is there ANY Difference between isreal was renamed as Church, or Church replaced isre

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JesusFan, Oct 26, 2011.

  1. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    have seen both views expressed here, same thing, different term?
     
  2. Greektim

    Greektim
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    118
    Others would say neither. I would say that it is not that Israel was renamed "church" only that Israel was redefined.
     
  3. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0

    So the OT promises made to future isreal to come was realing meant for Church, its just that God calls it now Isreal or is it the Church?
     
  4. Greektim

    Greektim
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    118
    No... the redefinition of Israel began with Jesus. He re-enacts many of Israel's significant events ebodying Israel. Thus, he fulfills Israel's covenants (2 Cor. 1:20). Jesus, in many places and examples, extends this concept of Israel redefined to his disciples and eventually the disciples of the disciples (i.e. the church). So what was began and fulfilled in Jesus is carrying on to today.
     
  5. Ruiz

    Ruiz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know of anyone who holds to a one for one replacement of Israel. Most Covenant Theologians believe that Spiritual Israel was replaced by the Church, but physical Israel was not replaced. In fact, I have never met someone who believes in a 1:1 replacement, but I have seen some people accuse others of this 1:1 replacement.

    The Abrahamic Covenant was a promise to spiritual Israel (all people would be blessed by Abraham, etc). Thus, there is not a promise for anyone outside of spiritual Israel.
     
  6. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,559
    Likes Received:
    274
    I think of it as 'the enlargement of Israel', to include all the children of the heavenly Zion, who are Israelites indeed:

    26 And he said, Blessed be Jehovah, the God of Shem......
    27 God enlarge Japheth, And let him dwell in the tents of Shem...... Gen 9

    1 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith Jehovah.
    2 Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thy habitations; spare not: lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes.
    3 For thou shalt spread aboard on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall possess the nations, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited. Isa 54 (see also Gal 4:26,27; Ps 87)

    Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass that, in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. Hos 1:10
     
    #6 kyredneck, Oct 27, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 27, 2011
  7. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    The actual topic of this thread seems to be concerning traditional dispensationalism, and progressive dispensationalism. "Church" is not a "name"; it is a description of an assemble, whether referring to each of our local "churches" where we assemble to worship God and build ourselves up for the ministry of Christ, or collectively, i.e. the "universal" church referring to every one born again from the OT saints to those end times folk living through the periods described in Revelation.

    Paul makes it clear that when you refer to "Israel" you are not referring to "all" the descendants of Israel, Romans 9:6, but only to those God chooses to have mercy upon. In Romans 11:5 we see where God chooses some Jews who then become "all Israel" but hardens others.

    Therefore, God chose corporately a "people," descendants of Abraham, and then during the period between the Abrahamic promise and the inauguration of the New Covenant, he placed individuals into that "chosen group" and collectively they are referred to as "all Israel" or children of the promise. But before that Abrahamic Promise, before creation, God had chosen corporately His people as those who are redeemed by His Chosen One, His Redeemer, His Lamb of God. Thus, the OT saints received the promise only after Christ provided the means of their justification and redemption, see Hebrews 11. So we do not have two groups, Jews and Gentiles, Israel and the Church, as traditional dispensationalism teaches, but one group that includes Jews and Gentiles "in Christ, for there is no difference. Paul does a pretty good job of laying this all out in Galatians chapter 3.

    "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise." (Galatians 3:28-29)
     
    #7 Van, Oct 28, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 28, 2011
  8. Greektim

    Greektim
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    118
    Good post (although I detect a hint of corporate election ;) but no worries :))
     
  9. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't believe either is true. There is no rational way that "Israel" in Romans 11:25-28 can be the present "remnant" or gentile believers as they are retained in darkness throughout the time God calls people out of the gentile nations "UNTIL the fullness of the gentiles be come in."

    However, the Jewish "remnant" is being presently saved during that time (Rom. 11:5) as well as Gentiles but as for this "Israel" she remains "enemies of the gospel for your sakes" UNTIL the fullness of the gentiles be come in.
     
  10. Greektim

    Greektim
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    118
    What if the "all Israel will be saved" is a reference to the "fulness of the Gentiles to come in"? Grammatically, that is plausible (and likely I'd say).
     
  11. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Apostle paul seems to saying to us that at this present time, Age of the NT Grace period, that those jews who are 'spiritual" Faithful remnant chosen by God to receive Christ, were "true isrea;" being saved and now part of the body of Christ, in the Church..

    Also though, he seems to be saying that there was coming a future time, "end days" "time of Jacobs folly" "Great and Terrible Day of the Lord" where God would then deal with national isreal, as ALL jews alive at that time would receive messiah at his return!
     
  12. Greektim

    Greektim
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    118
    I understand that interpretation. What I'm saying is that grammatically, it is plausible and very possible that the "all Israel" refers to the "fulness of the Gentiles." That interpretation makes very good sense given the context.
     
  13. beameup

    beameup
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2011
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    2
    The "context" of chapter 11 of Romans indicates that the question was raised to Paul "what about Israel?"
    - what is the future of the Israelites since they rejected their Messiah?

    Romans 11:1

    Pretty straight-forward IMO.
     
  14. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    IF Isreal of paul meant the fulness of the gentiles, than why would paul say that God will once again turn back to dealing with His people isreal AFTER the fulness of the gentiles comes in? If same people, how could that be?
     
  15. beameup

    beameup
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2011
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    2
    Yes.
    Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, answers that for us Gentiles:
    For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the
    apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
    - Romans 11:13
    I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid.
    For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham,
    of the tribe of Benjamin.
    - Romans 11:1

    Pretty straight-forward. He is speaking of genetic Israel.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
     
  16. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    still wondering just where the Lord started calling Church, the called out assembly, as being now new isreal!
     
  17. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,559
    Likes Received:
    274
    Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile! Jn 1:47


    That's about as early a one as I can come up with.....
     
  18. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,559
    Likes Received:
    274
    ....Our father is Abraham.... Jn 8:39

    Were these Jews correct in this statement?
     
    #18 kyredneck, Oct 28, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 28, 2011
  19. beameup

    beameup
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2011
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    2
    Early on, the first believers were (genetic) Israelites and were considered a
    Sect of Judiasm called the Nazarenes. Paul was on his way to arrest
    some of these Nazarenes when Jesus appeared to him and he was saved.

    The Gospel was first delivered unto the (genetic) Israelites. The 12
    disciples/apostles were dedicated to preaching the Gospel to the (genetic)
    Israelites (even Matthias who replaced Judas). The Gospel of Grace for the Gentiles
    was revealed unto Paul. Paul was the lone Apostle to the Gentiles (Rom 11:13,
    1 Tim 2:7, 2 Tim 1:11, etc.). For a time the Nazarenes and the Gentile believers coexisted,
    until [IMO] 70AD, when all hope of (genetic) Israel ushering in the return of Jesus
    and the establishment of the Kingdom was lost. This put (genetic) Israel "on hold" as the Gentile Bride of Christ
    (ie: "Church") continued to increase, and will... "until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in".

    O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable
    are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
    - Romans 11:33
     
  20. Greektim

    Greektim
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    118
    Could you show me where the word "after" is used in the context of "all Israel"?

    Grammatically speaking, the phrase "fulness of the Gentiles" is equated with "all Israel will be saved" with the word "in this way" (ουτως). I see no chronological marker but simply a logical marker of explanation.
     

Share This Page

Loading...