much later time after those 1st century Jews were broken off due to their unbelief?


But I also take note of the fact that Paul refers to the Gentiles corporately and not individually.But he speaks in terms of them having faith in contrast to those who were broken off due to unbelief. Groups don't have faith. Individuals do. If Paul was speaking of them being grafted in because of corporate faith then how many of them needed to have faith in order for them all to be grafted in?

Paul also warns the Gentiles about being cut off as the unbelieving Israelites were (Rom 11:21-22). Would all of them have to be in unbelief in order for the Gentiles to be cut off? If so, then you could have all but one Gentile in unbelief and all of them would be able to remain on the tree because of that one person's faith. Does that make sense? Not to me.


The above interpretation would have Paul say that the salvation of some Gentiles would make some Jews jealous. But his language leaves out the word "some". When he says that salvation has come upon the Gentiles, he is talking generally about the Gentiles.Are people saved corporately or individually? Are groups born of the Spirit or individuals?


As we both know, individually we find some who come to faith and others that don't. So grammatically speaking, Paul is using the term "Gentiles" in order to make a general statement about the Gentiles, but has not guaranteed that all Gentiles are being saved. Only individual Gentiles who put their faith in Christ are saved.


The point is my contention that Paul is not thinking in terms of individual people in Romans 11. Had Paul wanted to make his earlier point that God has given universal access to salvation on the basis of faith, this would have been an opportune place. But Paul is making a different point in Romans 11, and that is why Paul emphasizes his pedigree, not his spiritual status.What do you mean he emphasizes his pedigree? He only speaks of his pedigree to make the point that God did not cast away all of Israel. He emphasizes the fact that he is among the saved remnant of Israel that were not cut off of the olive tree and cast away.

John146
Aug 11th 2009, 04:29 PM
Romans 11:19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
Romans 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

The mistaken assumption and boast is in 19, but the truth and correction is in 20.Good point. I agree. In verse 19 Paul is saying what the Gentiles might try to say, but then he clarifies that the Israelites weren't broken off to make room for the Gentiles. Instead, they were broken off because of their unbelief and the Gentiles were grafted in because of faith.

It would make no sense for them to have been broken off to make room for Gentile believers. That would suggest that the tree has limited space for believers to be grafted in, but Paul never says such a thing.

Cyberseeker
Aug 11th 2009, 05:04 PM
The raising of Star of David over that place in 1948 has zero to do with the Bible. It was a measure taken by the UN in sympathy of the Holocaust.

Really? Well try this then: "From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live." (Acts 17:26)


Why would people need to go to a certain geographic location to have a chance at being saved? Have you got insight into some other plan of God he did not tell us about?
Because God does it that way sometimes. Read this: "God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us." (Acts 17:27)

Here are both verses together. As you can see the UN doesn't have much to do with it.
"From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us." (Acts 17:26,27)

Cyberseeker
Aug 11th 2009, 05:05 PM
The raising of Star of David over that place in 1948 has zero to do with the Bible. It was a measure taken by the UN in sympathy of the Holocaust.

Really? Well try this then: "From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live." (Acts 17:26)


Why would people need to go to a certain geographic location to have a chance at being saved? Have you got insight into some other plan of God he did not tell us about?
Because God does it that way sometimes. Read this: "God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us." (Acts 17:27)

Here are both verses together. As you can see the UN doesn't have much to do with it.

"From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us." (Acts 17:26,27)

Naphal
Aug 11th 2009, 11:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=2167063#post2167063)
:)

But in either case a branch is still an individual.

Yes, the singular form "branch" might represent an individual as I pointed out in my previous post. However, Paul doesn't use the singular form in his analogy.

Ok, but you agree that one branch is an individual, and thus ten branches is ten people and so forth?






Quote:
Sure but when you have a group of individuals all sharing the same thing in common you speak of them as a group not break it down to each person as that would take massive amounts of time.
Exactly. Consequently I believe Paul is talking about Israel and the other nations as a group, not as individuals.


But, a group is composed of individuals. Speaking of them as a group doesn't change that thaey re all each there and a part of that group especially when you use the plural form of a singular word representing individuals.





Quote:
Have you explained what you think each individual branch represents? It sounds like you believe a group of branches is a group of people so do you not see each branch as a singular person?
Yes, I do not think Paul has focused on individual people. Since he never talks about each individual branch, we need not concern ourselves with what the individual branches represent.


There shouldn't even be a disagreement really. Branches meeans multiple people, one branch means one person. No one person/branch is spoken of specifically.




Quote:
Not at all. Those terms do not suggest salvation by birthright because all on that tree have Christ rather than some being there without Christ but allowed to stay because of birthright. Some may have been born into that tree but they only remain in it if they have Christ. Birthright has no affect at all.
How can you ignore the analogy between being a natural branch and a wild branch? A natural branch is on the tree, not because it is special in any way, but simply because it grew up on that particular tree.


They are special in that they are original members of that tree, but beyond that there is no further specialness IMO. I do not ignore the analogy between the natural and wild....its key to what Paul is saying.



Likewise, if the Tree represents Christ, which it doesn't, you must conclude that Jews are in Christ from birth. Otherwise the analogy has no meaning at all.

The tree isn't Christ, its Israel. Belief in Christ allows "membership" into this tree. I think you are pushing the limits of logic for this analogy by bring in concepts of natural branches being born there yet not yet Christian. I think its unneeded speculation.

The facts are:

only Christians are on this tree

Jewish Christians are natural branches because they were born Jewish.
Gentile Christians are wild/graffed branches because they weren't Jewish.
Any Jews that reject Christ have been removed from the tree they USED TO BE part of.


Quote:
Being born on the tree doesn't represent salvation. Remaining on it does. That's a key part that's missing in your explanation of how you view what Paul wrote.

Again, we are working with the concepts that Paul gave us. To be a natural branch means the branch existed on the tree from the beginning. By analogy, the Jews are on the tree from the beginning. If the tree represents salvation, which it doesn't, then you must conclude that a Jew is born saved. Otherwise our interpretation causes Paul's analogy to break down.

Too many IFS. The tree isn't salvation nor is it Jesus. Its Israel.








Quote:
I understand how you've reached this conclusion but its based on the mistake that the tree was always the body of Christ. It was known differently pre-christ.....Israel, God's wife, the chosen....but it changed when Christ came and died for us and opened the doors to that "tree".
Where is this in the text? What part of a tree analogy leads one to conclude that the tree can morph into a completely different tree? This is incredible.


Its because Jews originally belonged to this tree but when Christ came and some rejected him, those were removed. This means membership in this tree changed from pre-christ worship and faith in God to needing Christ. Same tree, no morphing like you said but different rules for being able to be on this tree.





Quote:
Don't think carnally my friend, limiting yourself to the limitations of literal trees. This isn't a literal tree and it doesn't have limitations on how many branches it has anymore than how many people can accept Christ.
Paul is not making an analogy with anOlive Tree. If his analogy was with an imaginary tree with super powers, how would anyone get his point? Please.


Like you said yourself, how could dead branches be reattached? The answer is this isn't about a real tree, its an anaology using some basic knowledge of olive trees and how branches can be grefted on.





Quote:
No, no, no! That was the false boasting the grafted branches said. God did NOT brake some off to bring some in.
It was not false boasting. Remember, as we discuss the text, that I have the text right here in front of me.


I know you do. Its not a lack of having the material but being able to read it with the same eyes others do :)




Paul affirms their statement is factual.

He doesn't. Read some commentaries by some great scholars and see what they say.

BroRog
Aug 12th 2009, 12:58 AM
Ok, but you agree that one branch is an individual, and thus ten branches is ten people and so forth?

In Paul's analogy, the branches don't represent individual people. The plural form of the word, i.e. branches is the same way we might use the word "flowers" when speaking about a bouquet. If I said that I gave my wife flowers for her birthday, I'm talking about the entire bouquet. The individual flowers aren't the point.


But, a group is composed of individuals. Speaking of them as a group doesn't change that thaey re all each there and a part of that group especially when you use the plural form of a singular word representing individuals.

When speaking of groups of people, such as a sports team, one can say things about the team that aren't necessarily true about each individual on the team. For instance, wins and losses are related to team performance, not individual performance. If the team wins, the entire team wins. If the team loses the entire team loses. If one player does well but the other players have a bad day, the entire team has a bad day. If one guy on the team doesn't play well with his team mates, the team suffers even if the guy performs at a high level.


There shouldn't even be a disagreement really. Branches meeans multiple people, one branch means one person. No one person/branch is spoken of specifically.

Branches don't necessarily refer to multiple individuals taken as individuals. Branches can also refer to Nations.


They are special in that they are original members of that tree, but beyond that there is no further specialness IMO. I do not ignore the analogy between the natural and wild....its key to what Paul is saying.


Yes it is key; I agree.


The tree isn't Christ, its Israel. Belief in Christ allows "membership" into this tree.

Two things. First, if the Tree is Israel, then it isn't a group of Israelites or a group of individuals. Second, if belief in Christ allows "membership" into this tree, then the Jews have natural membership.


I think you are pushing the limits of logic for this analogy by bring in concepts of natural branches being born there yet not yet Christian. I think its unneeded speculation.

It's not speculation. It's called inference, which is how analogies work.


The facts are:

only Christians are on this tree

That is not a fact. That is an assumption.


Jewish Christians are natural branches because they were born Jewish.
Gentile Christians are wild/graffed branches because they weren't Jewish.

This violates the analogy since it requires that the natural branches be put on the tree from another tree, rather than existing on the tree already, which is what "natural" means.


Its Israel.

If the tree is Israel, we are talking natural Israel since Paul says some branches were removed that naturally belong there. Otherwise if we say the tree is "Spiritual Israel" then we must draw the conclusion that Jews are born into "Spiritual Israel."


Its because Jews originally belonged to this tree but when Christ came and some rejected him, those were removed. This means membership in this tree changed from pre-christ worship and faith in God to needing Christ. Same tree, no morphing like you said but different rules for being able to be on this tree.


I don't see a rule change in the analogy.


Like you said yourself, how could dead branches be reattached? The answer is this isn't about a real tree, its an anaology using some basic knowledge of olive trees and how branches can be grefted on.


Yes, but the salient feature of the analogy are the categories "natural" and "wild" with the clear implication that the "natural branches" belong on the tree, and the "wild branches" came from a different tree. Whatever the Olive Tree represents we know that the Jews belong there by nature.

The natural branches belong on the tree. For them, being on the tree is right and fitting. The wild branches don't belong to the tree, they are from another tree, put on the cultivated tree against nature.

Since Paul raised this distinction explicitly, we know that he wants the reader to draw a comparison between an Olive Tree and something else specifically with respect to the attributes "natural" and "wild".


He doesn't. Read some commentaries by some great scholars and see what they say.

I hardly ever read commentaries, especially by scholars. :) In order to understand the Bible, one needs to think critically and come to the text with humility and integrity. Scholars have an almost insurmountable obstacle to this approach as they are beholden to those who have a vested interest in the status quo and an "army" to back them up. If a scholar did what I do with the Bible, he or she would surely lose their livelihood.

Naphal
Aug 12th 2009, 01:17 AM
Good point. I agree. In verse 19 Paul is saying what the Gentiles might try to say, but then he clarifies that the Israelites weren't broken off to make room for the Gentiles. Instead, they were broken off because of their unbelief and the Gentiles were grafted in because of faith.

It would make no sense for them to have been broken off to make room for Gentile believers. That would suggest that the tree has limited space for believers to be grafted in, but Paul never says such a thing.


Yep:

Gill


Rom 11:19 Thou wilt say then,.... This is an objection which the apostle foresaw the Gentiles would make against what he had said, and in favour of their boasting;

the branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. The sense of which is, that the Jews were rejected and left out of the Gospel church, on purpose to make way for the Gentiles, that they might be put in their room; and consequently the Jews must be more vile and unworthy, and the Gentiles more deserving of such favours and privileges, or God would never have taken such a step, to leave out one to make room for the other.

Rom 11:20 Well,.... To this the apostle answers, by approving and granting in, part what was said, that the unbelieving Jews were broken off and rejected, and that the Gentiles that believed in Christ were grafted in among the Jews that professed his name; but then he tacitly denies that it was for their sakes, and their account, they were broken off, but for their own incredulity:
because of unbelief they were broken off; because of their unbelief and contempt of the Messiah, they were rejected of God, and died in their sins; that which excluded their forefathers from the land of Canaan, shut them out of the Gospel church state, and the kingdom of heaven:

Naphal
Aug 12th 2009, 01:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=2167990#post2167990)
Ok, but you agree that one branch is an individual, and thus ten branches is ten people and so forth?

In Paul's analogy, the branches don't represent individual people. The plural form of the word, i.e. branches is the same way we might use the word "flowers" when speaking about a bouquet. If I said that I gave my wife flowers for her birthday, I'm talking about the entire bouquet. The individual flowers aren't the point.


They are all the point, each one. Talking about them as a whole doesn't change that they are made up of singles. Its pretty simple on my end. If 100,000 branches represents 100,000 people then each branch is a person.

If each branch isn't person then what is each branch? I'll answer the rest in a separate post but I want to know this most of all.

Naphal
Aug 12th 2009, 01:59 AM
When speaking of groups of people, such as a sports team, one can say things about the team that aren't necessarily true about each individual on the team. For instance, wins and losses are related to team performance, not individual performance. If the team wins, the entire team wins. If the team loses the entire team loses. If one player does well but the other players have a bad day, the entire team has a bad day. If one guy on the team doesn't play well with his team mates, the team suffers even if the guy performs at a high level.
So of all the broken off branches, a team of people, and lets say most of them rejected Jesus, then there are some that didn't but because they are a part of this team they had to also be cut off? It makes no sense that way. Each branch had to have rejected Christ, and that only works if each branch is a person and as each branch was broken off and stacked in a pile then you have the "team" of branches, each guilty of rejecting Christ.






Quote:
There shouldn't even be a disagreement really. Branches meeans multiple people, one branch means one person. No one person/branch is spoken of specifically.
Branches don't necessarily refer to multiple individuals taken as individuals. Branches can also refer to Nations.


So entire nations who had been on the tree were broken off because they rejected Christ? Exactly how many nations comprise Israel? It makes less and less sense as you explain...









Quote:
The tree isn't Christ, its Israel. Belief in Christ allows "membership" into this tree.
Two things. First, if the Tree is Israel, then it isn't a group of Israelites or a group of individuals.


If the tree is Israel then its natural branches being the Jews proves the branches are individuals not to mention the existing use by Christ that people are branches in a similar analogy.





Second, if belief in Christ allows "membership" into this tree, then the Jews have natural membership.

Not so because the tree grew from its youth before Christ had come. The deciding who may remain on the tree came after the tree was mature. God looked at all of Israels people, the branches, and he removed all non Christians and added all Christians from another tree. Now, all Christians (Whether Jew or gentile) symbolically are all branches on that one tree.






Quote:

The facts are:

only Christians are on this tree
That is not a fact. That is an assumption.


No its not assumption. It says those who aren't Christian are removed and those Christian have been added. That's the whole point of the analogy. Without knowing that, then you've missed everything Paul was saying.


Romans 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

Unbelief here is unbelief in Jesus!

Romans 11:21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
Romans 11:22 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.
Romans 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

And this means to believe in Jesus!

That's proven in the previous chp.


Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
Romans 10:2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
Romans 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
Romans 10:5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
Romans 10:6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)
Romans 10:7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead)
Romans 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Romans 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Romans 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Romans 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

They don't believe in Jesus!







Quote:
Jewish Christians are natural branches because they were born Jewish.
Gentile Christians are wild/graffed branches because they weren't Jewish.
This violates the analogy since it requires that the natural branches be put on the tree from another tree, rather than existing on the tree already, which is what "natural" means.


No, natural branches remain there if they accepted Christ by the time God was doing the pruning.






Quote:
Its Israel.
If the tree is Israel, we are talking natural Israel since Paul says some branches were removed that naturally belong there. Otherwise if we say the tree is "Spiritual Israel" then we must draw the conclusion that Jews are born into "Spiritual Israel."


The Tree is Israel. Other terms are irrelevant. Whatever Israel it is, all Christians are a part of it whether grafted on or not.











Whatever the Olive Tree represents we know that the Jews belong there by nature.

Untrue. Not that they belong there by nature, but USED to belong there by nature. Now it is determined by faith in Christ.




The natural branches belong on the tree.

If that were true, then God wouldn't have removed any of them.



For them, being on the tree is right and fitting.

Only before Christ. After Christ no one had a birthright to REMAIN on that tree.




If a scholar did what I do with the Bible, he or she would surely lose their livelihood.

You kinda set yourself up there for a nice little poke but I will resist that temptation! ;-)

divaD
Aug 12th 2009, 03:12 AM
I hardly ever read commentaries, especially by scholars. :) In order to understand the Bible, one needs to think critically and come to the text with humility and integrity. Scholars have an almost insurmountable obstacle to this approach as they are beholden to those who have a vested interest in the status quo and an "army" to back them up. If a scholar did what I do with the Bible, he or she would surely lose their livelihood.



If scholars were spot on in their conclusions, one would think that they all would at least agree with one another.

BroRog
Aug 12th 2009, 02:37 PM
They are all the point, each one. Talking about them as a whole doesn't change that they are made up of singles. Its pretty simple on my end. If 100,000 branches represents 100,000 people then each branch is a person.

If each branch isn't person then what is each branch? I'll answer the rest in a separate post but I want to know this most of all.

You want to know what each branch represents but in the analogy the focus is on the group. Paul doesn't intend to make a statement about individuals. He is talking about the group as a whole.

He is making general statements about groups of people, not specific statements about individual people.

Notice how he does this in a statement a few chapters back. The following is an example of how Paul is making general statements about the Gentiles and Israel. Romans 9:30-31


What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith;but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.

Here he makes a general statement about the Gentiles who attained righteousness. But what is true of the group is not necessarily true of the individual. That is, not all Gentiles attained righteousness. Some individuals did, others didn't. Israel as a group didn't attain to righteousness, but some Jews did and others didn't.

Paul's statement is only true as a generalization. But is not true with respect to any particular individual within that group. Do you see this?

The wild branches (plural) represent the Gentiles (plural) in an analogy in which Paul is making a general statement concerning the Gentiles as a group. Just as in the passage from Romans 9, the point is true with regard to the group, but not true with regard to each individual.

BroRog
Aug 12th 2009, 02:58 PM
So of all the broken off branches, a team of people, and lets say most of them rejected Jesus, then there are some that didn't but because they are a part of this team they had to also be cut off? It makes no sense that way. Each branch had to have rejected Christ, and that only works if each branch is a person and as each branch was broken off and stacked in a pile then you have the "team" of branches, each guilty of rejecting Christ.

Yes, Israel as a group is guilty of rejecting Christ, even though individuals within Israel believed in him.


So entire nations who had been on the tree were broken off because they rejected Christ? Exactly how many nations comprise Israel? It makes less and less sense as you explain...


All of the nations are on the tree right now. No nation has been broken off the tree yet. The tree doesn't represent Israel. The tree represents what God originally gave Israel and has subsequently given the rest of the world. The world will continue to benefit from whatever this is (and I have an idea what it is) until the world is cut off and Israel is grafted back on.


If the tree is Israel then its natural branches being the Jews proves the branches are individuals not to mention the existing use by Christ that people are branches in a similar analogy.


The Tree is not Israel and the natural branches are not Jews. The Tree is something else and the natural branches are Israel.


Not so because the tree grew from its youth before Christ had come. The deciding who may remain on the tree came after the tree was mature. God looked at all of Israels people, the branches, and he removed all non Christians and added all Christians from another tree. Now, all Christians (Whether Jew or gentile) symbolically are all branches on that one tree.


I'm just sayin' that your explanation doesn't fit the analogy since it doesn't take the salient aspects of it into consideration. "Natural" means "original", "native", on the tree to begin with.


No its not assumption. It says those who aren't Christian are removed and those Christian have been added. That's the whole point of the analogy. Without knowing that, then you've missed everything Paul was saying.

You assume that branches continue to be added and broken off. This is an assumption. Paul says that the natural branches were broken off so that the wild branches could be grafted on the tree. This is a one-time, singular event, not a continuous every-day event.


Romans 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

Unbelief here is unbelief in Jesus!


Not only unbelief in Jesus but unbelief in everything God has said through his prophets and his apostles too.


No, natural branches remain there if they accepted Christ by the time God was doing the pruning.


Again, we can't escape the aspect of the analogy that focuses on the natural vs. the wild. Granted, natural branches remain if they accept Christ. But the natural branches that were removed didn't have to accept Jesus Christ to be there in the first place. For this reason, the Tree can not represent the Body of Christ, for if the Tree represents the Body of Christ, we have naturally born believers in the Body of Christ.


Untrue. Not that they belong there by nature, but USED to belong there by nature. Now it is determined by faith in Christ.

Your proposal contradicts Paul's earlier teaching that acceptance has always been by faith, which he proves by taking his readers all the way back to Genesis to remind them of Abraham. Salvation by faith predates the nation of Israel.


If that were true, then God wouldn't have removed any of them.

Once we know what the Tree represents, then it will make sense.

John146
Aug 12th 2009, 03:23 PM
In Paul's analogy, the branches don't represent individual people. The plural form of the word, i.e. branches is the same way we might use the word "flowers" when speaking about a bouquet. If I said that I gave my wife flowers for her birthday, I'm talking about the entire bouquet. The individual flowers aren't the point.Do you think no one is still being grafted into the olive tree today? Do you think that a group of Gentiles were grafted in a long time ago and no one has been grafted in since then? When it speaks of the Gentiles standing by faith (Rom 11:20) what do you think that means? How does a group corporately have faith? Faith in what? And the branches that were broken off because of unbelief, who or what was it that they didn't believe in?


Branches don't necessarily refer to multiple individuals taken as individuals. Branches can also refer to Nations.Romans 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

Do you think this verse is saying some of the nations were broken off? I thought branches from only one nation (Israel) were broken off.

John146
Aug 12th 2009, 03:38 PM
Yes, Israel as a group is guilty of rejecting Christ, even though individuals within Israel believed in him. So, individuals are not guilty of rejecting Christ?


You assume that branches continue to be added and broken off. This is an assumption. Paul says that the natural branches were broken off so that the wild branches could be grafted on the tree. This is a one-time, singular event, not a continuous every-day event. What would the purpose of that event have been then? What do you think the good olive tree represents?

BroRog
Aug 12th 2009, 04:13 PM
Do you think no one is still being grafted into the olive tree today? Do you think that a group of Gentiles were grafted in a long time ago and no one has been grafted in since then?

The passage speaks of natural branches being broken off so that the wild branches could be grafted on to the Tree. The wild Branches are the Gentiles. The Gentiles, as a group, are on the tree now.

I don't assume, as others do, that God is continually grafting and pruning individual branches over time. Paul is making a general statement about the Gentiles, taken as a whole, being given access to something that Israel had from the beginning.


When it speaks of the Gentiles standing by faith (Rom 11:20) what do you think that means? How does a group corporately have faith? Faith in what?


Gentiles have been given access to something which Israel had from the beginning. As long as the Gentiles continue to believe, they will continue to have access to it. Once the Gentiles stop believing, access to that thing will be denied them, and it will once again be given to Israel.

Paul isn't suggesting that all Gentiles have faith or that all Gentiles believe. But speaking generally, Gentiles have been given access to something which they didn't have before, i.e. the root.


And the branches that were broken off because of unbelief, who or what was it that they didn't believe in?

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

Do you think this verse is saying some of the nations were broken off? I thought branches from only one nation (Israel) were broken off.

Israel itself was broken off. What is the root, which is holy and offers nourishment and support?

John146
Aug 12th 2009, 05:06 PM
The passage speaks of natural branches being broken off so that the wild branches could be grafted on to the Tree. The wild Branches are the Gentiles. The Gentiles, as a group, are on the tree now. All Gentiles? No. Only those who have faith.

Romans 11:20
20Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:


I don't assume, as others do, that God is continually grafting and pruning individual branches over time. Paul is making a general statement about the Gentiles, taken as a whole, being given access to something that Israel had from the beginning.

Gentiles have been given access to something which Israel had from the beginning.Which is what exactly?


As long as the Gentiles continue to believe, they will continue to have access to it. Once the Gentiles stop believing, access to that thing will be denied them, and it will once again be given to Israel.

Paul isn't suggesting that all Gentiles have faith or that all Gentiles believe. But speaking generally, Gentiles have been given access to something which they didn't have before, i.e. the root.How many Gentiles have to believe in order for the group to remain on the tree? What are they believing in?


Israel itself was broken off. No, it wasn't. Only those who did not believe were broken off. Paul said that some of the branches were broken off (Rom 11:17), not all, and it was due to unbelief.

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.
6And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
7What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

If Israel itself was cut off then why would Paul mention that God did not cast away Israel? Who remained in the tree? The election. Those of Israel who believed in Christ. Who was cut off? The rest of Israel. Those of Israel who did not believe in Christ.


What is the root, which is holy and offers nourishment and support?Jesus Christ is the root, as Paul mentions later in the letter.

Romans 15
8Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: 9And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name.
10And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people.
11And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people.
12And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.

Jesus is the root of the olive tree just as He is the cornerstone and head of the church.

BroRog
Aug 12th 2009, 06:56 PM
All Gentiles? No. Only those who have faith.

Romans 11:20
20Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:


Paul made a general statement about the Gentiles. Generally speaking Gentiles have faith.


Which is what exactly?

I was hoping you would figure it out on you own from the clues I gave you.

Here is another clue. Think in terms of history. What did God give Israel that he didn't give to the rest of the nations at first, something which is holy and spiritually nourishing to them, which God gave to the Gentiles eventually?


How many Gentiles have to believe in order for the group to remain on the tree? What are they believing in?


Paul is speaking generally about the Gentiles who believe what Jesus, the prophets and the apostles say. Individually, some of them do and some of them don't. But generally speaking the Gentiles believe. Generally speaking, there will come a time when the Gentiles no longer believe, which he calls the "fullness of the Gentiles." After that, it will be said that the Gentiles are no longer coming to belief.


No, it wasn't. Only those who did not believe were broken off. Paul said that some of the branches were broken off (Rom 11:17), not all, and it was due to unbelief.


Yes, this is Paul's point. God has not abandoned his people, but generally speaking the nation of Israel was cut off. Not all Jews were cut off, some Jews were cut off. But generally speaking Israel was cut off. It did not receive what it was looking for, i.e. justification, because they did not seek it by faith. Again, generally speaking this was true of Israel. Individually, some Jews received justification by faith while other Jews did not. Paul is speaking in general categories: Israel vs. the other nations.

John146
Aug 12th 2009, 08:12 PM
Paul made a general statement about the Gentiles. Generally speaking Gentiles have faith.Do you have any scripture to back that up? And since you say that Paul was speaking of Gentiles in terms of nations other than Israel how do you conclude that Gentile nations have faith? Faith in what?


I was hoping you would figure it out on you own from the clues I gave you. I didn't know we were playing a game. I prefer to just be straightforward. Can you please do the same?


Here is another clue. Think in terms of history. What did God give Israel that he didn't give to the rest of the nations at first, something which is holy and spiritually nourishing to them, which God gave to the Gentiles eventually? That would be "the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rom 9:4). But these things cannot be received without faith.


Paul is speaking generally about the Gentiles who believe what Jesus, the prophets and the apostles say. Individually, some of them do and some of them don't. But generally speaking the Gentiles believe.What do you base that on? A majority of them did not believe even back then even though many did. But since you're speaking of Gentiles as nations and not individuals, you are saying the Gentile nations generally believed. Again, believed in what? I don't know where you're coming up with this because you're not providing scriptural support for what you're saying.


Generally speaking, there will come a time when the Gentiles no longer believe, which he calls the "fullness of the Gentiles." After that, it will be said that the Gentiles are no longer coming to belief.That's because Jesus will have returned and the end of the age will have arrived at that point. Jesus said to preach the gospel even until the end of the age (Matt 28:18-20) so there's no reason to think Gentiles won't be getting saved right up until then.


Yes, this is Paul's point. God has not abandoned his people, but generally speaking the nation of Israel was cut off.

Not all Jews were cut off, some Jews were cut off. But generally speaking Israel was cut off. Paul said that God did not cast away Israel. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that he "generally" did. That's not what Paul said.


It did not receive what it was looking for, i.e. justification, because they did not seek it by faith. Again, generally speaking this was true of Israel. Individually, some Jews received justification by faith while other Jews did not. Paul is speaking in general categories: Israel vs. the other nations.It seems you are talking in circles here. You acknowledge that individually some Jews received justification by faith while others did not. Then you turn around and say Paul is speaking about Israel vs. other nations. I don't know how you come to that conclusion. Remember, the basis for being cut off or grafted in is faith. You acknowledge that justification is based on individual faith. Yet somehow being cut off due to unbelief and grafted in due to faith is not an individual thing? That just makes no sense, IMO.

Naphal
Aug 12th 2009, 08:25 PM
You want to know what each branch represents but in the analogy the focus is on the group. Paul doesn't intend to make a statement about individuals.

I'd just like an answer from you on what each singular branch represents, that's all.




Paul's statement is only true as a generalization. But is not true with respect to any particular individual within that group. Do you see this?

No, its not that way because what is said about the whole group only can be said about the whole group because each individual had no faith in Christ, thus when they are all gathered together they can be referred to as an entire group that had no faith. It goes both ways, not only one way as you propose.



The wild branches (plural) represent the Gentiles (plural) in an analogy in which Paul is making a general statement concerning the Gentiles as a group. Just as in the passage from Romans 9, the point is true with regard to the group, but not true with regard to each individual.

That's here you are wrong. It cannot apply to the whole group if it doesn't apply to each individual.


You are saying that the broken off ones are guilty only as a group, but individuals are not. That's incorrect.

David Taylor
Aug 12th 2009, 09:34 PM
I'd just like an answer from you on what each singular branch represents, that's all.


A tree with only two branches?

That's not a tree at all....that's a cross. :bible:

:)

Jeremiah 11:16 "The LORD called thy name, A green olive tree, fair, and of goodly fruit: with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken. For the LORD of hosts, that planted thee, hath pronounced evil against thee, for the evil of the house of Israel, which they have done against themselves to provoke me to anger. And the LORD hath given me knowledge of it, and I know it: then thou shewedst me their doings. But I was like a lamb that is brought to the slaughter; and I knew not that they had devised devices against me, saying, Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name may be no more remembered. But, O LORD of hosts, that judgest righteously, that triest the reins and the heart, let me see thy vengeance on them: for unto thee have I revealed my cause. Thou hast planted them, yea, they have taken root: they grow, yea, they bring forth fruit: thou art near in their mouth, and far from their reins. But thou, O LORD, knowest me: thou hast seen me, and tried mine heart toward thee"

BroRog
Aug 12th 2009, 11:03 PM
Do you have any scripture to back that up? And since you say that Paul was speaking of Gentiles in terms of nations other than Israel how do you conclude that Gentile nations have faith? Faith in what?

Eric, I'm having a hard time believing that you don't understand the concept of generalization in which an author, such as Paul here, asserts an idea about a group of people that has general application. Occasionally, Paul makes broad statements about groups of people without regard to specific individuals.

By the time Paul wrote Romans, he had been on two or three missionary journeys and the church at Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, and Colossi were well established. So he can generally say that the Gentiles had heard the Gospel. And he can make a broad statement concerning the Gentiles that they had come to belief.

Do you understand? When someone makes a broad generalization, it's understood that we will always find exceptions to the rule. For Paul to say that the Gentiles are believing in Jesus Christ, he doesn't mean all the Gentiles believe.


I didn't know we were playing a game. I prefer to just be straightforward. Can you please do the same?

I'm being straightforward about everything except what the Olive Tree represents.


That would be "the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rom 9:4). But these things cannot be received without faith.

Well, technically that's more than one thing and some things on that list, namely the Law, the service, and the covenants, don't apply to Gentiles regardless of whether they have faith or not.


That's because Jesus will have returned and the end of the age will have arrived at that point. Jesus said to preach the gospel even until the end of the age (Matt 28:18-20) so there's no reason to think Gentiles won't be getting saved right up until then.

Whether the Gospel is preached until the end of the age is not the point. Paul says that before the day of the Lord, an apostasy will come to reign in the world leader known as the antiChrist, or the lawless one. Therefore we know that sometime between the coming of antiChrist and the return of Christ it will generally be true that people will fall away from the faith.


Paul said that God did not cast away Israel. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that he "generally" did. That's not what Paul said.

First of all, being cut off and being cast away are two different things, especially in light of Paul's assertion that Israel will be grafted back on her own tree.


It seems you are talking in circles here.

I'll grant that you don't seem to understand what I am saying.

BroRog
Aug 12th 2009, 11:23 PM
I'd just like an answer from you on what each singular branch represents, that's all.


I can't give you an answer because it isn't part of Paul's analogy. The analogy pertains to branches (plural).


No, its not that way because what is said about the whole group only can be said about the whole group because each individual had no faith in Christ, thus when they are all gathered together they can be referred to as an entire group that had no faith. It goes both ways, not only one way as you propose.

Generalizations don't work both ways.


That's here you are wrong. It cannot apply to the whole group if it doesn't apply to each individual.


I'm sorry and I hate to keep repeating myself, but this is not true. I already gave you an example from Romans 9 in which Paul makes a generalization about the Gentiles.

Here it is again; notice how Paul makes a generalization about the Gentiles.


That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith . . .

This is a general statement about the Gentiles. If we were to call Paul aside and ask him, "Did you mean to say that ALL Gentiles attain righteousness?" He would say, "Of course not. I was painting with a broad brush."


You are saying that the broken off ones are guilty only as a group, but individuals are not. That's incorrect.

I don't remember raising the issue of guilt. I believe Paul is making the point that the Gentiles now have access to something that they didn't have access to before; and they shouldn't be arrogant against those who do not have access to it; and that the Gentiles will continue to have access to it as long as they remain in God's kindness. Furthermore, Paul leaves open the possibility that someday Israel will gain access to the root again.

He follows this up with another generalization,


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.
Again, not all Jews are enemies of the Gospel, but generally speaking the nation of Israel was the enemy of the Gospel.

John146
Aug 13th 2009, 05:13 PM
Eric, I'm having a hard time believing that you don't understand the concept of generalization in which an author, such as Paul here, asserts an idea about a group of people that has general application. Occasionally, Paul makes broad statements about groups of people without regard to specific individuals.

By the time Paul wrote Romans, he had been on two or three missionary journeys and the church at Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, and Colossi were well established. So he can generally say that the Gentiles had heard the Gospel. And he can make a broad statement concerning the Gentiles that they had come to belief.

Do you understand? When someone makes a broad generalization, it's understood that we will always find exceptions to the rule. For Paul to say that the Gentiles are believing in Jesus Christ, he doesn't mean all the Gentiles believe.I don't agree at all with what you're saying. Can you explain why some Gentiles believing would result in all Gentiles being grafted in, but some Jews not believing would result in some Jews being cut off, but not all?

Also, do you think the following passage is saying all Gentiles are the people of God or only those who have faith in Christ?

Romans 9
24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? 25As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26And 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.

It seems that if you read this passage the way you read Romans 11 then you would conclude that all Gentiles are the people of God just as you think all Gentiles were grafted in the good olive tree. But scripture says the children of God are those who have faith in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:26).


I'm being straightforward about everything except what the Olive Tree represents.So, can you straightforwardly tell me what you believe it represents?


Whether the Gospel is preached until the end of the age is not the point. Paul says that before the day of the Lord, an apostasy will come to reign in the world leader known as the antiChrist, or the lawless one. Therefore we know that sometime between the coming of antiChrist and the return of Christ it will generally be true that people will fall away from the faith.All people? What you were saying before would suggest that you think all Gentiles will fall away and none will believe anymore at that point. I don't agree with that at all.


First of all, being cut off and being cast away are two different things, especially in light of Paul's assertion that Israel will be grafted back on her own tree. There is no basis for saying being cut off or cast away mean different things. The remnant who were not cast away were all believers. They remained in the tree because of their faith. Paul never asserts that Israel as a whole will be grafted back on her own tree. He said of those who were broken off that if they abided "not still in unbelief" they could be grafted back in. He wasn't referring to the distant future there. He was saying the very ones who were broken off back then were not broken off forever if they did not "abide still in unbelief". You're not seeing this because you're not understanding that the reason they were broken off is because of unbelief. Each individual who was broken off had not put their personal faith and trust in Jesus Christ and that is why they were broken off.


I'll grant that you don't seem to understand what I am saying.I understand exactly what you're saying and I completely disagree with it.

BroRog
Aug 13th 2009, 09:06 PM
I don't agree at all with what you're saying. Can you explain why some Gentiles believing would result in all Gentiles being grafted in, but some Jews not believing would result in some Jews being cut off, but not all?[quote]

Notice that the natural branches were cut off for unbelief; but, the wild branches were NOT grafted on because of belief. Paul says they stand because of their belief, but the stated reason for the grafting is God's kindness.

The natural branches don't represent the Jews, it represents Israel. And so what Paul is saying is that Israel was cut off the tree due to unbelief. And that The Gentiles were put on the tree out of God's kindness and will remain on the tree as long as Gentiles continue to believe.

[QUOTE]Also, do you think the following passage is saying all Gentiles are the people of God or only those who have faith in Christ?

Romans 9
24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? 25As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26And 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.

This is a good example of my contention that the term "Gentiles" refers to individual people when contrasted with the term "Jews." This passage is talking about God's calling individuals, both Jews and non-Jews (Gentiles) to salvation.

As for verse 25, this verse is NOT talking about Gentiles. Those who were called "not my people" were the twelve tribes of Israel, the northern Kingdom, whom God divorced and cause their kingdom to dissolve and become no more. At that time, God referred to them as "not my people."


It seems that if you read this passage the way you read Romans 11 then you would conclude that all Gentiles are the people of God just as you think all Gentiles were grafted in the good olive tree. But scripture says the children of God are those who have faith in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:26).

Why would I do that? The metaphor of the Olive Tree should be interpreted in light of Paul's argument in that section, which is what I am doing.


All people? What you were saying before would suggest that you think all Gentiles will fall away and none will believe anymore at that point. I don't agree with that at all.

Again, general statements about groups of people don't require that each and every member of the group fit the criteria. There are always exceptions when we generalize.

However, what other conclusion can be drawn from the term "fullness" as in "fullness of the Gentiles" than the idea that the number of Gentiles to be saved is a fixed number with an upper limit (full)?


There is no basis for saying being cut off or cast away mean different things.


Sure there is. Being understood in the context of Paul's argument, his point is to say that his people are not cast away. In this he is drawing a distinction between his people and his nation. His people were not cast away although his nation was cut off the Olive Tree temporarily.


Paul never asserts that Israel as a whole will be grafted back on her own tree.


He implies it when he says "All Israel will be saved."


You're not seeing this because you're not understanding that the reason they were broken off is because of unbelief. Each individual who was broken off had not put their personal faith and trust in Jesus Christ and that is why they were broken off.

Again, what we have in this analogy is a single, one-time pruning and grafting. We have no hint from the text that the pruning and grafting are being done continuously each day. We have an explicit statement that some of the branches were broken off due to unbelief. We also have an explicit statement that the Gentiles were grafted to the tree out of God's kindness. We have no statement that says a believer is grafted to the tree due to belief. Lack of belief is the criteria for being cut off, but not for being put on.


So, can you straightforwardly tell me what you believe it represents?


Paul doesn't say specifically what the Olive Tree represents, but he expects his Roman readers to have figured it out from the first 11 chapters of his letter.


3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?

In Romans 9, as you suggested, many things belong to the Jews as a matter of birthright, i.e. the covenants, the promises, the glory, the Christ, etc. which must be accepted by faith. But in chapter 3, he singles out one particular advantage the Jews had over the Gentiles, which was access to God's oracles. And in this he points out that even if some of the Jews didn't believe his oracles, this would not nullify the faithfulness of God.

This is his point in chapter 11. The fact that some of the Jews didn't believe God's oracles won't nullify a promise God made to the nation of Israel. As Paul points out, God kept his promise to Israel even though he could only find 7,000 who would not bow the knee to Baal.

The Olive Tree represents the combination of the Oracles, and the Holy Spirit; what John elsewhere calls "the anointing." This combination of the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Spirit to open the eyes of a person is what the Olive Tree represents. The word of God is what is to be believed.

More could be said about this concept, which gets little air time around Christian circles. But Jesus spoke a parable concerning this very issue. He explains to his disciples in various ways that if a person believes what he says, that person will continue to grow in understanding. The more one accepts the truth, the more truth is revealed. However, if a person continues to push back against the truth and continues to refuse to listen to Jesus, then what little understanding that person has will be taken away.


Luke 8:18 "So take care how you listen; for whoever has, to him [more] shall be given; and whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has shall be taken away from him."

Paul says to the Jews that since they consider themselves unworthy to hear and believe the Gospel, he will stop going to the Synagogues and go to the Gentiles instead. In a letter he wrote to the Corinthian church, he says that a veil lies over their hearts such that they can't understand what they read in the scriptures.

In the passage at hand, Paul talks about how the nation of Israel is partially hardened, meaning that some Jews in Israel just don't get it and even when they do, they are stubborn and resist the truth.

To be cut off from the Olive Tree then, is to be hardened against what he Holy Scriptures and the Holy Spirit say, especially the truth concerning Jesus Christ.

sheina maidle
Aug 14th 2009, 04:15 AM
Note on grafting: To graft (verb) means to insert a shoot or bud of one plant or tree as a graft into another plant or tree, where the graft (noun) continues to grow, becoming a permanent part. "The olive tree often grows wild, and so when the trees are cultivated they must be grafted. A graft of a cultivated olive tree is inserted into the stem of the wild olive tree, and then the wild olive tree is cut down close to the ground, and the part below becomes root and feeder for the inserted shoot. This is the customary process of grafting. The Apostle Paul, for the sake of argument, speaks of grafting contrary to the natural process. He tells of God grafting the wild olive of the Gentiles on the good stock of the Jewish nation, which is a reversal of custom (Rom. 11:24)" (Manners and Customs of Bible Lands, by Fred H. Wight).

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

John146
Aug 14th 2009, 04:46 PM
Notice that the natural branches were cut off for unbelief; but, the wild branches were NOT grafted on because of belief. Paul says they stand because of their belief, but the stated reason for the grafting is God's kindness.Come on. :rolleyes:

He says the ones who were broken off were broken off because of unbelief. In contrast to that he says about the wild branches who were grafted in "thou standest by faith". The reason these wild branches were grafted in was because of faith. What happened to those who did not have faith? They were broken off.

Why would the natural branches without faith be broken off only to then have some wild branches without faith be grafted in? That makes no sense.

What was required in order for the Gentiles to remain in the tree?

22Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

To continue in God's goodness. To remain faithful to Him. If any of them did not remain faithful they would be cut off because of unbelief just as some of the natural branches were. What nations were faithful to God? None. It has nothing to do with that and instead has to do with each branch being responsible to continue being faithful.


The natural branches don't represent the Jews, it represents Israel.And each branch represents one Israelite.


And so what Paul is saying is that Israel was cut off the tree due to unbelief.Not all of Israel. Remember, only some of the natural branches were cut off, not all (Rom 11:17). There was a remnant who remained on the tree, which Paul called "the election".

Rom 11
5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
7What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

The remnant are the ones who God did not cast away (Rom 11:1-2) and "the rest" are the natural branches who were cut off.


And that The Gentiles were put on the tree out of God's kindness and will remain on the tree as long as Gentiles continue to believe. Each Gentile has to believe in order to remain on the tree. The belief of one Gentile is not going to keep another on the tree if that other Gentile does not believe.


This is a good example of my contention that the term "Gentiles" refers to individual people when contrasted with the term "Jews." This passage is talking about God's calling individuals, both Jews and non-Jews (Gentiles) to salvation. And he continues on that theme into Romans 10 and 11.


As for verse 25, this verse is NOT talking about Gentiles.Yes, it is. You have to read it in context.

Rom 11
24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? 25As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26And 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.

We know that before Christ the Gentiles were not the people of God.

Here's Paul speaking to the Ephesians, who were obviously Gentiles.

Eph 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.

The Gentiles were not the people of God before Christ shed His blood, but once He did then the two (Gentile and Jewish believers) were made "one new man" (Eph 2:14-15).


Those who were called "not my people" were the twelve tribes of Israel, the northern Kingdom, whom God divorced and cause their kingdom to dissolve and become no more. At that time, God referred to them as "not my people." Paul is using the text and applying it to the Gentiles. You have to take verse 24 into account in order to understand who he's talking about in verse 25.


Again, general statements about groups of people don't require that each and every member of the group fit the criteria. There are always exceptions when we generalize. I see no basis for generalizing the text. When you look at the rest of Romans Paul is constantly speaking of being part of the church through individual faith in Christ or not being in the church if one does not have faith in Christ. I see no reason to think that he is not speaking of the same issue in Romans 11.


However, what other conclusion can be drawn from the term "fullness" as in "fullness of the Gentiles" than the idea that the number of Gentiles to be saved is a fixed number with an upper limit (full)? What reason is there to think that Gentiles would no longer be saved at some point before the return of Christ? I see no basis for believing that.


Sure there is. Being understood in the context of Paul's argument, his point is to say that his people are not cast away. In this he is drawing a distinction between his people and his nation. His people were not cast away although his nation was cut off the Olive Tree temporarily.No, only some of the natural branches were cut off (Rom 11:17). You say that the natural branches represent Israel. So, that would mean only some of Israel was cut off, not all of it as you are trying to say.


He implies it when he says "All Israel will be saved."Ah! So, you are acknowledging that being grafted into the tree has to do with salvation then, right? Since when is salvation not an individual issue? You are trying to say that Gentile nations that include individual unbelievers are grafted into the tree which would mean some unbelieving Gentiles are saved. No way, Jose! The only way for anyone to be saved is by having faith in Christ. Jesus said whosoever believes in Him will have eternal life not whatsoever nations have some who believe in Him will have eternal life.


Again, what we have in this analogy is a single, one-time pruning and grafting. We have no hint from the text that the pruning and grafting are being done continuously each day.By associating the grafting in with salvation, which even you do, what reason is there to think that it would not continue each day? Are there not people saved every day?


Paul doesn't say specifically what the Olive Tree represents, but he expects his Roman readers to have figured it out from the first 11 chapters of his letter.
3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?
In Romans 9, as you suggested, many things belong to the Jews as a matter of birthright, i.e. the covenants, the promises, the glory, the Christ, etc. which must be accepted by faith. But in chapter 3, he singles out one particular advantage the Jews had over the Gentiles, which was access to God's oracles. And in this he points out that even if some of the Jews didn't believe his oracles, this would not nullify the faithfulness of God.

This is his point in chapter 11. The fact that some of the Jews didn't believe God's oracles won't nullify a promise God made to the nation of Israel.A promise with a condition attached: faith in His Son. Without faith they would not receive the promise. And the promise extends to Gentile believers as well.

Gal 3
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.


As Paul points out, God kept his promise to Israel even though he could only find 7,000 who would not bow the knee to Baal. The promise was kept to those who believed, not to those who didn't.


The Olive Tree represents the combination of the Oracles, and the Holy Spirit; what John elsewhere calls "the anointing." This combination of the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Spirit to open the eyes of a person is what the Olive Tree represents. The word of God is what is to be believed. No, the olive tree represents Christ's kingdom. The Israel of God. The only way to enter the kingdom of God and to be grafted in is by faith in Christ. Romans 11 can be compared to Ephesians 2:11-22. There, we see that Gentiles were once "without God in the world" and "aliens from citizenship of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise" but are now no longer aliens and strangers but fellow citizens of Israel, the household of God because of the blood of Christ and faith in Him.


More could be said about this concept, which gets little air time around Christian circles. But Jesus spoke a parable concerning this very issue. He explains to his disciples in various ways that if a person believes what he says, that person will continue to grow in understanding. The more one accepts the truth, the more truth is revealed. However, if a person continues to push back against the truth and continues to refuse to listen to Jesus, then what little understanding that person has will be taken away.
Luke 8:18 "So take care how you listen; for whoever has, to him [more] shall be given; and whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has shall be taken away from him."
Paul says to the Jews that since they consider themselves unworthy to hear and believe the Gospel, he will stop going to the Synagogues and go to the Gentiles instead. In a letter he wrote to the Corinthian church, he says that a veil lies over their hearts such that they can't understand what they read in the scriptures.

In the passage at hand, Paul talks about how the nation of Israel is partially hardened, meaning that some Jews in Israel just don't get it and even when they do, they are stubborn and resist the truth.

To be cut off from the Olive Tree then, is to be hardened against what he Holy Scriptures and the Holy Spirit say, especially the truth concerning Jesus Christ.Which led to some being cut off from Christ and His kingdom, which is what the olive tree represents.

Matthew 21
42Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
43Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Jesus is "the stone which the builders rejected". He is the cornerstone of the church. He is also the root of the olive tree. Notice that He said the kingdom of God would be taken from the chief priests and Pharisees and given to those who bring "forth the fruits thereof". The chief priests and Pharisees were among those who were broken off of the olive tree and new Jewish converts as well as Gentile converts were grafted in after putting their faith in Christ.

third hero
Aug 14th 2009, 06:53 PM
Is there such a thing as replacement theology? Well, let's find out.

God is going to save all of the remnant of Israel before He returns. True or false?

third hero
Aug 14th 2009, 07:06 PM
And here's a better question.

Zechariah 12:2-6
Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah [and] against Jerusalem. And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it. In that day, saith the LORD, I will smite every horse with astonishment, and his rider with madness: and I will open mine eyes upon the house of Judah, and will smite every horse of the people with blindness. And the governors of Judah shall say in their heart, The inhabitants of Jerusalem [shall be] my strength in the LORD of hosts their God. In that day will I make the governors of Judah like an hearth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf; and they shall devour all the people round about, on the right hand and on the left: and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, [even] in Jerusalem.

Has this happened yet?

Another question that couples it.

Zechariah 12:8-14
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 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: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. In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem and , as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon. . And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart; The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart; All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart

Has this happened? The answers will determine whether the "Replacement Theology" is present in the church.

David Taylor
Aug 14th 2009, 07:16 PM
Is there such a thing as replacement theology? Well, let's find out.

God is going to save all of the remnant of Israel before He returns. True or false?

Doug,
Either answer to your wouldn't address the phrase 'Replacement Theology'.


God could save all, some, or none of the remnant of Israel before He returns, and do either three without replacing anyone.


Whenever someone is saved, noone is ever replaced...Christ just adds another new entry into the book of Life.

Maybe you should re-ask your question like this....



Is there such a thing as addition theology?

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." John 6:37

Any question you have about "WHO" will be saved, is answered by John in the above verse.

BroRog
Aug 14th 2009, 07:27 PM
Come on. :rolleyes:

He says the ones who were broken off were broken off because of unbelief. In contrast to that he says about the wild branches who were grafted in "thou standest by faith". The reason these wild branches were grafted in was because of faith. What happened to those who did not have faith? They were broken off. Paul doesn't say the wild branches were put on the tree because of their faith. He explicitly says they were but on because of God's kindness.


Why would the natural branches without faith be broken off only to then have some wild branches without faith be grafted in? That makes no sense.It makes as much sense as God sending out evangelists to spread the good news of Christ, which up until the times of the Apostles was not known outside of Judea. Being grafted onto a tree means that the branches get nourishment and support from the root of the tree. By analogy then, God has given the Gentiles access to the Apostles, the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. If some of them don't believe, it doesn't mean that God didn't give them the information.


What was required in order for the Gentiles to remain in the tree?

22Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

To continue in God's goodness. To remain faithful to Him. If any of them did not remain faithful they would be cut off because of unbelief just as some of the natural branches were. What nations were faithful to God? None. It has nothing to do with that and instead has to do with each branch being responsible to continue being faithful.I already gave you two good reasons for why the branches can not be individual people. If you choose to ignore them, then fine. But don't argue with me on the basis that the Olive Tree represents Christ because I don't agree with you on that point.

If the Olive Tree is the Gospel in the form of the Apostles, the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit, then nothing of what you say makes sense. Of course God is going to give unbelievers access to the information they need to get saved. That is God's kindness, to give the world the information they need to get saved. From my point of view, it makes no sense for you to say that God will deny someone the information they need to get saved until they believe it. A man can't have faith in something he doesn't know about.

You see, we can go all day telling each other that our respective views don't make sense based on our own perspective. Or we can use what little time God gave us to attempt to understand each other from the other person's perspective.


Not all of Israel. Remember, only some of the natural branches were cut off, not all (Rom 11:17). There was a remnant who remained on the tree, which Paul called "the election".Again, we can turn this around. Paul never says "some" Gentiles were put on the tree either.


7What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

The remnant are the ones who God did not cast away (Rom 11:1-2) and "the rest" are the natural branches who were cut off.
This is a good example of the difference between a nation and individuals if you would care to think about it. Notice that he uses the term "Israel" to speak about the nation as a whole. Then he breaks the nation down into two subgroups, the elect and the blind. He says "Israel (as a nation) did not obtain that which he seeketh".

If God promised to save your family, would you feel slighted if he only saved you? Wouldn't you ask, "What about the rest of my family?" Would you accept the answer, "Well, your family doesn't actually mean "your" family. Now that you are a believer, you are in a new family."


Yes, it is. You have to read it in context.

Rom 11
24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? 25As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26And 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. I agree. I'm reading Hosea in context and it refers to the Northern Tribes of Israel.



The Gentiles were not the people of God before Christ shed His blood, but once He did then the two (Gentile and Jewish believers) were made "one new man" (Eph 2:14-15).This passage actually supports my view. Paul is saying that prior to his coming to evangelize their city, they were without knowledge of Christ, God, the plan of salvation, etc. But after Paul and others came to their town, they had the information to be saved.


I see no basis for generalizing the text. When you look at the rest of Romans Paul is constantly speaking of being part of the church through individual faith in Christ or not being in the church if one does not have faith in Christ. I see no reason to think that he is not speaking of the same issue in Romans 11.Well I do see a basis as it is clear from Paul's change of vocabulary that he has shifted his focus from Jews and Gentiles taken individually to Israel taken as a whole. He doesn't use the word "Israel" for the first 8 chapters of his letter. He uses the word "Israel" several times in chapters 9, 10, and 11. And he doesn't use the word Israel again after that, 11:26 being the last time.

In those three chapters he continually talks in general terms about the nation of Israel, making general statements that would not be true of individuals.


Ah! So, you are acknowledging that being grafted into the tree has to do with salvation then, right?
Being grafted on to the tree represents having access to the Apostles, the scriptures and the Holy Spirit in my view. When Paul says that "All Israel shall be saved", he is saying that all of Israel, rather than a mere remnant, will be given access to the Apostles, the scriptures and the Holy Spirit. And all of Israel will come to saving faith.


Since when is salvation not an individual issue?Salvation becomes a national issue when God makes it a national issue.


By associating the grafting in with salvation. I did not associate grafting with salvation.


A promise with a condition attached: faith in His Son. Without faith they would not receive the promise. And the promise extends to Gentile believers as well.Faith is not the condition of salvation. Faith is the evidence of salvation as the author of Hebrews states in Hebrews 11. Salvation is by grace through faith, not on the condition of faith. If salvation was given to reward a faith response, then salvation would be earned not given as a gift.


The promise was kept to those who believed, not to those who didn't.The promise I have in view comes from Jeremiah 31, in which God explicitly says that HE will write his law on their hearts and that each man his neighbor and each man his brother will know the Lord from the greatest of them to the least. This promise has not yet been kept.


No, the olive tree represents Christ's kingdom.How did I know in advance that you were going to shoot down the idea immediately? I must be a prophet. :)

third hero
Aug 14th 2009, 07:30 PM
Doug,
Either answer to your wouldn't address the phrase 'Replacement Theology'.


God could save all, some, or none of the remnant of Israel before He returns, and do either three without replacing anyone.


Whenever someone is saved, noone is ever replaced...Christ just adds another new entry into the book of Life.

Maybe you should re-ask your question like this....



Is there such a thing as addition theology?

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." John 6:37

David, I disagree. The reason why I do so is because if a person believes that God has already done all of this, when it is fairly obvious that this has not happened, then somehow, a person has to replace the one group that the Lord zeroed in on in this chapter with another group. This would be text-book "Replacement Theology". If this doctrine didn't exist, then why are there Christians that have to call themselves Messianic Jews? They are called that even in Israel, where they are living side-by-side with Gentile believers and Jewish Pharisees. If the replacement theology don't exist, then what is the reason why they feel t he need to be coined as being separate from the gentile church?

The answer is that the replacement theology has been around for quite a long time. It is this theology where we coin the phrase, "Jesus has abolished the Law" when He only fulfilled and edited it, giving us a clear, concise view of the entire law and how it should be obeyed. This is part of the Gospel. The Messianic Jews understand this, while most of the Gentile church does not.

Now as far as you and I are concerned, David, we understand that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile as far as the true church is concerned. Unfortunately, not very many people share that point of view. It is my opinion that these questions that I pose do quite a bit in revealing the Replacement Theology that is mostly prevalent in the churches today. To simply say that it does not exist is to deny the reality that it does. It is not about some premillennial dispensationalists who use it as a slur to antagonize those who believe differently from them.

In fact, one of my questions was posed to show that the replacement theology is prevanent even in the Dispensational point of view. I mean, why would God suddenly go backwards focus solely on Israel after dealing with the entire world, as most dispensationalists believe? Is this not another form of the replacement theology, where the church replaces Israel for a time and then the Lord goes back to them when He is finished with the church? Sounds that way to me.

So that is where we will disagree, David. I agree with you that in a perfect world, Replacement Theology does not exist. However, in this world, it does, and it is much more prevalent than what people will say it is. These questions will aid in rooting them out.

BroRog
Aug 14th 2009, 07:39 PM
Doug,
Either answer to your wouldn't address the phrase 'Replacement Theology'.


God could save all, some, or none of the remnant of Israel before He returns, and do either three without replacing anyone.


Whenever someone is saved, noone is ever replaced...Christ just adds another new entry into the book of Life.

Maybe you should re-ask your question like this....



Is there such a thing as addition theology?

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." John 6:37

Any question you have about "WHO" will be saved, is answered by John in the above verse.

I think his question is valid and his scriptures speak to the issue of Replacement Theology. The two scriptures he presented answer one of the main tenets of Replacement theology, i.e. "that the practical purpose of the nation of Israel in God's plans is replaced by the role of the church." The passages from Zechariah's prophecy are a rebuttal to that idea. God has a purpose for Israel in the end times, when her leaders will side with God against the people who have come against Jerusalem.

BroRog
Aug 14th 2009, 07:43 PM
Now as far as you and I are concerned, David, we understand that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile as far as the true church is concerned.

While it is true that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile in terms of salvation and being in Christ, there will be a difference between Israel and the rest of the nations in terms of which country stands with God during the battle that Zechariah has in mind.

Zechariah says that Israel will be unified against God's enemies and trusting in the Lord.

third hero
Aug 14th 2009, 07:59 PM
While it is true that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile in terms of salvation and being in Christ, there will be a difference between Israel and the rest of the nations in terms of which country stands with God during the battle that Zechariah has in mind.

Zechariah says that Israel will be unified against God's enemies and trusting in the Lord.

I don't want to sound ignorant, BroRog, but DUH!!!!!!!!!!! Romans 11:23-26!

The reason why I used Zechariah is because of the fact that the Lord targeted a very specific group of people, and an even more specific city. All of the events that happen in that chapter happen to distinct groups of people. Those who fight against Jerusalem in particular, and those inhabitants of Jerusalem. This is as cut and dry as it gets. If one says that these scriptures are fulfilled, when the remnants of the inhabitants of Israel have not all mourned and wailed as they look upon the One they have pierced, then someone is being replaced.

David Taylor
Aug 14th 2009, 08:08 PM
I don't want to sound ignorant, BroRog, but DUH!!!!!!!!!!! Romans 11:23-26!


Can you please not omit Romans 11:17....

Romans 11:17 "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"

It's kinda too significant to leave out....leaving it out ruins the entire meaning of Romans chapters 9-11.




That would be like leaving out the words 'all' and 'whosoever' below.

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out."

"whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."

third hero
Aug 14th 2009, 08:20 PM
Can you please not omit Romans 11:17....

Romans 11:17 "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"

It's kinda too significant to leave out....leaving it out ruins the entire meaning of Romans chapters 9-11.




That would be like leaving out the words 'all' and 'whosoever' below.

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out."

"whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."

I apologize. I thought that the Gentiles that Paul is writing to were implied to be included, and not just Israel.

And yes, there is such a thing as Addition Theology. It is call.... wait for it...

THE GOSPEL!
lol

third hero
Aug 14th 2009, 08:38 PM
Can you please not omit Romans 11:17....

Romans 11:17 "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"

It's kinda too significant to leave out....leaving it out ruins the entire meaning of Romans chapters 9-11.




That would be like leaving out the words 'all' and 'whosoever' below.

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out."

"whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."

I don't know if I have ever laid out what I believe concerning Romans 11, but I guess now is as good of a time as any.

I believe that currently, God is dealing with the entire world, Israel included. I believe that God was so furious with Israel over the fact that they did rejected His Son that He took their land away from them for at least 1800 years. At the same time, he was dealing with not only the rest of the world, but Israel as well. Without a center in which they could continue to propagate their rejection of Lord Jesus, there would have been more opportunities for more Israelites to become what the Father originally intended for them to be, believers in His Son. They are to be one with the Gentiles who believe.

However, even though many more Israelites became believers because of the Dispersion of 70AD, the replacement theology, coupled with other anti-semetic bigotry arose around the world, and became hostile towards the Israelites. After World War II, it became evident that most of the nations will not treat Israelite descendants fairly, and so they had to be gathered back to their own place.

It is my opinion that even as God is still gathering Gentiles to Him, He is also gathering Israelites to Him. And because the Pharisaic order still exist, the situation that Paul describes in Romans 11:25 is still in effect, whereas as far as the nation of Israel is concerned, it is fractured. The remnant, who I have highlighted in Zechariah 12:10-14, who survives the Abomination that causes desolation that will spark the beginning of the Great Tribulation, will fulfill Paul's prophecy in Romans 11:26. It is not something that God will do separately from the rest of the world, it is something that happens because God is going to save them, (quite literally), from the death that the Beast will bring to them. It is that event that will cause "all Israel" to be saved.

I do not believe that it is something that will happen as the Lord will focus solely on Israel, when He let the cat out of the bag when He brought His Son to this earth. It's too late now to revert backwards. Christ did not die for Israel alone, but for all mankind, and our points of view should reflect that fact. Israel can not be viewed as a separate entity when it comes to the workings of the Lord. However, if God is going to do something that affects certain people, I believe that we shouldn't discount this as something that happened in the past when it is quite clear that it did not. This is the problem that the replacement theology has presented to us.

It is not only an end-times thing, this replacement theology, but it is a matter that the entire church need to address head-on. I do not want the replacement theology to exist, but it does, and not just for those nuts who are end-time buffs... (myself included). You know where I am coming from, which is why I believe you keep on interjecting the addition theology. you are correct because I do not believe that God is only going to deal with Israel after He takes care of the rest of the world. He is dealing with Israel at the same time that he is dealing with the rest of the world, not as a separate entity, but as a part of the entire "Big Picture".

BroRog
Aug 14th 2009, 10:51 PM
I don't want to sound ignorant, BroRog, but DUH!!!!!!!!!!! Romans 11:23-26!

The reason why I used Zechariah is because of the fact that the Lord targeted a very specific group of people, and an even more specific city. All of the events that happen in that chapter happen to distinct groups of people. Those who fight against Jerusalem in particular, and those inhabitants of Jerusalem. This is as cut and dry as it gets. If one says that these scriptures are fulfilled, when the remnants of the inhabitants of Israel have not all mourned and wailed as they look upon the One they have pierced, then someone is being replaced.

I don't think you are ignorant. I agreed with you. :)

WELL
Aug 17th 2009, 08:56 PM
I believe a healthy approach to this subject is a verse from Col 3:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=51&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.

One of the errors in theology today seems to be when folk are focusing on natural Isreal, and those parts of the globe, instead of Christ.

We(the church) are called to spread the gospel far and wide, to any who come our way, or by us ,as we go their's, no matter what their back ground , blood, or heritage. I see no necessitity to know ones background before or after they have heard the Word.

"Replacement theology" is mostly used(when I've heard it) as a distraction, and those who have been accused with this lable, donnot actualy believe what they are being labled with.

May we be known in this way; By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. Jn 13:35 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=43&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=35)

John146
Aug 17th 2009, 09:50 PM
Paul doesn't say the wild branches were put on the tree because of their faith. He explicitly says they were but on because of God's kindness. I disagree completely with that. Immediately after saying that some of the natural branches were broken off due to unbelief he says "but thou standest by faith". Clearly, the reason for being broken off is unbelief and the reason for being grafted in is faith.


I already gave you two good reasons for why the branches can not be individual people. If you choose to ignore them, then fine.I didn't ignore them at all. I simply don't agree that they were good reasons for thinking each branch is an individual person.


But don't argue with me on the basis that the Olive Tree represents Christ because I don't agree with you on that point.I never said the olive tree represents Christ. The olive tree represents Christ's kingdom, the root is Christ, the basis for being cut off is unbelief and the basis for being grafted in is faith in Christ.


If the Olive Tree is the Gospel in the form of the Apostles, the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit, then nothing of what you say makes sense.Well, it's a good thing that's not what the olive tree represents then. ;)


Of course God is going to give unbelievers access to the information they need to get saved. That is God's kindness, to give the world the information they need to get saved. From my point of view, it makes no sense for you to say that God will deny someone the information they need to get saved until they believe it. A man can't have faith in something he doesn't know about.Being grafted in seems a bit more involved than just hearing the gospel. One must believe what they hear in order to be grafted in.


This passage actually supports my view. Paul is saying that prior to his coming to evangelize their city, they were without knowledge of Christ, God, the plan of salvation, etc. But after Paul and others came to their town, they had the information to be saved.

Well I do see a basis as it is clear from Paul's change of vocabulary that he has shifted his focus from Jews and Gentiles taken individually to Israel taken as a whole. He doesn't use the word "Israel" for the first 8 chapters of his letter. He uses the word "Israel" several times in chapters 9, 10, and 11. And he doesn't use the word Israel again after that, 11:26 being the last time.

In those three chapters he continually talks in general terms about the nation of Israel, making general statements that would not be true of individuals.

Being grafted on to the tree represents having access to the Apostles, the scriptures and the Holy Spirit in my view. When Paul says that "All Israel shall be saved", he is saying that all of Israel, rather than a mere remnant, will be given access to the Apostles, the scriptures and the Holy Spirit. And all of Israel will come to saving faith.Is it Israel as a group that comes to saving faith or each individual? I'm sorry, but it seems that you turn salvation into a corporate issue when it's actually an individual heart issue.


Salvation becomes a national issue when God makes it a national issue.He never does in scripture. Salvation comes when an individual believes in their heart and confesses with their mouth that Jesus is Lord and He died for their sins and rose again on the third day.


I did not associate grafting with salvation.

Faith is not the condition of salvation. Faith is the evidence of salvation as the author of Hebrews states in Hebrews 11. Salvation is by grace through faith, not on the condition of faith.Through faith in Christ (John 3:16, Rom 10:9-10, Acts 16:30-31, Gal 3:26, etc.).
If salvation was given to reward a faith response, then salvation would be earned not given as a gift.Scripture never teaches that. Paul says in Galatians 3:26 that we are children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. When the prison keeper asked Paul and Silas what he had to do to be saved (Acts 16:27-34) they said to believe on the Lord Jesus and he would be saved and that went for everyone in his household as well.


The promise I have in view comes from Jeremiah 31, in which God explicitly says that HE will write his law on their hearts and that each man his neighbor and each man his brother will know the Lord from the greatest of them to the least. This promise has not yet been kept.Jeremiah 31 is all about the new covenant, which is now in effect and was established by the blood of Christ long ago.


How did I know in advance that you were going to shoot down the idea immediately? I must be a prophet. :)Probably because it's been clear for some time now that we don't agree on this and aren't likely to agree any time soon.

BroRog
Aug 18th 2009, 12:48 AM
I disagree completely with that. Immediately after saying that some of the natural branches were broken off due to unbelief he says "but thou standest by faith". Clearly, the reason for being broken off is unbelief and the reason for being grafted in is faith.

Eric, you can disagree all you want, but this is not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. If the text says the Gentiles were put on the tree because of their faith, then produce the passage from the text that says this. The fact is, the text is absent of any statement suggesting that the wild branches were put on the tree because of faith. Rather, the text explicitly says that the Gentiles were put on the tree because of God's kindness.


I didn't ignore them at all. I simply don't agree that they were good reasons for thinking each branch is an individual person.

Tell me then, how else would someone make a general statement about a group of people? How else would Paul make a general statement about Gentiles? Aren't you just defending an assumption you made?


I never said the olive tree represents Christ. The olive tree represents Christ's kingdom, the root is Christ, the basis for being cut off is unbelief and the basis for being grafted in is faith in Christ.

The view that the root is Christ leads to a logical absurdity because this would mean that the Jews are born into the body of Christ.


Being grafted in seems a bit more involved than just hearing the gospel. One must believe what they hear in order to be grafted in.

Based on what?


Is it Israel as a group that comes to saving faith or each individual? I'm sorry, but it seems that you turn salvation into a corporate issue when it's actually an individual heart issue.

Faith and salvation are individual issues, but the Olive Tree doesn't represent faith or salvation.


He never does in scripture. Salvation comes when an individual believes in their heart and confesses with their mouth that Jesus is Lord and He died for their sins and rose again on the third day.


The scriptures are clear that God intends to save the entire nation all at once, as it is written:


"They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, `Know the Lord,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the Lord, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." Jeremiah 31:34


Through faith in Christ.


Obviously.


Scripture never teaches that.

Of course not. That's my point.


Jeremiah 31 is all about the new covenant, which is now in effect and was established by the blood of Christ long ago.

When has it ever been true that it is no longer necessary to evangelize an entire population of Jews due to the fact that the entire population has been converted? It says they will not teach again to "know the Lord."

This prophecy has not been fulfilled because it remains the case that they continually call men and women to know the Lord. When all Israel has been converted and believe, then and only then will it be true that they will no longer need to teach men to know the Lord.

Naphal
Aug 18th 2009, 06:29 AM
Eric, you can disagree all you want, but this is not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. If the text says the Gentiles were put on the tree because of their faith, then produce the passage from the text that says this.

I apologize for this being a tad lame BUT if the bible said 2 plus 2 is four, and I deducted that 2 plus 4 is 6 but couldn't provide a verse that said it, does that mean I am wrong?

No.

You argue against a stronger position and you are simply incorrect.

Its clear that being a Christian allows a gentile to be grafted into the tree that has original branches who are Jews but are Christian and all other jews/branches that aren't Christian are removed from the tree but can be added later if they convert to Christ.

I've already dispelled the notion that Jews can be born on the tree and not be Christians (born into the body of Christ) and somehow remain so I'd appreciate that you stop using this argument:


The view that the root is Christ leads to a logical absurdity because this would mean that the Jews are born into the body of Christ.

BroRog
Aug 18th 2009, 07:28 PM
I apologize for this being a tad lame BUT if the bible said 2 plus 2 is four, and I deducted that 2 plus 4 is 6 but couldn't provide a verse that said it, does that mean I am wrong?

No.

You argue against a stronger position and you are simply incorrect.

Your analogy doesn't fit this situation. The case of addition is the process of deductive reasoning from the known principles of mathematics.

Eric's view, however, is not deductive reasoning but an inference from two premises.

His argument went something like this:

A. Natural branches were cut off for unbelief.
B. Wild branches stand because of faith.
C. Therefore, Wild branches were put on because of faith.

Since the text does not explicitly say that the wild branches were put on the tree because of faith, Eric must draw a logical inference from what was actually said. His conclusion, however, does not follow from A and B. It does not follow that because the natural branches were cut off for unbelief and the wild branches remain due to faith, that faith was a prerequisite for being put on the tree. And it can not counter Paul's explicit statement that the Gentiles were put on the tree due to God's kindness.


Its clear that being a Christian allows a gentile to be grafted into the tree that has original branches who are Jews but are Christian and all other jews/branches that aren't Christian are removed from the tree but can be added later if they convert to Christ.

Your own explanation is, of course, clear to you. But clarity doesn't necessarily indicate correctness.


I've already dispelled the notion that Jews can be born on the tree and not be Christians (born into the body of Christ) and somehow remain so I'd appreciate that you stop using this argument.


I can understand how the obvious flaw in your view would bother you. But you have no basis from the passage at hand for your contention that the tree changed from one kind of tree to another kind of tree at a point in time.

John146
Aug 18th 2009, 10:09 PM
Your analogy doesn't fit this situation. The case of addition is the process of deductive reasoning from the known principles of mathematics.

Eric's view, however, is not deductive reasoning but an inference from two premises.

His argument went something like this:

A. Natural branches were cut off for unbelief.
B. Wild branches stand because of faith.
C. Therefore, Wild branches were put on because of faith.

Since the text does not explicitly say that the wild branches were put on the tree because of faith, Eric must draw a logical inference from what was actually said.LOL. So what? I see nothing wrong with that.


His conclusion, however, does not follow from A and B. It does not follow that because the natural branches were cut off for unbelief and the wild branches remain due to faith, that faith was a prerequisite for being put on the tree.Tell me why it does not follow from A and B. You're saying it doesn't but not really explaining why not.


And it can not counter Paul's explicit statement that the Gentiles were put on the tree due to God's kindness.No matter how much faith anyone has they would still have no hope if not for the grace of God, so I don't see your point here.

timmyb
Aug 18th 2009, 10:42 PM
I think that the basis that Paul was writing to a predominantly Gentile church that they shouldn't be arrogant toward Israel should be a great basis against Replacement Theology.

I call Replacement Theology stripping Israel of the callings and blessings and making them like any other nation. Now the church is ADDED or Included in this calling, but that in no way negates the calling upon Israel as a nation.

God in no way broke the covenant with them and nor will he otherwise why would he be assuring the Romans otherwise?

The fact that Paul, a Jew is writing this to Gentiles is astounding enough

Naphal
Aug 19th 2009, 12:47 AM
Eric's view, however, is not deductive reasoning but an inference from two premises.

His argument went something like this:

A. Natural branches were cut off for unbelief.
B. Wild branches stand because of faith.
C. Therefore, Wild branches were put on because of faith.

Yes and thats exactly why we can conclude that wild branches were added to the tree for a certain reason...that reason being they are Christians like all the other branches on the tree. All non Christians were removed from the tree. Its rather simple really. Ive had a hard time understanding why you dont see this but its ok. I'll pray for you, and you for me and hopefully we all will see the truth :)

John146
Aug 19th 2009, 02:45 PM
Your analogy doesn't fit this situation. The case of addition is the process of deductive reasoning from the known principles of mathematics.

Eric's view, however, is not deductive reasoning but an inference from two premises.

His argument went something like this:

A. Natural branches were cut off for unbelief.
B. Wild branches stand because of faith.
C. Therefore, Wild branches were put on because of faith.

Since the text does not explicitly say that the wild branches were put on the tree because of faith, Eric must draw a logical inference from what was actually said. His conclusion, however, does not follow from A and B. It does not follow that because the natural branches were cut off for unbelief and the wild branches remain due to faith, that faith was a prerequisite for being put on the tree. And it can not counter Paul's explicit statement that the Gentiles were put on the tree due to God's kindness. Let's look at the text again.

Romans 11
20Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

First, let's look at verses 20 and 21. The reason some of the natural branches were broken off was because of unbelief. In contrast, he is telling the saints in Rome that they, being wild branches, stand by faith. That is very clear. Now look at verse 21. Paul is speaking to Gentile believers and saying that since God did not spare the natural branches they need to be careful or else He could also not spare them. Now, what was it again that caused some of the natural branches to be cut off? Unbelief. So, why would it not naturally follow that in order for any of the wild branches that were grafted in to be cut off it would also have to be because of unbelief?

And why would it not follow that any of the wild branches that were grafted into the tree were grafted in because of faith? If they did not have faith I don't see how they could be grafted in. Or at least how they could be grafted in without immediately then being cut off because of unbelief just as the natural branches were.

Also, you speak of the wild branches being grafted in because of God's goodness. Yes, that's true. But look at verse 22. Paul warns them about continuing in God's goodness or else they, too, would be cut off. So, he is implying that continuing in His goodness requires something on their part and is not automatic. What is required of them? Faith. Look at verse 23. Paul says if the natural branches abide not still in unbelief (have faith) they would be grafted in. So, he is telling us right there the requirement for being grafted in: abiding not in unbelief. In other words, faith. If the natural branches can only be grafted in by faith then it only follows that the wild branches can only be grafted in by faith as well.

BroRog
Aug 19th 2009, 05:50 PM
LOL. So what? I see nothing wrong with that.

Tell me why it does not follow from A and B. You're saying it doesn't but not really explaining why not.

No matter how much faith anyone has they would still have no hope if not for the grace of God, so I don't see your point here.

I'll try to explain why it is important to consider Paul's view that Israel was cut off the tree due to God's severity and the Gentiles were grafted on to the Tree according to his kindness. His statement was not a "throw-away" statement but it was very much on his mind as he expressed his view using the horticulture metaphor.

Your conclusion that believing Gentiles were given access to the Olive Tree by virtue of the fact that they have faith, means that faith is a qualification, not just for remaining on the Tree, but also for being put on the tree in the first place. Since faith is required in advance of being put on the tree, faith must be gained first in order to gain whatever the Tree offers.

This preliminary requirement is something the believer brings to the situation in order to gain whatever the Tree has to offer, which is a strong implication of your conclusion. This being the case then, God is right and just to give the believer what the Tree offers since the believer comes to the situation with the required belief.

However, Paul says that the Gentiles were put on the Tree according to God's kindness.

Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. Romans 11:22

A man who gains access to the Tree because he meets the prerequisite derives his benefit from the Tree as what is due to him. But a man who gains access to the Tree according to God's kindness is not meeting a preliminary requirement, but being given access to the Tree as an act of charity.

Therefore, your conclusion that the Gentiles were put on the tree because they came to the Tree with the requisite faith, is a contrary model to the one Paul describes, which involves an act of kindness and charity, not what is deserved or owed.

David Taylor
Aug 19th 2009, 09:53 PM
I call Replacement Theology stripping Israel of the callings and blessings



What other callings do they have besides what they have already accomplished in bring us the Christ, and in taking the gospel of Christ to the lost, as they have done for the last 20 centuries?




What blessings can they receive, other than the same blessings that all of Christ's children receive by faithfully following Him?


I guess I don't see why now, after Calvary, and Israelite believer has any different role in the Kingdom of Christ than a Irish believer or an Indian believer?

John146
Aug 20th 2009, 09:41 PM
I'll try to explain why it is important to consider Paul's view that Israel was cut off the tree due to God's severity and the Gentiles were grafted on to the Tree according to his kindness. His statement was not a "throw-away" statement but it was very much on his mind as he expressed his view using the horticulture metaphor.

Your conclusion that believing Gentiles were given access to the Olive Tree by virtue of the fact that they have faith, means that faith is a qualification, not just for remaining on the Tree, but also for being put on the tree in the first place. Since faith is required in advance of being put on the tree, faith must be gained first in order to gain whatever the Tree offers.

This preliminary requirement is something the believer brings to the situation in order to gain whatever the Tree has to offer, which is a strong implication of your conclusion. This being the case then, God is right and just to give the believer what the Tree offers since the believer comes to the situation with the required belief.

However, Paul says that the Gentiles were put on the Tree according to God's kindness.

Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. Romans 11:22

A man who gains access to the Tree because he meets the prerequisite derives his benefit from the Tree as what is due to him. But a man who gains access to the Tree according to God's kindness is not meeting a preliminary requirement, but being given access to the Tree as an act of charity.

Therefore, your conclusion that the Gentiles were put on the tree because they came to the Tree with the requisite faith, is a contrary model to the one Paul describes, which involves an act of kindness and charity, not what is deserved or owed.Please read post #153 where I addressed these issues. What do you think Paul meant when he said "to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off"? What would be required to "continue in His kindness" so that they would not be cut off? Continuing in His kindness was clearly not something that would be automatic since he says "if you continue in His kindness..." and warns them that they will be cut off if they don't.

BroRog
Aug 20th 2009, 10:55 PM
Please read post #153 where I addressed these issues.

You didn't deal with the issue of God's kindness as it relates to your position that believers merit being on the tree due to their faith. Either they merit being on the tree as you suggest, or God put them on the tree due to his kindness. It can't be both.


What do you think Paul meant when he said "to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off"? What would be required to "continue in His kindness" so that they would not be cut off? Continuing in His kindness was clearly not something that would be automatic since he says "if you continue in His kindness..." and warns them that they will be cut off if they don't.In my view, the Olive Tree represents the Scriptures, the Apostles, and the Holy Spirit. Due to God's kindness, he gave the Gentiles access to these as a favor according to his grace. As long as the Gentiles continue to come to belief, they will continue to have access to the scriptures and the Holy Spirit. As soon as the Gentiles stop coming to belief, God will withdraw access to them.

You will say then, "how is God going to keep someone from reading the Bible?" But it isn't a matter of gaining access to a Bible. Israel has access to the Bible. Rather, it's a matter of being able to understand what we read, and the will to apply it to our lives.

Truly understanding what the Bible actually says is a gift of the Holy Spirit as he works with us internally to remove our blinders and help us gain the will and the strength to ask ourselves the tough questions and to face the Biblical answers.

In the context of this same passage Paul speaks about a time when the Gentiles will no longer come to faith, which he calls "the fullness of the Gentiles." At that time God is going to remove his kindness from the Gentiles and give it back to Israel.