|
Author
|
Topic: The Church is Not (Spiritual) Israel
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by WildB:
quote:
Originally posted by John Hale:
"Not true. The assembly / ekklesia / church is mentioned by name as far back as Exodus 12:6 and the Hall of Faith passage (Hebrews 11) lists those who walked by the spirit rather than the flesh as far back as Abel. "
“EKKLESIA” means
“CALLED-OUT.”
"
The King James Version
Selected Text
Strong's Greek #1577 ...I will build my church; and the gates of ...
1577 ekklesia { ek-klay-see’-ah}
from a compound of 1537 and a derivative of 2564; TDNT - 3:501,394; n f
AV - church 115, assembly 3; 118
GK - 1711 { ἐκκλησία }
1) a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
1a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
1b) the assembly of the Israelites
1c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
1d) in a Christian sense
1d1) an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
1d2) a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order’s sake
1d3) those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
1d4) the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
1d5) "
WildB, do you just make things up as you go along?
IP: Logged | 
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
...continued:
quote:
This suggests two things: first, that the Church must have begun in the time of the apostles if they are the foundation, and second, the Church is not seen being built upon the key Old Testament personalities of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David. The Church did not begin in the Old Testament and, therefore, it and Israel are distinct.
1. I have refuted your basis for determining the Church did not exist prior to Acts 2
2. You keep bringing in physical Israel as though I were saying the Church is physical Israel. I am not. And this is a rabbit trail tactic.
quote:
The unique character of the Church supports the distinction
The unique character of the Church from the cross onward is the new covenant not the church itself which has always consisted of those who believe (faith) and pursue the spirit over the flesh according to the revelation of the one true God.
The Olive tree in Romans 11 never changes. Covenants do, but not the tree or what keeps the branches attached to / grafted into the trunk (belief).
quote:
The Church, unlike Israel, is declared to be a "mystery" (see Ephesians 3:1-12; Colossians 1:26-27).
In the New Testament a "mystery" is a truth that was not revealed previously in the Old Testament.
Which does not mean it wasn't in existence in the OT. Just not revealed.
quote:
The apostle Paul also declared that the Church is "one new man" …
Referring to how the physical Jew and the physical gentile in Christ are one new man (spirit Israel).
quote:
"In the New Testament it denotes, not the mysterious … but that which, being outside the range of unassisted natural apprehension, can be made known only by divine revelation, and is made known in a manner and at a time appointed by God, and to those only who are illumined by His Spirit" (W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words).
LOL I love how "experts" and "scholars" can encyclopediate potty training... (in the words of Tony Campollo). ROFLOL
My answer to you and to Vine and to Fructenbaum and anyone else you can quote is that what the Bible teaches / indicates / reveals trumps all other so-called authorities / scholars / experts...
And the mystery of anything in the Bible is not an indication of when or where it existed but when or how it was revealed.
Genesis 1:1 (NIV)
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
John 1:1-3 (NIV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
Are you willing to apply this concocted means of interpreting "mystery" in the OT to say that God the Word did not exist in Genesis 1?
quote:
The apostle Paul is clear that this unknown truth related to the Church was something that was hidden from man and was hidden with God until "now" (the time of the apostles and New Testament prophets). The mystery included the facts that believing Jews and believing Gentiles would be united as equals in one body and that Christ Himself would indwell them. While Gentile salvation was seen in the Old Testament, this kind of relationship between Jews and Gentiles, and between God and the believer, was never true in the Old Testament. The Church was something new and significantly different from Israel.
Nope. Not true. Based all on the misdiagnosis of what a mystery is.
quote:
The apostle Paul also declared that the Church is "one new man" (see Ephesians 2:15). He states that based on the death of Christ, reconciliation has taken place between Jews and Gentiles as well as between God and man. The "one new man" is distinct from Israel and it is distinct from the Gentiles. The "one new man" (the Church) is not a continuation of either but is made up of believing Jews and believing Gentiles. It is something entirely new and points to a very real distinction between the Church and Israel.
A very real distinction between physical Israel and spirit Israel.
quote:
Specific New Testament Scriptures support this distinction
As I have been repeatedly saying... and I note by the way that this "scholar" omits the listing of those scriptures. I cite them or quote them...
that the distinction is between physical Israel and spirit Israel for example:
Romans 9:69 (NIV)
33 As it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”
quote:
A number of New Testament Scriptures have been mentioned and there are a number that legitimately could be discussed.
I counted three, and they were all misapplied by you which I pointed out and refuted with scriptures too.
quote:
As was noted earlier, "in order for replacement theology to qualify as a biblical option, passages which allow such an interpretation are not enough.
I also noted that what I have been showing the Bible teaches / indicates is not "replacement theology." To call it so is a straw man tactic that is quite tedious and wearisome to have to answer its repeated misapplications and interpolations... but onward ho...
quote:
Some have said that the phrase "all Israel" is looking at the remnant of Jewish believers …
"There need to be, positively, passages which clearly teach it and, negatively, no passages which actually exclude it" (Ronald E. Diprose, Israel in the Development of Christian Thought).
If you look into non-Christian Judaism you will also find this is their recent definition of the term klal yisro'el (recent to mean within the last 500 years). Both are extrabiblical arguments or assessments.
{snip}
We all agree there is not replacement for physical Israel and that they will also be joined with spirit Israel in the end (which is what Armageddon is about... being that extreme to get the surviving physical Jews to cry out to Jesus for salvation). So I shall snip the replacement points here on...
quote:
The apostle does not believe that Israel's self-righteousness, unbelief and sin have removed them from God's blessings, but rather that the day is coming when Israel as a nation, will be brought into the New Covenant, thus fulfilling the Old Testament prophets.
The prophecy of the two sticks in Ezekiel 37 prophetically speak of how physical Israel and spirit Israel were one, then divided in two, then rejoined as one. This is klal yisro'el and what the Apostle was referring to in Romans 11:26.
It also has prophetic application of Church in that before Abraham was called out there was no physical Israel and the faith of spirit Israel which preexisted was divided from the physical gentiles to the physical Jews. And in Christ the two became one (the new man) Ephesians 2:14.
Now I want to stop here and again state that I am citing and quoting scripture. My opponents are not. They just voice their beliefs. I am showing not only various passages but the congruous path throughout the Bible on the subject.
I am not tooting my own horn I am simply bowing to the word of God and showing a Spirit-led interpretation of the scriptures which the Spirit wrote and illuminates. (2 Peter 1:20-21 / John 16:13).
{snip}
quote:
Second, the two entities function under two different covenants. Israel functioned under the Old Covenant and the Church has been privileged to be "partakers" of some of the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant.
Wow this is incredibly ignorant of the Bible and the facts. The New Covenant was intended for the Jew first and then the Gentile.
Romans 1:16 (NIV)
16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.
I mean... just... wow... {shaking head}
quote:
Third, the work of God in Israel was especially carried out by the Levitical priesthood while in the Church it is the anointed, spiritually gifted believer priest that carries out the work of God. The New Testament believer has been given "the ministry of reconciliation" (2 Corinthians 5:18-20). A believer in the Old Testament, from the tribe of Asher or Gad, could make no such claim.
I am gratified that this points out the priesthood of every believer (too few pulpits preach this or recognize this as being biblical)... BUT... this also indicates the author's / scholar's / expert's ignorance of scripture...
Exodus 19:6 (NIV)
6 you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.”
It was the failure of physical Israel to do so (and the failure in the wilderness with the calf idol) that prompted the Lord to set aside the Levis as priests and a priesthood within the tribe.
This is also prophetic of the kingdom of priests who would succeed at this in the New Covenant which this passage refers to as "Israelites."
Thank you... you helped make my point.
Done and done.
IP: Logged |
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
...continued:
quote:
Jesus did not assume that role until after He had shed His blood on the cross, had been resurrected, and then ascended back into heaven. It was at that time, after those events, that the Father "put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him the head over all things to the Church, which is His body" (see 1:22).
You are mixing up events. Besides, it was that authority Jesus laid aside when he became a man...
Philippians 2:5-11 (NASB95)
5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,
10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Which Jesus prayed for in John 17 to be restored to him.
John 17:5 (NASB95)
5 “Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
John 5:22-23 (NASB95)
22 “For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son,
23 so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.
This giving of authority was prior to the cross and after the cross with a 33 year sabbatical while he lived this life as a man able from ability in his divine nature to do the things of God but unable to do so in his humanity until after the cross because it would alter his kinsman redeemership in the sacrifice for our sins. (John 5:19ff note his ability to do himself as he sees the Father doing so it is about restraint not incapability).
So now, I won't grant the erroneous premise that Jesus had no authority until after the cross... and further state that this authority granted him till his enemies are put under his feet began before there was a physical universe to the time when only the spirit realm existed.
God's plan predates what we call creation.
Revelation 13:8 (NIV)
8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.
quote:
Furthermore, the Church (the body) could not be formed apart from the baptizing work of the Holy Spirit. This is so because a believer can enter the Church, the body of Christ, only by means of Holy Spirit baptism (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:13). [/b]
And belief itself is the gift of God and the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Observe:
Matthew 3:11 (NIV)
11 “I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit (belief)... or with fire (unbelief).
Ephesians 2:8-10 (NIV)
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—
9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
10 For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
John 3:16-18 (NIV)
16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
There are only two options.
1 Corinthians 12:13 (NIV)
13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
With no reference to what point in time... includes since the beginning (Greeks was a way of saying non-Jew or Gentile at the time Paul wrote this as the universal language uniting all languages was even the language of the New Testament Koine Greek).
[quote]But this vital ministry of the Spirit did not begin until the day of Pentecost.
Presumptive as all get out. Are you saying this means all who believed before the cross had nothing to do with the Spirit?
I invite you or the one you quote to prove this from the Bible.
quote:
Without Spirit baptism no one could enter the body of Christ
False conclusion arrived at by the fallacious reasoning that got you here. Wow. The body of Christ / body of believers in the one true God goes all the way back to at least Abel. Hebrews 11:4. It was before the cross and the price being paid for human sin so the dead in Christ (the body of faith) could not go to heaven until the cross but rather went to Abraham's Bosom (Luke 16:19-31) and was the "captivity" referred to in Ephesians 4:8-10...
That is the only difference between OT and NT saints. The cross.
quote:
and, thus, the Church could not exist.
LOL this is ridiculous. I showed in so many different ways how the Church existed before Acts 2 and you yourself fudged on this in your explanation about Matthew 18:17. LOL
You can't have it both ways... but you sure try...
quote:
Not even the apostles were in the body, but they would experience Spirit baptism shortly after Jesus' ascension.
Excuse me?
The disciples were in the body of believers. Peter made the good confession in Matthew 16 right before one of the verses you tried to use to say the Church was a future thing...
"You are the Christ the Son of the living God."
Romans 10:9 (NIV)
9 That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
quote:
On the day He ascended back into heaven, the Lord Jesus informed His apostles that the baptizing work of the Holy Spirit would begin in the near future (see Acts 1:5, 8).
Acts 1:5-8 (NIV)
5 For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”
6 So when they met together, they asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”
7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.
8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
Even if there was some lingering unbelief on the parts of the disciples when the Holy Spirit came upon them it was belief that came on them and made the difference.
quote:
Ten days later, on the day of Pentecost, this and other ministries of the Spirit began. As the Apostle Peter reflected on the day of Pentecost as the time when this new work of the Spirit began (see 11:15), he spoke of it as a time of "beginning." Peter's use of "beginning" (arche) speaks of a specific point in time when something new commences. This new thing, the Church of Jesus Christ, began on the day of Pentecost.
...under the New Covenant / post cross.
quote:
The Apostle Paul also tells us that the Church's foundation is the apostles and the prophets of the New Testament with Christ being the cornerstone (see Ephesians 2:20).
Ephesians 2:20 (NIV)
20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
Prophets of the New Testament? Do you see this here? I don't. Maybe you could refer us to a translation that does?
The Prophets aside from being individuals of the Old Testament...
Matthew 11:13 (NIV)
13 For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied
until John.
also refers to a division of the old testament itself. So this attempt to tear apart NT and OT is in error and apparently under the mistake or dishonest attempt to add words to Ephesians 2:20 (i.e. New Testament).
Deuteronomy 4:2 (NIV)
2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.
Proverbs 30:5-6 (NIV)
5 “Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
6 Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.
Revelation 22:18-19 (NIV)
18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Be careful. The above passages were warnings from all three major divisions of scripture. God wants us to be sure to be warned not to add to or take away from his word from Genesis to Revelation.
It's getting late. I am going to put the period here. The whole thing is refuted and from this point gets redundant. So, I will continue to refute this if need be.
I'll keep this here for the record should that be necessary. Ho hum.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This suggests two things: first, that the Church must have begun in the time of the apostles if they are the foundation, and second, the Church is not seen being built upon the key Old Testament personalities of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David. The Church did not begin in the Old Testament and, therefore, it and Israel are distinct.
The unique character of the Church supports the distinction
The Church, unlike Israel, is declared to be a "mystery" (see Ephesians 3:1-12; Colossians 1:26-27). In the New Testament a "mystery" is a truth that was not revealed previously in the Old Testament.
The apostle Paul also declared that the Church is "one new man" …
"In the New Testament it denotes, not the mysterious … but that which, being outside the range of unassisted natural apprehension, can be made known only by divine revelation, and is made known in a manner and at a time appointed by God, and to those only who are illumined by His Spirit" (W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words).
The apostle Paul is clear that this unknown truth related to the Church was something that was hidden from man and was hidden with God until "now" (the time of the apostles and New Testament prophets). The mystery included the facts that believing Jews and believing Gentiles would be united as equals in one body and that Christ Himself would indwell them. While Gentile salvation was seen in the Old Testament, this kind of relationship between Jews and Gentiles, and between God and the believer, was never true in the Old Testament. The Church was something new and significantly different from Israel.
The apostle Paul also declared that the Church is "one new man" (see Ephesians 2:15). He states that based on the death of Christ, reconciliation has taken place between Jews and Gentiles as well as between God and man. The "one new man" is distinct from Israel and it is distinct from the Gentiles. The "one new man" (the Church) is not a continuation of either but is made up of believing Jews and believing Gentiles. It is something entirely new and points to a very real distinction between the Church and Israel.
Specific New Testament Scriptures support this distinction
A number of New Testament Scriptures have been mentioned and there are a number that legitimately could be discussed. As was noted earlier, "in order for replacementtheology to qualify as a biblical option, passages which allow such an interpretation are not enough.
Some have said that the phrase "all Israel" is looking at the remnant of Jewish believers …
"There need to be, positively, passages which clearly teach it and, negatively, no passages which actually exclude it" (Ronald E. Diprose, Israel in the Development of Christian Thought).
Replacement theology does not have any passages that clearly teach that the nation of Israel has been set aside by God and replaced by the Church. But it is faced with Paul's powerful presentation concerning Israel in Romans 9-11, which does notallow for replacement theology. It is beyond the scope of this article to deal in detail with this key section in Romans 9-11. Others have done a fine job in demonstrating that the nation of Israel does have a wonderful future and that God fully intends to restore them to a place of prominence as He fulfills His covenant commitments to them (Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology).
We simply need to note that the 11 times that Paul uses "Israel" in this section, each time it refers to ethnic Israel, not to Gentiles or the Church,. He is talking about his "kinsmen according to the flesh" (see 9:3). Paul knew that most people in Israel had turned from the Lord, rebelled, and become hardened in self-righteous unbelief. Of course, a believing remnant in Israel had always existed, but the nation as a whole had turned away (see Romans 9 and 10). But Romans 11 is clear on this point, that the same people who refused to believe and be received back in the future when the Messiah would return. Using an illustration of an olive tree, Paul states that some of the natural branches of the tree (Israel) were broken off and wild branches (the Gentiles) were grafted in and received life from the "rich root of the olive tree" (the Abrahamic covenant). He then declares that the day is coming when God will graft the natural branches back into the olive tree, which looks ahead to the day of salvation for national Israel—the fulfillment of the New Covenant. On that day "all Israel will be saved" (see 11:26).
"I means in usage Israel as a whole not necessarily every individual Israelite (cf. 1 Samuel 7:2-5, 25:1; 1 Kings 12:1; 2 Chronicles 12:1-5; Daniel 9:11). The clues to its force are not only the sense of people (Romans 11:1), but also the nature of the rejection of the Messiah by the nation, a rejection by nation as a whole (the leaders and the great mass of the people, but not every Israelite). This usage, as is well known, is found in rabbinic literature … Thus, Paul affirms that ethnic Israel as a whole will be saved" (S. Lewis Johnson, Paul and the Israel of God).
The apostle does not believe that Israel's self-righteousness, unbelief and sin have removed them from God's blessings, but rather that the day is coming when Israel as a nation, will be brought into the New Covenant, thus fulfilling the Old Testament prophets. Some have said that the phrase "all Israel" is looking at the remnant of Jewish believers that have been saved as a part of the Church over the centuries. But if that were true, then there never was a "breaking off" of the natural branches as the text declares. And there would be no need to graft them back in again, since they have always been part of the olive tree. No, Paul is referring to ethnic Israel and anticipating the day when God will "take away their sins" in light of His "covenant with them" (see 11:27). Can anything be clearer that this in declaring that national Israel does have a future and has not been replaced or set aside by the Church?
The internal differences support the distinction
There are also significant differences between the two entities. First, and of great significance, is the fact that the body of Christ is made up of believers only. There has not, nor will there ever be, an unbeliever in the Church (the body of Christ) since one can only enter through Spirit baptism. This is in stark contrast to Israel where unbelievers were dominant over much of Old Testament history. So Dr. Berkhof's statement is a bit puzzling when he says, "As far as their essential nature is concerned, they both consist of true believers, and of true believers only" (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology). It could never be said of Israel, as it can be of the Church, that no unbelievers were in it.
But these surely show us that internally the Church and Israel are quite different.
Second, the two entities function under two different covenants. Israel functioned under the Old Covenant and the Church has been privileged to be "partakers" of some of the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant. (Note: The New Covenant was made with Israel and Judah and must be fulfilled with them.) There is a stark contrast between these two covenants as taught in 2 Corinthians 3 and Hebrews 7-10 and the New Covenant is clearly superior to the Old. The New Covenant ministry is uniquely a broadened and expanded ministry of the Holy Spirit. The operating principles of the Church are significantly different from that of Israel.
Third, the work of God in Israel was especially carried out by the Levitical priesthood while in the Church it is the anointed, spiritually gifted believer priest that carries out the work of God. The New Testament believer has been given "the ministry of reconciliation" (2 Corinthians 5:18-20). A believer in the Old Testament, from the tribe of Asher or Gad, could make no such claim.
Other internal differences exist. But these surely show us that internally the Church and Israel are quite different. The internal differences point to a legitimate distinction to be made between Israel and the Church.
Some concluding thoughts
The evidence of the Scriptures is strong and compelling that the Church of Jesus Christ and the nation of Israel are distinct entities in the plan and program of God. The Church is not Israel and Israel has not been set aside or replaced. When the biblical covenants made with the nation of Israel are seen as unconditional and unfulfilled, it is essential that the Lord God fulfills them with Israel, the ones who are the original party in the covenant. When the Scriptures are interpreted literally, one comes to the conclusion that Israel means Israel. And the literal (normal) approach of interpretation also leads one to see that the Church began at a different time than did Israel; that it was a "mystery" and something "new" built on the New Testament apostles and prophets; and that it is externally and internally different from Israel. Such evidence, along with Romans 9-11, points to the fact that Israel was not abandoned or replaced by God. The Church is important in God's program, but it is not Israel.
Mal Couch was the founder and president of the Tyndale Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. He is also an author of many books, and has written 40 documentaries on Bible prophecies and biblical issues.
Originally published in The Gathering Storm, 21st Century Press, Springfield, MO 65807—ISBN 0-9749811-7-6. Reprinted in Christians & Israel Today, May 2007.
Related article
The Church and Israel: Many Perspectives
Used with permission. Copyright © 2007 Christianity.ca.
IP: Logged |
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by WildB:
The Church is Not Israel
"National Israel does have a future and has not been replaced or set aside by the Church."
by Mal Couch
That's right. The physical heirs of Abraham Isaac, and Jacob cannot be replaced by those who are not physical heirs of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Whether they be a nation or in the diaspora.
quote:
Mal Couch was the founder and president of the Tyndale Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.
The Church and Israel did not begin at the same time and are, therefore, not the same entity.
Correct. The ekklesia (assembly / church) predates the calling of Abram of Ur and therefore the physical "nation" of Israel and the Church is therefore not the physical nation Israel.
I never ever said otherwise.
Before I go further... you can pretty much see that this refutation of WildB's misapplication of "scholarly" writings (which interestingly is an allusion to what he no doubt considers to be on par with scripture (and therein is the problem), is that I will show that WildB and anyone who agrees with him or who he cites as a scholar on par with scripture (in his view) that either through ignorance or dishonesty WildB or the citations are referring to the nation Israel the physical heirs born of Jewish parents when I am pointing out what the scriptures say about the spiritual Israel that of faith and belief versus unbelief and faithlessness.
So time can be saved by considering this quote of WildB refuted. I will go on to show that it is indeed refuted. Perhaps this vigil will show those who cannot speak truth or defend truth that wear down tactics which they have to resort to do not work. Neither does the tactic of subterfuge inserting physical Israel where spirit Israel is being discussed.
quote:
The nation of Israel essentially began when God called Abraham and promised to make a great nation from him. The rest of the Old Testament records the growth, development and existence of that nation. There is really no significant debate on the matter of the starting point of the nation of Israel. It began with Abraham and was formed over the next 700 years into a nation with people, law and land.
Physical Israel.
Spirit Israel is rather the topic at hand.
quote:
The Church however, is not found in the Old Testament because it had its beginning on the day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2. The Church began centuries after Israel began.
Not true. The assembly / ekklesia / church is mentioned by name as far back as Exodus 12:6 and the Hall of Faith passage (Hebrews 11) lists those who walked by the spirit rather than the flesh as far back as Abel.
The New Covenant took effect in Acts 2. Pentecost was a prefiguring feast prophesying that commencement... but the church did not BEGIN then. And it is interesting that so few who believe it did observe any reference or holiday to the so-called beginning (amusingly because it is too Jewish a feast for the Church of man to keep). LOL
quote:
If the Church began at Pentecost,
It did not. Exodus 12:6, Numbers 8:9,
Psalm 22:25 (NASB95)
25 From You comes my praise in the great assembly {GR: ekklesia}; I shall pay my vows before those who fear Him.
Hebrews 11:1-4 (NASB95)
1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
2 For by it the men of old gained approval.
3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.
4 By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks.
quote:
then it did not begin or exist in the Old Testament.
I just showed it had.
quote:
It is worth noting that in Matthew 16:18 the Lord Jesus used the future tense: "I will build my Church." He did not say, I am building My Church, or, I have been building My Church.
In the Greek the word "will" does not appear.
The Greek tense and mood are stem expressing causative action mood as an order of command tense present imperative denotes continuous action.
"Upon this Rock I build my Church."
It can be interpreted by the traditional translator's future use of the term will build in the sense that it would be under the extraordinary differences of covenant and post cross / resurrection. Whereas before it was prior to the cross and under the old covenant.
quote:
The Church was something still future in Christ's ministry, which means that it was not in existence during His ministry or in the Old Testament.
Just disproved that summation.
quote:
The apostles would not have understood what He meant by "His Church" being built in the future, but the details about the Church would be given to them later.
If what you said were true the disciples (note their Apostleship began with the anointing of tongues of fire at Pentecost)would not have had a clue about this ekklesia he was going to build on this rock... thing... and would they not have questioned this? What meaneth he this "church" building?
quote:
In dealing with the matter of the discipline of an individual (see 18:17), Jesus told them to tell it to the church or assembly.
Once again, you falter. Pentecost had not happened yet and according to you there was no church until Acts 2. And my previous point on this matter... "church? what church?" would have been their response to Matthew 18:17 if there had been no church / ekklesia prior to Matthew 16:18 and Matthew 18:17.
Don't you see? If you are correct then the disciples would have no frame of reference to the ekklesia prior to Acts 2...
quote:
The apostles would have understood that He was speaking of a Jewish assembly. The statement of 18:17 must be understood in the light of the previous statement (see 16:18) of the future building of "my Church."
No. You can't have it both ways, friend. It either existed prior to Acts 2 or it did not.
And Matthew 16:18 may have been referring to the building under the different conditions of the cross / resurrection and under the new covenant...
quote:
Certain things had to be true before the Church could come into existence.
Wait a minute! You invented the church in Acts 2 and then reinvented it prior to Matthew 18:17. Which is it?
quote:
First, according to the Apostle Paul, the Church is the "body of Christ" (e.g. Colossians 1:18, 24 and Ephesians 2:16; 3:6; 5:23, 30).
Always was. People just did not have enough revelation of God's word to know this prior to the cross... and it did not go into full effect until after the cross...
Ephesians 4:8-10 (NASB95)
8 Therefore it says, “When He ascended on high, He led captive a host of captives, And He gave gifts to men.”
9 (Now this expression, “He ascended,” what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things.)
Hebrews 9:15-17 (NASB95)
15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
16 For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it.
17 For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.
quote:
It is clear that the Church (the body) could not exist and function without its head, the Lord Jesus.
I am beginning to get the picture here that you or the one you are quoting here does not believe the preincarnate Jesus is the LORD (YHVH) of the Old Testament whom the faithful believed in and served. They did not have enough revealed scripture to know he was the preincarnate Jesus... but nevertheless he was and was the head of the body (assembly) of believers...
And just in case some doubt this...
John 8:58 (NASB95)
58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”
If he were not claiming to be the great I AM, the Jews who heard it but disbelieved it would not have tried to stone him (see verse 59).
Exodus 3:13-15 (NASB95)
13 Then Moses said to God, “Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I will say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you.’ Now they may say to me, ‘What is His name?’ What shall I say to them?”
14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”
15 God, furthermore, said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations.
Trinitarian theology btw. The Father of the Son is the mystery in the Old Testament. He was certainly there... just in the background.
For it was God the Word who became the Son that did all the creating in the beginning alone by himself...
Observe:
John 1:1-3 (NASB95)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
Colossians 1:13-16 (NASB95)
13 For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son,
14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Isaiah 44:24 (NASB95)
24 Thus says the Lord {reread Exodus 3:31-15 and John 8:58 above}, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, ,u.“I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone,
And in the very verse that tells us God the Word became flesh...
John 1:14 (NASB95)
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
...tells of of the only thing the Father created at a later point (the body of Jesus).
Hebrews 10:5-7 (NASB95)
5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, “Sacrifice and offering You have not desired, But a body You have prepared for Me;
6 In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have taken no pleasure.
7 “Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come (In the scroll of the book it is written of Me) To do Your will, O God.’ ”
So Genesis 1:1 could read...
Genesis 1:1 (NASB95)
1 In the beginning Jesus (preincarnate) created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:1 (NASB95)
1 In the beginning God the Word created the heavens and the earth.
It was he who mankind dealt with since the beginning. How can anyone say he was not the head of the body of believers until Acts 2?
continued...
IP: Logged |
|
|
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
The Church is Not Israel
"National Israel does have a future and has not been replaced or set aside by the Church."
by Mal Couch
Mal Couch was the founder and president of the Tyndale Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.
The Church and Israel did not begin at the same time and are, therefore, not the same entity. The nation of Israel essentially began when God called Abraham and promised to make a great nation from him. The rest of the Old Testament records the growth, development and existence of that nation. There is really no significant debate on the matter of the starting point of the nation of Israel. It began with Abraham and was formed over the next 700 years into a nation with people, law and land. The Church however, is not found in the Old Testament because it had its beginning on the day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2. The Church began centuries after Israel began.
If the Church began at Pentecost, then it did not begin or exist in the Old Testament. It is worth noting that in Matthew 16:18 the Lord Jesus used the future tense: "I will build my Church." He did not say, I am building My Church, or, I have been building My Church. The Church was something still future in Christ's ministry, which means that it was not in existence during His ministry or in the Old Testament. The apostles would not have understood what He meant by "His Church" being built in the future, but the details about the Church would be given to them later. In dealing with the matter of the discipline of an individual (see 18:17), Jesus told them to tell it to the church or assembly. The apostles would have understood that He was speaking of a Jewish assembly. The statement of 18:17 must be understood in the light of the previous statement (see 16:18) of the future building of "my Church."
Certain things had to be true before the Church could come into existence. First, according to the Apostle Paul, the Church is the "body of Christ" (e.g. Colossians 1:18, 24 and Ephesians 2:16; 3:6; 5:23, 30). It is clear that the Church (the body) could not exist and function without its head, the Lord Jesus. Jesus did not assume that role until after He had shed His blood on the cross, had been resurrected, and then ascended back into heaven. It was at that time, after those events, that the Father "put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him the head over all things to the Church, which is His body" (see 1:22).
Furthermore, the Church (the body) could not be formed apart from the baptizing work of the Holy Spirit. This is so because a believer can enter the Church, the body of Christ, only by means of Holy Spirit baptism (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:13). But this vital ministry of the Spirit did not begin until the day of Pentecost. Without Spirit baptism no one could enter the body of Christ and, thus, the Church could not exist. Not even the apostles were in the body, but they would experience Spirit baptism shortly after Jesus' ascension. On the day He ascended back into heaven, the Lord Jesus informed His apostles that the baptizing work of the Holy Spirit would begin in the near future (see Acts 1:5, 8). Ten days later, on the day of Pentecost, this and other ministries of the Spirit began. As the Apostle Peter reflected on the day of Pentecost as the time when this new work of the Spirit began (see 11:15), he spoke of it as a time of "beginning." Peter's use of "beginning" (arche) speaks of a specific point in time when something new commences. This new thing, the Church of Jesus Christ, began on the day of Pentecost.
The Apostle Paul also tells us that the Church's foundation is the apostles and the prophets of the New Testament with Christ being the cornerstone (see Ephesians 2:20). This suggests two things: first, that the Church must have begun in the time of the apostles if they are the foundation, and second, the Church is not seen being built upon the key Old Testament personalities of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David. The Church did not begin in the Old Testament and, therefore, it and Israel are distinct.
The unique character of the Church supports the distinction
The Church, unlike Israel, is declared to be a "mystery" (see Ephesians 3:1-12; Colossians 1:26-27). In the New Testament a "mystery" is a truth that was not revealed previously in the Old Testament.
The apostle Paul also declared that the Church is "one new man" …
"In the New Testament it denotes, not the mysterious … but that which, being outside the range of unassisted natural apprehension, can be made known only by divine revelation, and is made known in a manner and at a time appointed by God, and to those only who are illumined by His Spirit" (W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words).
The apostle Paul is clear that this unknown truth related to the Church was something that was hidden from man and was hidden with God until "now" (the time of the apostles and New Testament prophets). The mystery included the facts that believing Jews and believing Gentiles would be united as equals in one body and that Christ Himself would indwell them. While Gentile salvation was seen in the Old Testament, this kind of relationship between Jews and Gentiles, and between God and the believer, was never true in the Old Testament. The Church was something new and significantly different from Israel.
The apostle Paul also declared that the Church is "one new man" (see Ephesians 2:15). He states that based on the death of Christ, reconciliation has taken place between Jews and Gentiles as well as between God and man. The "one new man" is distinct from Israel and it is distinct from the Gentiles. The "one new man" (the Church) is not a continuation of either but is made up of believing Jews and believing Gentiles. It is something entirely new and points to a very real distinction between the Church and Israel.
Specific New Testament Scriptures support this distinction
A number of New Testament Scriptures have been mentioned and there are a number that legitimately could be discussed. As was noted earlier, "in order for replacementtheology to qualify as a biblical option, passages which allow such an interpretation are not enough.
Some have said that the phrase "all Israel" is looking at the remnant of Jewish believers …
"There need to be, positively, passages which clearly teach it and, negatively, no passages which actually exclude it" (Ronald E. Diprose, Israel in the Development of Christian Thought).
Replacement theology does not have any passages that clearly teach that the nation of Israel has been set aside by God and replaced by the Church. But it is faced with Paul's powerful presentation concerning Israel in Romans 9-11, which does notallow for replacement theology. It is beyond the scope of this article to deal in detail with this key section in Romans 9-11. Others have done a fine job in demonstrating that the nation of Israel does have a wonderful future and that God fully intends to restore them to a place of prominence as He fulfills His covenant commitments to them (Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology).
We simply need to note that the 11 times that Paul uses "Israel" in this section, each time it refers to ethnic Israel, not to Gentiles or the Church,. He is talking about his "kinsmen according to the flesh" (see 9:3). Paul knew that most people in Israel had turned from the Lord, rebelled, and become hardened in self-righteous unbelief. Of course, a believing remnant in Israel had always existed, but the nation as a whole had turned away (see Romans 9 and 10). But Romans 11 is clear on this point, that the same people who refused to believe and be received back in the future when the Messiah would return. Using an illustration of an olive tree, Paul states that some of the natural branches of the tree (Israel) were broken off and wild branches (the Gentiles) were grafted in and received life from the "rich root of the olive tree" (the Abrahamic covenant). He then declares that the day is coming when God will graft the natural branches back into the olive tree, which looks ahead to the day of salvation for national Israel—the fulfillment of the New Covenant. On that day "all Israel will be saved" (see 11:26).
"I means in usage Israel as a whole not necessarily every individual Israelite (cf. 1 Samuel 7:2-5, 25:1; 1 Kings 12:1; 2 Chronicles 12:1-5; Daniel 9:11). The clues to its force are not only the sense of people (Romans 11:1), but also the nature of the rejection of the Messiah by the nation, a rejection by nation as a whole (the leaders and the great mass of the people, but not every Israelite). This usage, as is well known, is found in rabbinic literature … Thus, Paul affirms that ethnic Israel as a whole will be saved" (S. Lewis Johnson, Paul and the Israel of God).
The apostle does not believe that Israel's self-righteousness, unbelief and sin have removed them from God's blessings, but rather that the day is coming when Israel as a nation, will be brought into the New Covenant, thus fulfilling the Old Testament prophets. Some have said that the phrase "all Israel" is looking at the remnant of Jewish believers that have been saved as a part of the Church over the centuries. But if that were true, then there never was a "breaking off" of the natural branches as the text declares. And there would be no need to graft them back in again, since they have always been part of the olive tree. No, Paul is referring to ethnic Israel and anticipating the day when God will "take away their sins" in light of His "covenant with them" (see 11:27). Can anything be clearer that this in declaring that national Israel does have a future and has not been replaced or set aside by the Church?
The internal differences support the distinction
There are also significant differences between the two entities. First, and of great significance, is the fact that the body of Christ is made up of believers only. There has not, nor will there ever be, an unbeliever in the Church (the body of Christ) since one can only enter through Spirit baptism. This is in stark contrast to Israel where unbelievers were dominant over much of Old Testament history. So Dr. Berkhof's statement is a bit puzzling when he says, "As far as their essential nature is concerned, they both consist of true believers, and of true believers only" (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology). It could never be said of Israel, as it can be of the Church, that no unbelievers were in it.
But these surely show us that internally the Church and Israel are quite different.
Second, the two entities function under two different covenants. Israel functioned under the Old Covenant and the Church has been privileged to be "partakers" of some of the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant. (Note: The New Covenant was made with Israel and Judah and must be fulfilled with them.) There is a stark contrast between these two covenants as taught in 2 Corinthians 3 and Hebrews 7-10 and the New Covenant is clearly superior to the Old. The New Covenant ministry is uniquely a broadened and expanded ministry of the Holy Spirit. The operating principles of the Church are significantly different from that of Israel.
Third, the work of God in Israel was especially carried out by the Levitical priesthood while in the Church it is the anointed, spiritually gifted believer priest that carries out the work of God. The New Testament believer has been given "the ministry of reconciliation" (2 Corinthians 5:18-20). A believer in the Old Testament, from the tribe of Asher or Gad, could make no such claim.
Other internal differences exist. But these surely show us that internally the Church and Israel are quite different. The internal differences point to a legitimate distinction to be made between Israel and the Church.
Some concluding thoughts
The evidence of the Scriptures is strong and compelling that the Church of Jesus Christ and the nation of Israel are distinct entities in the plan and program of God. The Church is not Israel and Israel has not been set aside or replaced. When the biblical covenants made with the nation of Israel are seen as unconditional and unfulfilled, it is essential that the Lord God fulfills them with Israel, the ones who are the original party in the covenant. When the Scriptures are interpreted literally, one comes to the conclusion that Israel means Israel. And the literal (normal) approach of interpretation also leads one to see that the Church began at a different time than did Israel; that it was a "mystery" and something "new" built on the New Testament apostles and prophets; and that it is externally and internally different from Israel. Such evidence, along with Romans 9-11, points to the fact that Israel was not abandoned or replaced by God. The Church is important in God's program, but it is not Israel.
Mal Couch was the founder and president of the Tyndale Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. He is also an author of many books, and has written 40 documentaries on Bible prophecies and biblical issues.
Originally published in The Gathering Storm, 21st Century Press, Springfield, MO 65807—ISBN 0-9749811-7-6. Reprinted in Christians & Israel Today, May 2007.
Related article
The Church and Israel: Many Perspectives
Used with permission. Copyright © 2007 Christianity.ca.
http://www.christianity.ca/netcommunity/page.aspx?pid=4776
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[thumbsup2]](graemlins/thumbsup2.gif)
