|
Author
|
Topic: Replacement Theology
|
Caretaker
Advanced Member
Member # 36
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Hale:
Perhaps it's just me. But when I consider the Bible that it is the testimony of the Lord about God, the world, the plan of salvation and the Savior... whose accounts are prima facie eyewitness accounts from the beginning of all things would that in itself not lend merit to the study of the origin and original form of the languages used in that account?
For example:
The genealogy of Genesis 5 when the names from Adam to Noah are translated from their original form they form a sentence of interesting testimonial... one I have used to witness to unbelieving Jews to show how their own Bible testifies about Jesus:
Adam (man)
Seth (appointed)
Enosh (mortal)
Cainan (sorrow)
Mahalalel (the blessed God)
Jared (shall come down)
Enoch (teaching)
Methuselah (his death shall bring)
Lamech (desparing)
Noah (comfort)
Man (is) appointed mortal sorrow (but) the blessed God shall come down teaching his death shall bring the desparing comfort.
Using the methods you prescribed does not produce this. Even Strong's does not readily do so. The one who taught me this even fudged on Lamech, but it was traceable in Strong's work to the root words Le Maqoq to despair.
Adam ('dom)
Seth (shiyth)
Enosh ('chenosh)
Cainan (kenan)
Mahalalel (m'hal al elohiym)
Jared (yarad)
Enoch (chenokh)
Methuselah (muth u shalakh)
Lamech (la maq / la maqoq)
Noah (nuakh)
But since what you said is what it is, I suppose we ought to abandon this...
This was posted by a Brother in Christ in regards to Missler's Gospel in Genesis:
quote:
Missler’s Gospel and alternate translations
If you were to go to "A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament" by Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs and check it also against "A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament", you fill find that the geneology now reads:
Adam Man
Seth Appointed
Enosh Mortal
Kenan Fixed/Acquired
Mahalalel Praise of God
Jared Come or Go down
Enoch Train/Dedicate
Methuselah Man of the Dart
Lamech Wild man, overthrower
Noah Rest
Anyway, you can find all of this information "A Review of Chuck Missler's Beyond Coincidence" on page 8-11 of the "Answers In Action Journal" (Summer 1997) and it is Vol. 1 No. 3
I presented Chuck Missler's geneology to a professor who teaches Greek and Hermeneutics some years ago and his language was very strong to me and while the professor didn't say anything wrong to me, he disturbed me a great deal because Christians don't always have the ability to check out the facts and recently my new pastor just told it to the congregation in the N.I.V. I had actually tried running it by many Christians in leadership and they fell like ten pins because they weren't experts in language.
"What Missler does not seem to realize is that the word 'et' is one of the most common Hebrew words."-ibid.
quote:
The False Teachings of Chuck Missler
I know that some of you might like the teachings of Chuck Missler but I think that if there are better Bible teachers out there then I would buy material from the better Bible teachers. The problem is that it is too easy to order material from convenient sources and that it is too easy to have the Bible read to us from someone else than for us to do the math ourselves and if we would do that, we would come up with different conclusions.
Chuck Missler came out of Calvary Chapel and a lot of Calvary Chapels promote his teachings but after review, I do not support the teachings of Chuck Missler.
Chuck Missler promoted an article about the Gospel in the Genealogy of Adam. After showing it to a college professor who teaches Greek and knows Hebrew, he said that some of the words translated are not what Chuck Missler says they are. If you went word by word through Missler's "Gospel" with a couple of dictionaries then you would get alternate meanings and if you have a knowledge of ancient language then you might have other arguments as to what it means but I would be embarrassed in teaching the Geneology of Adam as a "gospel" because it isn't. The problem with tricking people into the kingdom of God is that if you can trick people into something but then they could also be tricked out of the kingdom. I do not support people who manipulate the facts. A better term for that is “Yellow” Journalism.
--------------------
A Servant of Christ,
Drew
1 Tim. 3:
16: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..
Posts: 3978 | From: Council Grove, KS USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
elohiym for example came from ayil / ayilohiym...
{{sigh}}
IP: Logged |
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
Easily swayed?
Caretaker did not delve into the origin of the names as I mentioned was necessary.
IP: Logged |
|
|
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
Perhaps it's just me. But when I consider the Bible that it is the testimony of the Lord about God, the world, the plan of salvation and the Savior... whose accounts are prima facie eyewitness accounts from the beginning of all things would that in itself not lend merit to the study of the origin and original form of the languages used in that account?
For example:
The genealogy of Genesis 5 when the names from Adam to Noah are translated from their original form they form a sentence of interesting testimonial... one I have used to witness to unbelieving Jews to show how their own Bible testifies about Jesus:
Adam (man)
Seth (appointed)
Enosh (mortal)
Cainan (sorrow)
Mahalalel (the blessed God)
Jared (shall come down)
Enoch (teaching)
Methuselah (his death shall bring)
Lamech (desparing)
Noah (comfort)
Man (is) appointed mortal sorrow (but) the blessed God shall come down teaching his death shall bring the desparing comfort.
Using the methods you prescribed does not produce this. Even Strong's does not readily do so. The one who taught me this even fudged on Lamech, but it was traceable in Strong's work to the root words Le Maqoq to despair.
Adam ('dom)
Seth (shiyth)
Enosh ('chenosh)
Cainan (kenan)
Mahalalel (m'hal al elohiym)
Jared (yarad)
Enoch (chenokh)
Methuselah (muth u shalakh)
Lamech (la maq / la maqoq)
Noah (nuakh)
But since what you said is what it is, I suppose we ought to abandon this...
IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
Since I don't read either Greek or Hebrew, I have to rely on lexicons, dictionaries, concordances, and interlinears. I wish Strong's was authoritative because it would be easier to depend on one resource for everything instead of having to consult several different resources. But, it is what it is no matter what "we" want.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
Simply put...
So when the strongs says a word is from another root / primitive word source... if it doesn't say or mean what "we" want... then it's wrong?
IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/
How to get the most out of Strong’s Concordance (and other Bible helps)
By Brian Knowles
Throughout the Churches of God Pod, it seems, Strong’s Concordance has become the No. 1 Bible Study Aid. It is indeed a remarkable help – if used properly. Used improperly, it can lead to significant doctrinal error. Sadly, many are using it to support exegetical folly.
Strong’s Concordance is certainly one of the most remarkable books ever compiled. It took James H. Strong (1822-1894), a Methodist layman, some 27 years to put it together. Strong was also a professor of exegetical theology at Drew Theological Seminary. Strong’s contains every word in the King James Version of the Bible. In the back, one finds both Hebrew and Greek dictionaries for all the listed words.
Those who are unable to read Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek letterforms can easily look up words in Strong’s and find an approximate definition for it in the back. This can greatly aid in Bible study.
Strong’s not authoritative
It should be noted however that Strong’s definitions are neither authoritative nor exhaustive. This work should never be quoted in books or articles as an authority for the meaning of Greek and Hebrew words found in the Bible. I have seen some books, purporting to be scholarly, in which virtually all of the word definitions are taken from Strong’s. This simply reveals the author’s non-scholarly status.
Strong’s is not an authoritative dictionary or lexicon, and it should not be used as such. It is fine to use as a concordance to look up words, and to find out what Hebrew or Greek words were used in the “original.” (I put “original” in quotes because we have no original autographs of any of the Scriptural writings – only copies, most of which were written centuries after the fact.)
One of the reasons Strong’s is not useful as a lexicon is that it was first published in 1898, some 105 years ago. It, along with some of the older Bible helps such as Clarke’s Commentary, could not take into consideration the mountain of profound historical and archaeological work that has been done since that time. Much of the most valuable work was done during the early part of the last century, some years after James Strong had exited the worldly scene.
Strong’s, Clarke’s and Jamieson, Fausset & Brown’s Critical and Experimental Commentary, as well as Halley’s Bible Handbook, were all compiled before the dawn of the Twentieth Century. Though these works all contain interesting and valuable insights, none is authoritative for word meanings and all are archaeologically obsolete.
The same is true for The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop and Judah’s Sceptre and Joseph’s Birthright by Joseph Allen. Both are exegetically and historically unsound.
Anyone relying on any of these works to determine doctrine is going to quickly find himself in unreliable territory.
Best use of Strong’s
Strong’s is a great way to look up which word was used in the Biblical text. It will even tell you whether or not the word is a prime root, and if not, it will point you to the one that is. This is a valuable help. But for definitions of words, you’ll need to go to an authoritative lexicon.
For Hebrew, that would be the Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and C.A. Briggs. It is commonly referred to by the acronym “BDB.” Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament – a multi-volume work – is also useful for word meanings.
For the New Testament, the authoritative lexicon is A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich. It is typically referred to as “BAG.” Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament is also invaluable.
When you use BDB or BAG, you will discover that each word is assigned a basic definition -- then follows a listing of all of the ways in which the word is used in the text. A single word can have multiple meanings, depending on usage and context. For example, the Greek word braxus basically means “short” or “little.” But when used of space, as in Acts 27:28, it means “a little further on.” When used of time, the same word means “for a short time” as in Hebrews 2:7. When referring to quantity, braxus means “a small amount” as in John 6:7). So we learn from BAG that the one Greek word is used in three different ways.
BDB provides us with the same kind of information for the Old Testament text. For example, the Hebrew word echad, normally translated as “one” has a range of eight possible meanings, some of which have sub-meanings. The lexicon provides the key passages where the word is used in each of these ways.
A final tip: If you have difficulty with Hebrew letterforms, you can look them all up in Psalm 119. All the letters of the Hebrew alphabet are there, along with the names of each letter.
http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Number%209.htm
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
This is the path traced back through to the most ancient root word through the Strong's for those who are simply satisfied by the surface entries but want to dig deeper.
The King James Version
Selected Text
Strong's Hebrew #8283 ...her name Sarai, but Sarahe shall her ...
8283 Sarah { saw-raw’}
the same as 8282;; n pr f
AV - Sarah 38; 38
GK - 8577 { שָׂרָה }
Sarah = “noblewoman”
1) wife of Abraham and mother of Isaac
8283 Sarah { saw-raw’}
the same as 8282;; n pr f
AV - Sarah 38; 38
GK - 8577 { שָׂרָה }
Sarah = “noblewoman”
1) wife of Abraham and mother of Isaac
8282 sarah { saw-raw’}
from 8269; TWOT - 2295b; n f
AV - lady 2, princess 2, queen 1; 5
GK - 8576 { שָׂרָה }
1) princess, noblewoman, noble lady
8269 sar { sar}
from 8323; TWOT - 2295a; n m
AV - prince 208, captain 130, chief 33, ruler 33, governor 6, keeper 3, principal 2, general 1, lords 1, misc 4; 421
GK - 6254 { סָרַר }* & 8569 { שַׂר }
1) prince, ruler, leader, chief, chieftain, official, captain
1a) chieftain, leader
1b) vassal, noble, official (under king)
1c) captain, general, commander (military)
1d) chief, head, overseer (of other official classes)
1e) heads, princes (of religious office)
1f) elders (of representative leaders of people)
1g) merchant-princes (of rank and dignity)
1h) patron-angel
1i) Ruler of rulers (of God)
1j) warden
8323 sarar { saw-rar’}
a primitive root; TWOT - 2295; v
AV - rule 3, make prince 1, altogether 1; 5
GK - 8606 { שָׂרַר }
1) to be or act as prince, rule, contend, have power, prevail over, reign, govern
1a) (Qal) to rule over, govern
1b) (Hithpael) to lord it over
So "Israel" Yisra'el or Yisro'el is a contraction of YISH SARAR ELOHIYM
IP: Logged |
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
8323 sarar { saw-rar’}
a primitive root; TWOT - 2295; v
AV - rule 3, make prince 1, altogether 1; 5
GK - 8606 { שָׂרַר }
1) to be or act as prince, rule, contend, have power, prevail over, reign, govern
1a) (Qal) to rule over, govern
1b) (Hithpael) to lord it over
Strong, J. The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the test of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurence of each word in regular order. (H8323). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.
IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
Meaning and etymology of the name Israel
(TWOT Theological Word Book of the Old Testament)
Genesis 32:27 - 28 (NASB)
So he said to him, “What is your name?” And he said, “Jacob.” He said, “Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with God and with men and have prevailed.”
Israel is the name given to Jacob after his fight with the Angel of God (Genesis 32:28).
The meaning of the name Israel is not clear, although Israel is most likely a compilation of the verb (sara 2287) and the noun (El 93a), the common abbreviation of Elohim.
The meaning of the verb (sara 2287) is uncertain and explained in many ways, chiefly because it is limited to contexts which discuss the struggle of Jacob with the Angel of the Lord, insinuating that where our language uses the common verb 'struggle,' the Hebrew uses a word that is specifically reserved for a certain action: the action of struggling with God.
BDB Theological Dictionary reports for (sara 2287) the Arabic cognate of persist, persevere, and relates it to the word (sora 2245a), rows, which only Isaiah uses, in 28:25. More interesting even is the word (misra 2288a), a unique word that probably means rule or dominion, and which Isaiah uses in the highly Messianic passage of 9:6, "...and the government is on His shoulder." Nobody knows what the root of this word is but linguists have arrived at the conclusion that it must be identical to sara, the word that gave rise to the name Israel.
It gets even better when we look at the verb (sarar 2295), rule, reign, act as prince. Derivative (sar 2295) means prince, and (sarah 2295b) means princess and is (near) equal to the both the name of Jacob's grandmother Sarah and the root-word of Israel.
We can not say with certainty what the name Israel is supposed to mean, although it seems to reflect a certain inability of the Almighty God, namely the not being able to defeat a man like Jacob. We can be sure that God doesn't lack the physical strength to eradicate any human being, so we must conclude that the destruction of Jacob would go against the very nature of God. Perhaps the name Israel denotes God's continuous effort to keep Jacob going, even though Jacob continues to fight God.
The name Israel means God Strives (NOBS Study Bible Name List), or El Persisteth, Persevereth (BDB Theological Dictionary). BDB Theological Dictionary offers an alternative meaning of Let El Persist. Jones' Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names, uppity as ever, renders He Will Be A Prince With God.
http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Israel.html
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by thywillbedone:
Jesus is the Christ.
You are truly blind.
You quote out of Galatains about "the seed" of Abraham, and completly miss 4:28.
And Romans 9:7 In Isaac shall thy seed be called...
It does not say, "In Israel shall thy natural seed be called..."
God does not call Israel part of "the seed of Abraham".
The only Israel that is going to be saved, is the one that is born of a union between Isaac(the Church) and Rebekah(his chosen bride).
Praise the Lord!
you were good up to this point,
"The only Israel that is going to be saved, is the one that is born of a union between Isaac(the Church) and Rebekah(his chosen bride)"
Not Biblical.
![[cool_shades]](graemlins/cool_shades.gif)
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
thywillbedone
Community Member
Member # 8469
|
posted
Jesus is the Christ.
You are truly blind.
You quote out of Galatains about "the seed" of Abraham, and completly miss 4:28.
And Romans 9:7 In Isaac shall thy seed be called...
It does not say, "In Israel shall thy natural seed be called..."
God does not call Israel part of "the seed of Abraham".
The only Israel that is going to be saved, is the one that is born of a union between Isaac(the Church) and Rebekah(his chosen bride).
Praise the Lord!
Posts: 10 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Ezekiel 13:20
unregistered
|
posted
The Abrahamic Covenant by Raymond Capp can help those who are confused as to who Israel really is.
There are two sticks,or have you not read Ezekiel 37.
Wasn't Israel taken captive 200 years before Juda was taken captive?
Are all 12 tribes,Jews? or are there Jews and Israelites?
Could it be possible that the Israelites migrated to Europe and then to North America?
Could America be blessed because of Abraham's
sake?
It was openly taught many years ago who the Israelites were.
Who did the Pilgrams and Puritans think they were?
Bible study and the study of history are so overlook today, it's such a shame!
IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
THE LAW AND THE BELIEVER
But while the covenant of the law was abolished, the law itself will, of course, remain forever. God has graciously removed the "IF" but this does not alter the fact that His people in every age should seek to obey His voice indeed. Also, the dispensation of the law—the ordinances, statutes and all that—has passed away, but the principle remains.
"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
"That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" (Rom. 8:3,4).
THE LAW AND THE NEW COVENANT
Those who suppose that at Pentecost the twelve should have known that the law was done away sometimes think this because the New Covenant was made at Calvary. But the making of a covenant is not the fulfillment of it. It is too often forgotten that God merely promised to make a new covenant in Jeremiah 31:31, and that the covenant was not made until Calvary. It will not be fulfilled until all Israel is saved and they all know the Lord, from the least of them to the greatest of them.
But here again it should be noticed that the New Covenant, while displacing the covenant of the law does not displace the law itself. Indeed, by it, God's people will spontaneously fulfil the law. This could not be stated more clearly than it is in Jeremiah 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."
MOSES, CHRIST AND THE LAW
As the Old Covenant was made with Israel alone, yet affects the whole world (Rom. 3:19), so the New Covenant, while made "with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah," affects the whole world too, for by "the blood of the New Covenant" the condemnation of the Old was removed.
Moses was the mediator of the Old Covenant (Gal. 3:19); Christ was the Mediator of the New (Heb. 9:15). Moses demanded righteousness, but he could neither give the ability to obey the law nor undo the effects of a broken law. But Christ as the Mediator of the New Covenant, paid the debt of a broken law, offers His own perfect righteousness and by His Spirit enables the believer to live pleasing to God.
(By Cornelius R. Stam)
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
As the physical Jews (who reject Jesus) have shown, to deviate from the path of God only produces error and opens the people up to satanic persecution.
Eventually, the ultimate anti-christ will come (1 John 2:18-19) affirming OT Judaism (Daniel 9:27a). Confirmed in Matthew 24:20 when Jesus alluded to the enforcement of sabbath law when all this takes place in the Temple. Understanding that sabbath law has never taken precedent over fight or flight in all Jewish history.
In other words, as the beast nears the Holy of Holies the Jews in charge will not be alarmed by it. If the beast were anyone other than a Jew affirming the OT covenant as true and opposing the NT and Jesus... then all hell would break loose in the Holy Land.
It does, but not until after the Jews realized they'd been had after the beast claims to be the real God incarnate and then turns away from his affirmation of the OT (Daniel 9:27b)to the plains of Shinar (Zechariah 5:5-11) where his "Moses" (Nimrod) began the mother of world religions.
The "Church" of man will have long since been broken up. Many will conform to the beast by their shallowness of root in Christ and their being so impressed by the miracles of the beast and his false prophet (false John the Baptist type).
Brother will betray brother to death etc...
And the element of the remnant of faith (whose roots are deep in the soil of the word of God) will be driven so far into hiding they will be thought extinct... it is from that point 105 days after the abomination of desolation and the betrayal of the physical Jews who rejected Jesus is complete that the gathering of the spirit Jews will happen (rapture)...
And the persecution of the first half of the 70th week of Daniel which was aimed at Christians will be turned on the physical Jews who refuse to go along with the beast to Neobabylonianism. And in another 3 years or so when the entire world is pressing in around them those Jews who survive to that point will reason they have tried everything else... then they will call upon the name of Yehsua (Jesus) to save (Hosha Nah / hosanna / save now The Messianic psalms 110-118 etc). And Jesus will return with the saints and set foot on the mount of Olives (Zechariah 14:4) and take vengeance on those who know not God (2 Thessalonians 1:8) and who killed his people Israel (both spirit and physical Jeremiah 51:6 Jeremiah 50:15, Nahum 1:2, Jude 14-15) during the 7 year period of the 70th Week of Daniel.
All these things are missed in scripture when humanism and human tradition and philosophy are championed or put on par with scripture. It makes for great reasons to have denominations in the one that closest suits your own opinions and predeterminations.... but it ain't truth.
IP: Logged |
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
{sigh}
Only from the Bible which is not confusion but hanging onto the traditions of mere mankind like defining the Church as an entity separate from the body of believers down through human history IS confusion and the reason why there are so many schisms and fractures in "the Church."
Once again I will point out the scriptures to you that establish the Church (the assembly the body of faith / believers):
Galatians 6:15-16 (KJV)
15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.
The Israel of God (spirit) versus the Israel of man (the flesh / physical / ethnic).
Romans 2:28-29 (KJV)
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Romans 11:16-26 (KJV)
16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
Philippians 3:3 (KJV)
3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
Jeremiah 31:31-34 (KJV)
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
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.
34 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.
Galatians 4:21-31 (KJV)
21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
The name of that mother? Jerusalem from above / New Jerusalem. Not Rome or London or New York or Cairo, etc.
You see, "the Church" of man has proceeded from the falsehood of a Jewish-free faith when in fact it is a Jewish faith, and the efforts of "the Church" of man to expunge everything Jewish from the faith in the name of anti-legalism has stripped out the things God put in place and ordained... and paganism filled the void...
I once thought like you do... that God was creating a new faith to replace the failed faith which preceded it. But nothing could be further from the truth. If you are a true dispensationalist or even a covenant theology advocate you must see the progression of God's revelation and covenants weaning humankind from its humanism and bringing us into the mindset of the spiritual which God laid out through Judaism.
Don't allow your personal prejudices against physical Jews blind you to the fact that what the Jews got right was from God and his ordinances in the spiritual versus the flesh and the religions and traditions of mere mortal men (who by their unbelief in God are children of the devil by nature).
"The Church" of man threw out the baby with the bathwater. Dr. J. Vernon McGee said that when Constantine legalized Christianity in the roman Empire... it was when (as if) Satan joined the Church.
Until that point the only blood loss was from the Church. From that point came the schisms and divisions and the reform (but the reformation did not have the right goal in their sites).
And when we defend the denominational party line along side scriptural truth we hamstring our ability to defend just the scriptural truth because we have elevated the traditions of mere mortal men to that of holy writ.
IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by WildB:
Wow I don't know where you get "The Church (Spirit Israel)" from the scripture you posted.
A matter of fact "The Church (Spirit Israel)" you coining it only shows that you are a bit confused.
1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
I believe the Lord our God served a seven course gourmet meal, but the Covenant Theologians want to throw it all into one pot and make a stew.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
I failed to make clear (on this thread) that I do not agree with Covenant Theology. I believe in Dispensationalism where the Church and Israel are separate, although both are beloved to the Lord.
IS THE CHURCH (spiritual) ISRAEL?
We now come to something that is crucial and needs to be defined to understand the new covenant. Is the Church Israel? For if it is, we are obligated to keep Sabbath day at least in a general sense. If the Church is not Israel then what sense would there be to keep the Sabbath. In the Scripture we find the Church is not Israel the nation, but a separate entity under an entirely new covenant. Israel is called the wife of Jehovah in the Old Testament, while the Church is called the bride of Christ in the New Testament. This shows distinctions in how God relates to each, and how each group is related to God. The word Israel is always descriptive of the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It was Jacob whose name was changed to Israel and had 12 sons that became the nation of Israel. It is the physical posterity of Jacob that is Israel, this is what makes one Jewish.
Many transfer the promises and the covenants of Israel to the Church, but there is absolutely no reason to do this. The Church is not spiritual Israel. Look up this phrase; you’ll never find the term or concept in the Bible. There are only two verses that are used to validate this view, both are unsupported when they are read in their full context.
There was no Church in the Old Testament because there was no incarnation, no revelation of the Son, nor his sacrifice that broke down the middle wall of partition that separated the Jews from the Gentiles (Eph.2:14). For the Church is made up of both believing Jews and Gentiles, not so for Israel.
Gal.3:29 says that those who belong to Christ are Abraham’s seed. The seed of Abraham does not mean one is Israel. It means those who are justified by faith are spiritual descendants of Abraham but this does not make them descendants of Jacob, who is Israel. They partake in the spiritual blessings that come through Israel. While there are two different groups of people who can be descendants of Abraham one of which is the Arabs, they do not share in the promises of Jacob. Only Israel is descended from the physical posterity of Jacob. God had specially promised to Israel salvation and the believing Jews received it through the gospel. But Paul explains that not all the natural descendants of Jacob were embraced in this “Israel;” for that “they are not all Israel, which are of Israel” (Rom. 9:6). As Paul already declared in an earlier chapter: “He is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly” (Rom. 2:28, 29). The seed which is Israel is from Jacob and the apostle and other writers make a clear distinction between this and Abraham’s seed.
“But they have not all obeyed the gospel” ( Rom. 10:16). They have not all responded to God’s call to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. This is foretold by Isaiah, who is quoted by Paul in Rom. 9:27; that only a remnant of the natural descendants of Jacob would obtain the salvation of God. “Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the remnant hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded” (Rom. 11:7).
Gal. 3:7 “Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham." Being a son of Abraham does not make one a Jew, being a son of Jacob does, so a gentile can be a son of Abraham. But Jew’s are a son of Abraham and of Jacob.
As Paul stated in Rom. 4:11-16, the children of Abraham, are those who have the faith of Abraham, whether by their natural birth they were Jews or Gentiles. This is detailed in Galatians 3 and 4; Gal. 3:26 “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus” both Jews and Gentiles are spiritual brethren in the body of Christ.” The apostle says, to Gentile believers: “And if ye be Christ’s then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:29). So those who accept the Gospel both Jews and Gentiles are of Abraham's seed, but only those who are physically Israel are from Jacobs seed.
The other verse is Gal.6:16 where Paul is addressing both believing Jews and Gentiles in the church “As many as walk according to this rule (Gentile believers) and upon “the Israel of God.” This can be made clear by the preceding verses v.12-13 where Paul is tackling the topic of circumcision and the Jews influence to have the gentiles circumcised. He then tells us the mandatory rite of the Abrahamic covenant is not applicable to the believer but it is the cross that is necessary to make a new creation. In its context this term means Jews who are believers, who believe salvation is by faith in Christ contrary to what the Judaizer's were teaching that the law was needed also. Those (Jews) who obey this are the Israel of God (the remnant). Paul also addresses this in Rom.9:6-8 that there are two Israel's, one that consists of Jews and the elect, the true Israel which are the physical posterity and also have the faith of Abraham, they are the Israel of God mentioned in Gal.6. As Paul states, “ for they are not all Israel who are of Israel” (Rom.9:6). There is also “Israel” after the flesh found in 1 Cor.10:18. The Church is never called spiritual Israel or is a new Israel replacing the old. Nor does it say believers become Jews. Both gentiles and Jews participate together in the New Covenant. as Eph. 2 addresses the middle wall of partition being broken down and God making a new entity. The church is neither Jew or Gentile but consists of both. The two put together make one “new man,” a third entity that is not Israel nor gentile. The word Israel is used 73 times in the New Testament, not once is it used for the Church.
Romans 2:28-29, “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.” Notice that the whole chapter is addressing the Jews. Within Paul’s theme of the book of Romans he addresses mankind that can be outlined in 3 portions. The whole world is under condemnation of sin1:18-3:30; then he addresses the Gentiles 1:18-2:16; He addresses the Jews 2:17-3:20.
According to Paul’s specific aim in this portion of the letter, not all the descendants from Jacob are Israel; as he states on 9:6 “They are not all Israel who are Israel.” Not all who are named Jews are truly Jews, the true Israel of God (the Jews) are those who believe in the Messiah. Rom.2:17- 20 starts with the greater responsibility the Jews have. He points to the law that was not given to the Gentiles but the nation of Israel, and they have the responsibility of knowing God.
It never says anything about a gentile being a spiritual Jew but is explaining that one is really Jewish not by the keeping of the law, but having a born again experience. Paul is directing the teaching of the promised new covenant specifically to the Jews who believe, although the Gentiles are included. Paul is not teaching Gentiles become spiritual Jews but not all Jews are true Jews. There are Jews who believe and the Jews who are in unbelief. Just as it is put in other areas of a remnant among Israel, the true believers and a non-remnant, believing Israel as the Israel of God.
A believing Gentile becomes a spiritual son of Abraham which is an inheritor of the spiritual blessings God promised to the Jews, they are grafted into the covenant he made with Israel.
As for Israel, the Jews, Jer.30:18, 31:8 “Behold I will bring them from the north country and gather them from the ends of the earth.”
Isa.43:5 “I will bring your descendants from the east and gather you from the west...”
It is a nation that is being gathered today for the tribulation in their original homeland Israel, they are gathered first in unbelief until that fateful day where in Romans 11 Paul says they will all be saved, after the fullness of the gentiles has come in. The Church (made up of both Jews and Gentiles) and is dealt with differently than the nation of Israel, God obviously has a different plan for both.
http://www.letusreason.org/7thAd5.htm
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Hale:
quote:
Originally posted by Carol Swenson:and the Church (which is made up of Jew and Gentile) constitutes the people of God in the NT; both just make up one people of God (Ephesians 2:11-20).
The Church (Spirit Israel) which NOW consists of physical Jew and physical Gentile...
Ephesians 2:11-20 (KJV)
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;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the {physical} commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
Was that wall broken down physically? or spiritually? If physically, then physical Gentiles are become physical Jews. If spiritually, then the physical Jew and the physical Gentile can become spirit Jews.
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, {Spirit Israel}so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets {of the Old Testament} , Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Thanks for bringing up that passage. I frankly had forgotten it.
quote:
The Church doesn’t replace Israel; the Church is Israel and Israel is the Church (Galatians 6:16). All people who exercise the same faith as Abraham are part of the covenant people of God (Galatians 3:25-29).
I'm sorry, I don't understand how this is different than what I was saying.
quote:
And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise. (Galatians 3:29 NASB)
Abraham is the father of many nations, not just Israel.
The faith of Spirit Israel shall be held by those who are physically from many nations. Spirit Israel is not an earthly nation as is physical Israel. You understand that about the Church, do you not? Would you apply this argument to the Church?
quote:
Gen. 17:4,
[i]"Behold, my covenant is with you and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations."
Our Lord Jesus Christ will rule all nations, not just Israel.
Rev:12:5
And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a ROD of IRON: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
Rev:19:15
And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a ROD of IRON: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
We will reign with Christ over all the nations.
I reiterate my last point. And as ambassadors for Christ and priests in his kingdom whose capital city New Jerusalem (not new New York or New San Francisco or New London btw) we already rule among the physical nations of the earth transcending those physical borders... do we not?
quote:
Rev 20:6
Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.
Israel will be an exalted nation (Isa. 14:1-2; 49:22-23; 60:14-17; 61:6-7) where the 12 Apostles are on 12 thrones (Matthew 19:28). Israel will be a blessing to the Gentile nations.
Isaiah 62:2-3
The nations will see your righteousness,
And all kings your glory;
And you will be called by a new name
Which the mouth of the LORD will designate.
You will also be a crown of beauty in the hand of the LORD,
And a royal diadem in the hand of your God.
I believe I've made my point in answering these objections. Again reiterating what I previously said.
I do not advocate replacement theology. Interesting that I am labeled that way when the scripture you quoted (Ephesians 2:11-20) shows that you either apply this oneness spiritually as I have and am not a replacement theology advocate... or... you apply this oneness physically as you have and in the process advocate the false doctrine of replacement theology when you factor in Romans 11:16-26 etc.
Wow I don't know where you get "The Church (Spirit Israel)" from the scripture you posted.
A matter of fact "The Church (Spirit Israel)" you coining it only shows that you are a bit confused.
1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carol Swenson:and the Church (which is made up of Jew and Gentile) constitutes the people of God in the NT; both just make up one people of God (Ephesians 2:11-20).
The Church (Spirit Israel) which NOW consists of physical Jew and physical Gentile...
Ephesians 2:11-20 (KJV)
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;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the {physical} commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
Was that wall broken down physically? or spiritually? If physically, then physical Gentiles are become physical Jews. If spiritually, then the physical Jew and the physical Gentile can become spirit Jews.
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, {Spirit Israel}so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets {of the Old Testament} , Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Thanks for bringing up that passage. I frankly had forgotten it.
quote:
The Church doesn’t replace Israel; the Church is Israel and Israel is the Church (Galatians 6:16). All people who exercise the same faith as Abraham are part of the covenant people of God (Galatians 3:25-29).
I'm sorry, I don't understand how this is different than what I was saying.
quote:
And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise. (Galatians 3:29 NASB)
Abraham is the father of many nations, not just Israel.
The faith of Spirit Israel shall be held by those who are physically from many nations. Spirit Israel is not an earthly nation as is physical Israel. You understand that about the Church, do you not? Would you apply this argument to the Church?
quote:
Gen. 17:4,
[i]"Behold, my covenant is with you and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations."
Our Lord Jesus Christ will rule all nations, not just Israel.
Rev:12:5
And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a ROD of IRON: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
Rev:19:15
And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a ROD of IRON: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
We will reign with Christ over all the nations.
I reiterate my last point. And as ambassadors for Christ and priests in his kingdom whose capital city New Jerusalem (not new New York or New San Francisco or New London btw) we already rule among the physical nations of the earth transcending those physical borders... do we not?
quote:
Rev 20:6
Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.
Israel will be an exalted nation (Isa. 14:1-2; 49:22-23; 60:14-17; 61:6-7) where the 12 Apostles are on 12 thrones (Matthew 19:28). Israel will be a blessing to the Gentile nations.
Isaiah 62:2-3
The nations will see your righteousness,
And all kings your glory;
And you will be called by a new name
Which the mouth of the LORD will designate.
You will also be a crown of beauty in the hand of the LORD,
And a royal diadem in the hand of your God.
I believe I've made my point in answering these objections. Again reiterating what I previously said.
I do not advocate replacement theology. Interesting that I am labeled that way when the scripture you quoted (Ephesians 2:11-20) shows that you either apply this oneness spiritually as I have and am not a replacement theology advocate... or... you apply this oneness physically as you have and in the process advocate the false doctrine of replacement theology when you factor in Romans 11:16-26 etc.
IP: Logged |
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carol Swenson:
Okay. When I say "church" here I mean the New Testament church that began at Pentecost, not the general church of all those throughout history whom God has called out, beginning with Adam and Eve.
Okay. Then why not say NT Church?
I will note that this specificity is not present in the Bible as it does refer to the assembly of faith to the covenant and amount of biblical revelation extant in their lifetime (which is dispensational).
quote:
Unlike Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology does not see a sharp distinction between Israel and the Church.
I just showed otherwise. And the kind of explanation you just used was what challengers to the canonicity of the book of Hebrews and of James. Thankfully the consistency of scripture prevailed. For example:
The Olive Tree in Romans 11:16-26 was not about the New Covenant only. It was about belief versus unbelief with no other distinction through the covenants down through history. The tree did not change nor the the decisive factor of faith. So this is not about categorical fundamentals or schools of theology as you suggest.
quote:
Israel constituted the people of the God in the OT,
The the Apostle Paul was wrong.
Romans 9:1-6 (KJV)
1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
There has always been a distinction between belief and unbelief. Even before there was a physical Israel. Read Hebrews 11.
IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
Okay. When I say "church" here I mean the New Testament church that began at Pentecost, not the general church of all those throughout history whom God has called out, beginning with Adam and Eve.
Unlike Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology does not see a sharp distinction between Israel and the Church. Israel constituted the people of the God in the OT, and the Church (which is made up of Jew and Gentile) constitutes the people of God in the NT; both just make up one people of God (Ephesians 2:11-20). The Church doesn’t replace Israel; the Church is Israel and Israel is the Church (Galatians 6:16). All people who exercise the same faith as Abraham are part of the covenant people of God (Galatians 3:25-29).
And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise. (Galatians 3:29 NASB)
Abraham is the father of many nations, not just Israel.
Gen. 17:4,
"Behold, my covenant is with you and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations."
Our Lord Jesus Christ will rule all nations, not just Israel.
Rev:12:5
And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a ROD of IRON: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
Rev:19:15
And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a ROD of IRON: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
We will reign with Christ over all the nations.
Rev 20:6
Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.
Israel will be an exalted nation (Isa. 14:1-2; 49:22-23; 60:14-17; 61:6-7) where the 12 Apostles are on 12 thrones (Matthew 19:28). Israel will be a blessing to the Gentile nations.
Isaiah 62:2-3
The nations will see your righteousness,
And all kings your glory;
And you will be called by a new name
Which the mouth of the LORD will designate.
You will also be a crown of beauty in the hand of the LORD,
And a royal diadem in the hand of your God.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Hale:
Replacement theology
The Church does not replace physical Israel. The Church does not replace Spirit Israel. The Church IS Spirit Israel.
Yikes!
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
Replacement theology is wrong and it is evil. No one could ever replace the physical heirs of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Not even faith in the Jewish Messiah Jesus of Nazareth could transform a person born Gentile into a physical Jew.
The New Covenant (New Testament) does not break one of the Abrahamic covenants regarding his physical heirs.
The Church does not replace physical Israel. The Church does not replace Spirit Israel. The Church IS Spirit Israel. It always has been. Since before Abraham was, the Church (assembly) has always consisted of those who followed God in faith and in spirit rather than in the flesh.
According to Hebrews 11, Abel did in faith what Cain did in the flesh. And on and on to the present day. It has always been about faith (the spirit) versus the flesh (works, rituals, traditions of men, etc.).
We can quote conflicting scholars from now till Saint Swithun's day... and it doesn't matter one whit stacked up against what the Bible clearly says. One only has to do a little digging and to turn from their own prejudices.
Didn't say it was easy. Only simple.
And take the Bible for what it says. Take God's word for it.
The conflict between the scholars comes from the variances of adding to or taking away from God's word. A thing God warned against in all three major divisions of the Bible...
The Torah (Law):
Deuteronomy 4:2 (KJV)
2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
The Neviim (Prophets)
Revelation 22:18-19 (KJV)
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
The Ketuvim (Writings)
Proverbs 30:5-6 (KJV)
5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Their interpretations and interpolations conflict with the others interpretations and interpolations... and the traditions of men which they subscribe to obviously conflict... yet so many take their words over the word of God...
...I guess they pick what sounds closest to what they think or want to believe.
The thing is, without an absolute standard there is no basis for truth. Frank Peretti did a fascinating study on this absolute standard in his sermon "the chair."
The Bible IS that chair, that absolute standard. Not what mere men say or even what they say the Bible says. It's what the Bible actually says that is the absolute truth.
And if this fact that disturbs so many (that the Church is Spirit Israel) were not true then it would be in none of the Bible passages I repeatedly quote and print and highlight the words that are there.
The Prince of God (Yish Sarar Elohiym shortened to Yisra'el or Israel) is a theme throughout the Bible.
When Abraham bought the land to bury his dead wife... what did the locals say about Abram?
You are a mighty prince among us...
Elohiym derived from ayilohiym (mighty) and what they said of Abraham was tantamount to calling him a prince of God or Ishs'ra El.
What made Abram any different than any man on earth? Was he not born Gentile? Living in pagan Ur of Chaldea. Was it his bloodline that made him special? There were many in his bloodline (a special bloodline indeed) yet only he was special in it at that point in history... why?
Faith. Belief. He applied the ways of the spirit over the ways of the flesh did he not? And thus became the father of faith. The dichotomy is that at the same time he was the father of the physical Jewish people as well.
This physical people were set aside as the vehicle to usher the word of God into the world (the written word and the Living Word in the person of the Messiah Jesus).
Even through the times of the Old Covenant there was the distinction between the physical Jew and the spirit Jew.
Romans 2:28-29 (KJV)
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
and
Romans 9:6 (KJV)
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
There is no replacement theology in this. None.
IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
What Is Replacement Theology?
Replacement theology (also known as supersessionism) essentially teaches that the church has replaced Israel in God’s plan. Adherents of replacement theology believe the Jews are no longer God’s chosen people, and God does not have specific future plans for the nation of Israel. All the different views of the relationship between the church and Israel can be divided into two camps: either the church is a continuation of Israel (replacement/covenant theology), or the church is completely different and distinct from Israel (dispensationalism/premillennialism).
Replacement theology teaches that the church is the replacement for Israel and that the many promises made to Israel in the Bible are fulfilled in the Christian church, not in Israel. So, the prophecies in Scripture concerning the blessing and restoration of Israel to the Promised Land are “spiritualized” or “allegorized” into promises of God's blessing for the church. Major problems exist with this view, such as the continuing existence of the Jewish people throughout the centuries and especially with the revival of the modern state of Israel. If Israel has been condemned by God, and there is no future for the Jewish nation, how do we explain the supernatural survival of the Jewish people over the past 2000 years despite the many attempts to destroy them? How do we explain why and how Israel reappeared as a nation in the 20th century after not existing for 1900 years?
The view that Israel and the church are different is clearly taught in the New Testament. Biblically speaking, the church is completely different and distinct from Israel, and the two are never to be confused or used interchangeably. We are taught from Scripture that the church is an entirely new creation that came into being on the day of Pentecost and will continue until it is taken to heaven at the rapture (Ephesians 1:9-11; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17). The church has no relationship to the curses and blessings for Israel. The covenants, promises, and warnings are valid only for Israel. Israel has been temporarily set aside in God's program during these past 2000 years of dispersion.
After the rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18), God will restore Israel as the primary focus of His plan. The first event at this time is the tribulation (Revelation chapters 6-19). The world will be judged for rejecting Christ, while Israel is prepared through the trials of the great tribulation for the second coming of the Messiah. Then, when Christ does return to the earth, at the end of the tribulation, Israel will be ready to receive Him. The remnant of Israel which survives the tribulation will be saved, and the Lord will establish His kingdom on this earth with Jerusalem as its capital. With Christ reigning as King, Israel will be the leading nation, and representatives from all nations will come to Jerusalem to honor and worship the King—Jesus Christ. The church will return with Christ and will reign with Him for a literal thousand years (Revelation 20:1-5).
Both the Old Testament and the New Testament support a premillennial/dispensational understanding of God's plan for Israel. Even so, the strongest support for premillennialism is found in the clear teaching of Revelation 20:1-7, where it says six times that Christ's kingdom will last 1000 years. After the tribulation the Lord will return and establish His kingdom with the nation of Israel, Christ will reign over the whole earth, and Israel will be the leader of the nations. The church will reign with Him for a literal thousand years. The church has not replaced Israel in God's plan. While God may be focusing His attention primarily on the church in this dispensation of grace, God has not forgotten Israel and will one day restore Israel to His intended role as the nation He has chosen (Romans 11).
http://www.gotquestions.org/replacement-theology.html
_________________________________________________
A Refutation of Replacement Theology
Over the centuries there have been many errors that have crept into the church throughout the duration of its history. False teachings on the canon of Scripture, the deity of Christ, and the nature of God are only a few of the subjects that have been twisted by ill intended heretics over the years. These various heresies and errant teachings have kept the Church quite busy forming many councils resulting in creeds to separate false teaching from sound doctrine. This type of action is a very worthwhile endeavor and it is one that is still quite necessary in the modern day as the amount of error in the church is still prevalent. It is the intention of this paper to address and refute an errant teaching that is still quite common in the church today known as Replacement Theology.
What is Replacement Theology?
Replacement theology essentiallly teaches that the Church has replaced Israel in God’s plan. Adherentes of Replacement theology believe that the Jews are no longer God’s chosen people, and God does not have specific future plans for the nation of Israel. The different views of the relationship between the Church and Israel can be divided into two camps: either the Church is a continuation of Israel (Replacement Theology/Covenant Theology1), or the Church is completely different and distinct from Israel (Dispensationalism2). In short, Replacement theology teaches that the Church is the replacement for Israel and that the many promises made to Israel in the Bible are fulfilled in the Christian Church, not in Israel.3
This paper will set out to look at and examine the main tenants of Replacement Theology while giving logical counter arguments in support of the Dispensational view on the subject as we go along.
Understanding the Similarities
Maybe first of it will be best, before diving into the differences between Israel and the Church, to look at some similarities between the Church and Israel. This is just for a better understanding of the fact that there are similarities between the two and also this might provide insight into how one could use this as their starting point and get derailed by the similarities into the errant teaching of replacement theology. This section will detail some strong similarities between the Church and Israel.
Now looking at the similarities: First off, Both are part of the People of God. Members of both Israel and the Church are part of God’s people, that is, the saved throughout the ages, also including saints from both testaments. One day we will gather around the same throne and sing praises to the same god.
Furthermore, Both are part of God’s spiritual kingdom. In addition to being under God’s sovereign rule over all creation, Israel (see Luke 13:28) and the Church are part of the same overall spiritual kingdom, to which Jesus referred to when He said, “ I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.” (John 3:3).
Additionally, Both are designed to glorify God. For both national Israel and the spiritual body of Christ, the ultimate purpose is to give glory to God. Indeed, this is the purpose for which everything was created, and we will worship the Lord in heaven (Rev. 4:10-11). And, Both participate in the spiritual blessings of the Abrahamic covenant. The Abrahamic covenant contains blessings for Gentiles as well as Jews (Gen. 12:3) Everyone is justified by faith alone, as was Abraham (15:6), a patriarchal model of faith for all who believe (Rom. 4:16).
Moreover, Both are participants in the spiritual blessings of the new covenant. Event though the New Covenant was made with Israel (Jer. 31:31-33), it is also applied to the Church. As with the Abrahamic covenant, there are spiritual benefits for all personas contained in Christ’s sacrifice (1 John 2:2) which is sufficient for the entire human race. The mosaic law-based covenant was temporal (Heb 8:7, 13).
And finally, Both will endure forever. Both Israel and the Church will exist forever, for the promises of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants are everlasting. We, Christ’s eternal bride were chosen in Him before the world began (Eph. 1:4) in accordance with His eternal purpose (3:11). Paul told timothy, “I endure everything for the sake of the elect that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory” (2 Tim. 2:10). The Holy City, the New Jerusalem is eternal (Rev. 21:2-3).4
Evidences for Holding a Distinction Between Israel and the Church
Even through there are some strong similarities between Israel and the Church, this does not void the fact that there are some vividly contrasting differences between the two. The following section of this paper will be spent examining evidences that show the strong distinction between Israel and the Church throughout Scripture. Herein should be more than enough evidence to refute Replacement Theology as and evidences for a distinction between Israel and the Church are very strong.
First line of evidence. The Church was not formed apart from the baptism with the Spirit, and spirit baptism did not begin until the day of Pentecost. In Colossians 1:18 and 24, Paul declared the body of Christ is the church. In 1 Corinthians 12:13 he indicated that all believers in Christ (Jew and Gentile alike) are placed into the body of Christ through Spirit baptism. Thus, Paul taught the necessity of Spirit baptism for the formation of the Church.
John the Baptist clearly indicated that he was not baptizing people with the Spirit in his time. Instead, he stated that Jesus would baptize with the Spirit in the future (Lk. 3:16). On the day of his ascension, Jesus declared that His believers should remain in Jerusalem for a few more days to receive the baptism with the Spirit to which John referred, which the Father had promised and about which Jesus had talked (Acts 1:4-5) The language of Jesus’ statement implied that Spirit baptism had not yet begun historically and would not begin until a few days after His ascension. Acts 2 indicates that it would begin on the day of Pentecost, ten days after the Lords ascension.
On the basis of these statements by Paul, John the Baptist, and Jesus, we can draw two conclusions. First, since Spirit baptism is necessary for the formation of the church, and since Spirit baptism did not begin historically until the day of Pentecost, the Church did not begin historically until the day of Pentecost.
Second, on the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit began to be related to believers in Jesus Christ in ways in which He was not related to Old Testament believers. Certainly the Holy Spirit was at work in the world in some ways before the day of Pentecost (Gen 6:3; Ex. 35:30-33), but on Pentecost He came with some new ways of working that had not been present before. Thus, there is something distinctive about the relationship of the Holy Spirit to saints since Pentecost. This is substantiated by other statements in the New Testament. On the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles, Jesus promised that believers would have rivers of living waters flowing out of their hearts (John 7:37-38). John explained Jesus’ statement as follows: “But this spoke he of the Spirit, whom they that believe on Him shall receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (John 7:39). John indicated that the Spirit would come in a new, distinctive sense after Jesus was glorified through His death, resurrection, and ascension (Jn. 12:16, 23-27; 17:1, 5; Phil 2:8-9).
The night before Jesus was crucified, He promised that after He returned to the Father in heaven, the Father would send His Holy Spirit to the disciples (John 14:2-4). He declared that the Spirit would not come while He was present on earth (John 16:7). He also drew a clear distinction between the relationship of the Spirit with His disciples before His ascension and after His ascension: “For he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you” (John 14:17).5
Second line of evidence. The fact that the Church did not begin until Pentecost is found in Peter’s assertion that something new began when the believers where baptized with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Speaking of his experience at Cornelius’ house (Acts 10), Peter said, “ And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, ho he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 11:15-16). In this statement Peter indicated two things: Jesus Promise concerning Spirit baptism was fulfilled then the Spirit fell on the Jewish believers at Pentecost; and the baptism with the Spirit that took place when something new began.
Since the new thing began on Pentecost when the baptism with the Spirit took place, and since Spirit baptism was necessary for the formation of the church, it would appear that Peter was indicating that the church was the new thing that began at Pentecost.6
Third line of evidence. The Church could not exist until after the death of Christ. In Ephesians 2:13-16 Paul made statements to the effect that Gentiles, who used to be afar off, now had been brought near “by the blood of Christ” (v.13); that Jesus Himself is the peace between Jew and Gentile (v. 14); that He is the one who has made Jew and Gentile one, has broken down the dividing wall between them, has abolished enmity “in his flesh,” has made “one new man” of Jew and Gentile “in himself,” and has reconciled both Jew and Gentile unto God “in one body on the cross” (vv.14-16).
We should note several things concerning these statements. First, they clearly indicate that the uniting of Jew and Gentile together as equals to form one new man, one body, was the result of Jesus’ shedding His blood and dying on the cross.
Second, a comparison of these statements with Paul’s statements in Ephesians 3:6 and Colossians 1:18, 24 makes it obvious that the one body of Ephesians is the church.
Third, the church was formed as a result of Jesus’ death.
Fourth, in the statements of Ephesians 2:13-16 Paul emphasized the situation of the Gentiles after the death of Christ in contrast to their situation before His death. Before Christ’s death, the Gentiles were alienated from the Jews; but after Christ’s death, Gentiles were united with the Jews in one body. Paul said this in the sense that this radical change had happened during his lifetime, meaning that the one body of the church had not formed until after Christ’s death and during Paul’s lifetime.
Fifth, Paul described the union of Jew and Gentile as “one new man” (v. 15). The word translated “new” means “what is new and distinctive as compared with other things,” “what is new in nature, different from the usual,” and “new in kind.” It would appear, then, that this union of Jew and gentile formed a new body that was different in nature and kind from anything that had existed before. It was not a continuation of something that had already been in existence and was essentially the same in nature.
Since the uniting of Jew and Gentile together as equals to form one body was the result of Christ’s death, since that body was formed only after Christ’s death, since that body was new and different in nature and kind from anything that had existed before, and since that one body is the church, the church did not and could not have existed before the death of Christ.
A statement that Paul made to the Ephesian elders also leads to the conclusion that the church could not have existed until after Christ’s death. In that statement Paul referred to “the church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). The word translated “purchased” means “acquire, obtain, gain for oneself.” Paul therefore was declaring that Jesus acquired or obtained the church through His death, implying that Jesus did not have the church before He shed His blood.7
Fourth line of evidence. Consistent use of the Historical Grammatical Hermenuetic Demands that Literal Unconditional promises are yet to be fulfilled. The unconditional land promise God made to Amraham and his decendents (Gen. 13:1-17) Has never beeen fulfilled; it must have a future fulfillment for the nation of Israel.
Further, it was a unilateral covenant made by God with Abraham (not Abraham with God); Abraham was unconscous when it was made (15:12, 18).
What is more, it was a gift of the whole land, not just west of the Jordan (e.g. vv. 18-21).
Finally, it was an internal inheratence: “The whole land of Canaan, where you are now alien, I will give an everlasting posession to you and your descendents after you; and I will be their God” (17:8, cf. V. 19; 26:3).
In short, God forever gave the land to Abraham and his descendents through Isaac, Jacob, and his sons, who became the twelve tribes. This includes modern day Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and all the way to northern Iraq. Even under Joshua and Solomon this was not fulfilled, let alone fulfilled forever. The unconditional land promise to Israel must have a future literal fulfillment.8
Fifth line of Evidence. Jesus foretold a literal reign over Israel at His Second Coming. “I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on His glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matt. 19:28; cf. 24:30). The Second Coming is a literal physical return in a literal physical body. Jesus left physically and visibly, and will return in the same manner, as Zecheria and John foresaw: “On that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west” (Zech. 14:4); “Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the peoples of the earth will morn because of Him. So shall it be!” (Rev. 1:7).9
Sixth line of Evidence. The apostles will sit on twelve thrones to judge Israel. The twelve apostles, through whom Jesus built His church, were literal physical persons, who at the final resurrection will regain their literal physical bodies (John 5:28-29), which will be just like Jesus’ resurrection body (Phil. 3:21), made of “flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39). It makes no sense to call this a spiritual reign of Christ–both He and His apostles will be in physical resurrection bodies. The reign after Christ’s return can be no less literal and physical than the body in which he comes to reign; a denial of Christ’s literal reign is, in effect, a denial of His resurrection body.
Regarding the twelve apostles on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt 19:28), again, the word tribe is never used of Israel or any other group in a purely spiritual sense. These are always the twelve literal tribes, who were the literal descendents of the literal tribes, who were the literal descendents of the litaeral twelve sons of Jacob (whom God renamed “”Israel” –Gen. 32:28).10
Seventh Line of Evidence. The promised messianic kingdom was not yet fulfilled at the ascension. The disciples asked Jesus if he was the going to “restore the kingdom to Israel” (Acts 1:6); as mentioned earlier, if there were to be no future literal kingdom, this was His last opportunity to correct them, as with their errors on earlir occasions. Instead, He implied that this kingdom had not yet been fulfilled but would be, in the Fathers good time (vv. 7-8).
Seventh evidence is the mystery character of the Church. A mystery is a new testament truth not revealed in the Old Testament Eph. 3:3-5, 9; Col. 1:26-27). While the Church itself is not called a mystery, a number of features relevent to the Church are. There are four such features. First, the body concept of Jewish and Gentile believers united into one body is designated a mystery in Ephesians 3:1-12. Second, the doctrine of Christ Indwelling every believer, the Christ in you concept, is called a mystery in Colossians 1:24-27. Third the Church as the bride of Christ is called a mystery in Ephesians 5:22-32. Fourth, the rapture with its correlary events of the resurrection of the dead and the translation of the living is called a mystery in 1 Corinthians 15:50-58. The four mysteries, all relevant to the Church, show that the Church itself is a mystery and distinct from Israel.11
Several More Differences Between the Church and Israel.
Different Heads
Moses was the head of Israel: “The law was given through Moses” (John 1:17). Christ is the head of the Church: “Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:17; cf. Eph. 5:23). Israel was baptized into Moses (1 Cor. 10:2); believers are baptized into Christ (12:13).
Different Origins
The roots of Israel predate Moses, for Abraham was given the promise of being the father through whom Israel would come (Gen 12:2-3). The Church began on the day of Pentecost; Jesus previously had said, “In a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:5). Baptism into Christ’s body is membership in the universal church, “whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free . . . we were all given the one Spirit to drink” (1 Cor. 12:13).
Different Natures
Israel is the name of an earthly political entity that was officially organized under Moses (Ex. 19:5-6). The universal church is the invisible spiritual body of Christ (Eph. 1:3).
Different Governing Principles
While there is grace under law (e.g. redeeming Israel from Egypt–Ex. 12ff.) And law under grace (cf. Gal. 6:2), there is nonetheless a difference between the governing principles of Israel and the Church. Israel was under the law as was given to Moses and set in the context of a national, political theocracy, with numerous violations calling for capital punishment, including adultery (Lev. 20:10), homosexuality (v. 13), incest (v. 11), the cursing of parents (Deut. 5:16), rebellious children (Ex. 20: 15-17), idolatry (22:20), and kidnaping (21:16). While the new testament contains the same basic moral principles that reflect God’s unchanging character (Mal. 3:6), these essentials are codified in the context of grace.
Different Inheritances
Emphatically declared in the Abrahamic covenant is the promise of the Holy Land to Abrahams physical descendants. The church received no such promise; its inheritance is not attached to any real estate but is spiritual and heavenly (Eph. 1:3, 11, 14, 18; Col 1:12), even though believers will reign with Christ on earth after the final resurrection (Matt 19:28; Rev. 20:4-6) The New Testament nowhere switches over the Abrahamic promise from Israel to the Church–the covenantal doctrine of replacement theology (or realized eschatology) is without biblical foundation.12
Arguments Replacement Theologians use and Their Responses
In spite of all of the strong evidence in support of a literal Israel for today with literal promises from God, Replacement Theologians do have their arguments that try to prove to the contrary. In thin section, some of these arguments will be presented and responses provided from the Dispensational position..
Argument: To be a son of Abraham is to have faith in Jesus Christ. For them, Galatians 3:29 shows that sonship to Abraham is seen only in spiritual, not national terms: “And if you be Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
Response: While this is a wonderful inclusionary promise for Gentiles, this verse does not exclude the Jewish people from their original covenant, promise and blessing as the natural seed of Abraham. This verse simply joins us Gentile Christians to what God had already started with Israel.
Argument: The promise of the land of Canaan to Abraham was only a “starter.” The real promised land is the whole world. They use romans 4:13 to claim it will be the Church that inherits the world, not Israel. “For the promise the he should be the heir of the world was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.”
Response: Where does this verse exclude Abraham and his natural prodigy, the Jews? It simply says that through the law, they would not inherit the world, but this would be acquired through faith. This is also true of the Church.
Argument: The nation of Israel was only the seed of the future Church, which would arise and incorporate people of all nations (Mal. 1:11): “For from the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the same, My name shall be great among the nations, and in every place, incense shall be offered to my name, and a pure offering for My name shall be great among the nations, says the Lord of Hosts.”
Response: This is great and shows the Jewish people and Israel fulfilled one of their callings to be “a light to the nations,” so that God’s word has gone around the world. It does not suggest God’s dealing with Israel was negated because His name spread around the world.
Argument: Jesus taught that the Jews would lose their spiritual privileges, and be replaced by another people (Matt. 21:43): “Therefore I am saying to you, ‘The kingdom of God will be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth fruits of it.’”
Response: In this passage, Jesus was talking about the Priests and Pharisees, who failed as leaders of the people. This passage is not talking about the Jewish people or the nation of Israel.
Argument: A true Jew is anyone born of the Spirit, whether he is racially Gentile or Jewish (Romans 2: 28-29) “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.”
Response: This argument does not support the notion that the Church replaced Israel. Rather, is simply reinforces what had been said throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, and it certainly qualifies the spiritual qualifications for Jews or anyone who professes to be a follower of God and Israel.
Argument: Paul shows that the Church is really the same olive tree as was Israel, and the Church is now the tree. Therefore, to distinguish between Israel and the Church is, strictly speaking, false. Indeed, people of Jewish origin need to be grafted back into the Church (Rom. 11: 17-23).
Response: This claim is the most outrageous because the passage clearly shows that we Gentiles are the “wild olive branches,” we get our life from being grafted onto the olive tree. The tree represents the covenants, promises and hopes of Israel (Eph 2:12), rooted in the Messiah and fed by the sap, which represents the Holy Spirit, giving life to the Jews (the “natural branches”) and Gentile alike. We Gentiles are told to remember that the olive tree holds us up and NOT to be arrogant or boast against the “natural branches” because they can be grafted in again. The olive tree is NOT the Church. We are simply grafted into God’s plan that preceded us for over 2,000 years.
Argument: All the promises made to Israel in the Old Testament, unless they were historically fulfilled before the coming of Jesus Christ, are now the property of the Christian Church. These promises should not be interpreted as literal, but spiritually and symbolically, so that the references to Israel, Jerusalem, Zion, and the Temple, when they are prophetic, really refer to the Church (II Cor. 1:20). “For all the promises of God in Him (Jesus) are yea, and in Him, amen, unto the glory of God by us.” Therefore, they teach that the New Testament needs to be taught figuratively, not literally.
Response: The new testament references to Israel pertain to Israel and not the Church. Therefore, no promise to Israel and the Jewish people in the bible is figurative, nor can they be relegated to the Church alone. The promises and covenants are literal, many of them everlasting, and we Christians can participate in them as part of our rebirth, not in that we took them over to the exclusion os Israel. The New Testament speaks of the Church’s relationship to Israel and her covenants as being grafted in (Rom. 11:17), “brought near” (Eph. 2:13), “Adam’s offspring by faith” (Rom. 4:16), and “Partakers” (Rom. 15:27), NOT as usurpers of the covenant and replacer of physical Israel. We Gentile Christians joined into what God had been doing in Israel, and God did not break His covenant promises with Israel (Rom 11:29).13
Additional Scriptural Arguments from Covenant Theologians
Matthew 2:15
While the New Testament sometimes gives an application of an Old Testament passage, it never spiritualizes away the literal interpretation. For example, Hosea 11:1–“Out of Egypt I have called my son”– referred to the children of Israel emerging from bondage in Egypt. Matthew applied this verse to the Christ-child coming out of Egypt; Jesus too is God’s son.
This fits the dictum of the literal hermeneutic: one common interpretation; many applications The same is true of 1 Peter 2:9 (regarding a kingdom of priests and a holy nation). Which in its Old Testament context (Ex. 19:6) refers to Israel, and Peter does not spiritualize it away when he uses it of church age believers, of whom it is also literally true. Peter doesn’t even quote the passage as such or claim it is fulfilled in the church; he merely borrows language appropriately used of God‘s people (Israel) and applies it to God’s people (the church)14
Hebrews 8:7-13
Likewise the New Covenant (contrasted with the first covenant in Heb. 8), which was made with the nation Israel (and will be literally fulfilled with them), is also applied to the Church; the benefits of Christ’s death were always intended by God for both (cf. Gen 3:15; 12:3). Again, this is not a New Testament spiritualization of a literal promise. The application to current believers, also saved through the predicted Messiah, means neither that the promise is fulfilled in the church nor that the church thereby is Israel’s replacement. Abraham was promised that Gentiles would be included (12:3); Gentile inclusion does not mean Jewish exclusion.15
1 Corinthians 10:4
There has been an allegation of allegorization regarding Paul’s statement about the children of Israel in the wilderness: “They drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” This is not an allegory–the Rock that followed them was a literal rock, just as the mana they ate was literal food from heaven. The word used for spiritual refers not to the rock’s nature but to the rock’s source. Just as a “spiritual” person (cf. 2:14-15) is a literal physical person whose life is dominated by the Spirit, even so the literal rock in the wilderness was Spirit-dominated–it “followed them” around for forty years with an endless source of water. The rock was a Christophany, a literal manifestation of Christ and His supernatural power, like the Angel of the Lord appearing in human form (cf. Gen 18:2, 8, 22).16
Romans 4:13-16
For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.
From this passage it is argued that Abraham has spiritual seed, and that the promise to him has a fulfillment in all of us, Jew or Gentile, that have faith in Christ–we are all Abrahams spiritual seed.
While this is correct, it doesn’t necessitate that the unconditional land promises God made to Abraham’s literal seed (Israel) are not literally true and will not literally fulfilled. Abraham has two “seeds,” physical and spiritual; the spiritual seed is a parallel (not a replacement) seed. There is a future for Abrahams physical decedents; the yet unfulfilled land and kingdom promises to Israel will be fulfilled.17
Galatians 6:15-16
“In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availith anything, nor uncircumcision; but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule. Peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.” (KJV). The ASV, the NASB, YLT, and the NKJV all follow suit rendering “and [up] on the Israel of God.” The NIV deviates, however, rendering, “Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God.”
Linguistically, the Greek word kai can mean “and,” “even,” or “also,” the intended meaning normally being determined by context. Sometimes, though, other considerations come into play, which will be made evident, which will be made evident by the following summary of the three basic ways to interpret this text.
The first interpretation, which renders kai as even,” takes the “Israel of God” to refer to the church. This is a standard amillinialist view, supporting the idea that the church is “spiritual Israel,” the spiritual heir to Old Testament promises, as supposedly implied by all believers being called the “Seed of Abraham” (3:29).
The second interpretation regards the “Israel of God” as a reference to the remnant of believing Jews in the church. In support of this is Paul’s claim that he is a believing Israelite (Rom. 11:1), “a remnant according to God’s gracious choice.” Also, “Israel of God” is understood in contrast to “Israel after the flesh” (1 Cor. 10:18). This is a standard view of many premellinialists.
The third interpretation sees this text as a reference to the future redeemed ethnic Israel, emphasizing “all Israel” (11:26) as roughly equivalent to “Israel of God”
Our focus is not on deciding between the last two views–both hold that “the Israel of God” is a reference to ethnic Israel–but to show that the first (favored by amillenialists) is not demonstrable.
First, translating kai as “and” is standard.
Second, this translation is the common grammatical tradition; without compelling arguments to the contrary, it is generally unwise to deviate.
Third, the common usage makes good sense in Galatians 6:16.
Fourth, it has been pointed out by scholars that Paul probably never used kai as “even.”
Fifth, as S. Lewis Johnston notes, “From the standpoint of biblical usage this view stands condemned. There is no instance in Bible literature the term Israel being used in the sense of the church, or the people of God as composed of both believing ethnic Jews and Gentiles”18
Occasionally, Romans 9:6 is offered as an exception, but Paul is speaking there of a division within ethnic Israel, not of believing Gentiles: “They are not all Israel who are descended from Israel” (NASB). There is no support here for the amillenial view that the New Testament Church is spiritual Israel, and, in short, no real support for literal Old Testament promises to Israel being fulfilled spiritually in the church.19
Conclusion
Throughout this paper the similarities between the church and Israel have been shown as well as the differences between the two. During the analysis of those differences a case was made for the Dispensational view and the position of Replacement theology was argued against. Also, common arguments for Replacement theology were given and responses to those arguments made. The evidence weighed heavily against Replacement Theology.
Both the Old and New Testament support a Dispensational understanding of God’s plan for Israel. Even so, the strongest case is found in the clear teaching of Revelation 20:1-7, where it says, six times, that Christ’s kingdom will last a thousand years. After the tribulation the Lord will return and establish His kingdom with the nation of Israel, Christ will reign over the whole earth with Jerusalem as His capital, and Israel will be the leader of the nations. The Church will reign with Him for a literal thousand years. Simply stated, the Church has not replaced Israel in God’s plan. While God may be focusing His attention primarily on the Church in this dispensation of grace, God has not forgotten Israel, and will one day restore Israel to His intended role for the nation He has chosen (Rom. 11).20
http://www.simonjwoodstock.com/research-papers/a-refutation-of-replacement-theology/
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
