True Church _IS_ True Israel

Here is my take on your post.
A heretic called Origen introduced allegorization as a method of interpreting the Bible. Before that time it was unknown among believers.
One of Catholicism's heroes, "St. Augustine" popularized this method of interpretation.
Now you are succumbing to the same method of interpretation. Well, why not? If we allegorize one part of the Bible we may as well allegorize any part of the Bible we want. The J.W.'s allegorize his resurrection, for example, and say it is only a "spiritual" resurrection, and not a physical resurrection at all.

Israel was a real physical nation. This nation had nothing to do with the church which began on the Day of Pentecost. In fact the Jews had to be convinced of the message of salvation through Christ by signs and wonders. The speaking in tongues on the day of Pentecost was a sign to the Jews, a fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel, that this was a message to the Jews. Likewise everytime tongues was used it was a sign to the Jews that this was a message for the Jews (1Cor.14:21,22). They rejected the gospel and they rejected the accompanying signs, and judgment eventually came in 70 A.D.

The church did not start in 70 A.D.; the church started shortly after the resurrection which was in 29 A.D. The church is not Israel. They co-existed side by side.

 

Why do I have the feeling that you are starting another "Replacement Theology" thread, but just under another name?
Are you going to deny that Jews existed in the NT, even though God commanded the Apostles and others to go to them. This is really unbelievable. Everywhere that Paul went on three missionary journeys he went to the Jew first. He was continually found in their synagogues preaching the gospel. How can you say that there were no Jews after the crucifixion? What was Paul doing in synagogues if there were no Jews?

Please tell me the meaning of these verses:

Romans 9:1-4 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 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;

and:
Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
--Here in Rom.10:1 Paul addresses "brethren," that is "brothers in Christ," of believers. He tells them that his desire and prayer to God is for ISRAEL to be saved.
The epistle to the Romans was written about 63 A.D., more than 30 years after Pentecost, after the beginning of the church. Did Israel and the church exist at the same time. The Scriptures say they did. Do you believe the Scriptures?

Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.
--The literal meaning of this verse is exactly what it says. In Egypt Israel was but a child, a small group of tribes loosely tied together--in that way a child. It was not until Moses brought them out of Egypt to Mount Sinai that under the leadership of Moses, was Israel incorporated into a nation, a theocracy, under God. When Israel was a child (small), then I loved him (as one does a child), and called my son (my child) out of Egypt. What is so puzzling about the literal interpretation of that verse. Read the rest of the chapter and you will find that it fits.

 

Where in Hos.11:1 does it say (or is supposed to say) that one man represents millions? I fail to see your point.

 

Bismarck,

Amen, well saying! :thumbs:

I do not believe in Replacement Theology. Church never replaced Israel at calvary or at Pentacost Day. Church is Israel, Israel is Church.

Not long time ago(few years ago). I realized that Matthew 16:18-19 is very clear refer with Genesis 32:28. There are three important (key) words comparing of Gen. 32:28 and Matt. 16:18-19.

Genesis 32:28 -

"Power"
"men"
"prevailed"

Comparing to Matt. 16:18-19-

"Church"- people
"prevail" - sucessful
"keys" - power

Notice, Genesis 32:28 DOESN'T SAY, "...and with Jews(or Hebrews)" . God told Jacob, "...and with men". Men simple means people, of ANY races, ANY nations.

Matt. 16:18 says, "I will built my church". Christ doesn't say, "I will built Gentilles', neither, He says, "I will rebuilt Israel(future restoration Jewish nation). Simple, he means, "I will built my people." He means that, He built both Jews and Gentiles all nations over the world.

Christ tells us, he shall give the 'keys' to the church to loose out both heaven and earth. 'Keys' means power. When did the Church receives 'keys'? At Pentacost Day after Calvary. For what? Spreading the gospel of the kingdom over the world.

Rev. 1:18 tells us, Christ have the keys of hell and death. That means, He already defeated death and hell at Calvary & resurrection. So, therefore, Christ already given the keys to the Church to spreading the gospel of the kingdom over the world - Rev. 20:1-4. Satan was defeated by Calvary 2,000 years ago. So, we now have the keys(power) from Chruist by sent Holy Spirit upon us at Pentacost Day.

Actual, 'Israel' means God's people. Also, we should be aware that Christ is Israel.

Romans chapter 11 gives us the picture of 'Olive Tree' is speak of Jesus Christ. Having Christ, we are already in him. He is the Olive Tree.

Both John 15:1-6 and Romans 11:19-23 warn us, if we do not endure or abide in Christ, we shall be cut off. We should fear of the Lord.

God only have ONE people, not divided people. Christ already reconciled both Jews and Gentiles unity became ONE by Calvary in Ephesians 2:14-16.

That why I do not agree with Dispensationalism's teaching that 'Israel' and 'Church' are distiction. Bible doesn't teaching it.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

Also, I would like to add one thing to say.

Church doesn't replaced Israel. Israel is now expanding! Because Gentiles are now grafted upon the Olive Tree join with believing Jews. That what "Israel" is all about.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

All right. I'll be patient.
But Israel, like the word "nation" are collective nouns referring to groups of people--nouns that are singular in nature but referring to plural groups. So one of these nouns (Israel) can't possibly refer to the Messiah, as the Messiah is not a group of people, but only one person. Thus I still don't get the connection.

 

The True Church is NOT Israel!

The True Church is NOT Israel, nor will it ever be Israel. This thread is simply the flip side of the Replacement Theology coin--with a different twist.

I saw the word "Noahide" in this thread. The Noahides are heretical and Christ rejecters. Here's a quote:

I pray that this is NOT what you are promoting here--because, if it is, you are promoting heresy. Replacement theology is heresy, and so is this kind of stuff.

Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

 

I would just like to make clear that (here in the UK at least) there are plenty of churches that believe that Christ's church is the "spiritual Israel", but who would have nothing to do with "Noahide" doctrines, or anything like them.

Regarding "Replacement Theology", I found in the on-line archives of Evangelical Times an article by about this very thing. It is at: http://www.evangelical-times.org/Website_Pages/ArticleDetail.php?articleID=290 Here are a couple of extracts:

On the BBC Sunday programme on 12 May [that was in 2002 - DL] there was a feature concerning so-called ‘replacement theology’. Some in Israel and elsewhere are blaming it for an ‘anti-Israeli’ stance in the West.

So what is ‘replacement theology’? None other than the biblical doctrine that the great promises of God in the Old Testament concerning Israel find their fulfilment in the church of Christ!

This issue raises a number of fundamental questions which strike at the heart of the gospel. Whatever view we take of Romans 11:26, it is clear that the way of salvation for Jews is, and will always be, the same as for all men — through Christ.

That means that converted Jews are members of the church of Christ, not of a special ‘Jewish church’. Paul makes this clear when he says that in Christ ‘there is neither Jew nor Gentile’ (Galatians 3:28).

Again, if we are not allowed to apply Old Testament passages concerning Israel to the church of Christ, it puts a wedge between the testaments, and suggests that the OT has no relevance to Christians.

This is expressly contradicted by our Lord, who told the Jews that they should find him in all the Scriptures, because they were about him (John 5:39).

The Old Testament is an integral part of the Christian Scriptures, not an optional addition. Even Abraham was saved through Christ — he rejoiced to see Christ’s day, and was glad (John 8:56).

Shadow and substance


According to Hebrews, the church and the gospel are the substance of the OT shadows, the realities behind the old covenant symbols. The old covenant between God and the Jewish nation was ‘ready to vanish away’ (Hebrews 8:13; 9:8-15).

Many of our hymns reflect this doctrine: ‘Glorious things of thee are spoken, Zion, city of our God!’ Are we prepared to throw all these away and admit they are the product of flawed theology?

We must hold fast to these truths which are integral to the gospel. We love the Jews for Christ’s sake, and long for their conversion — but we do them no service by failing to preach Christ from the Old Testament.

It would be ridiculous to view the heroes of faith in Hebrews 11 as belonging to a different religion and excluded from the church. Scripture denies any such thought for, says Hebrews 11:40, they will ‘not be made perfect apart from us’. With us, they will be made perfect, but only as members of Christ’s body, the church!
​

I know Christians have varying view on these matters, but I would not want anyone to think that there is any link between believing that the church is the Israel of God, and this Noahide blasphemy that says that Jesus was a false and dangerous prophet.

 

Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!! Not only is the OT irrelevant but any OT reference made by the NT writers also becomes irrelevant. Finally somebody gets it.

Bingo Again!!! Physical Israel was a type of Spiritual Israel.

 

This is the EXACT SAME theology of Seventh Day Adventists, VERY similar to the Catholics doctrines of the Church.


However, the wording here much more in line with the Seventh Day's who are much more allegorical in their rendering of scripture than the Catholics (though not by much) and are full preterists. And this is WHY the Church MUST BE Israel.

Now what is amusing is that both of these groups (SDA and Catholics) are not considered Christian groups and this theology is the very core of their identity.

Can a Christian hold such doctrines, of course!
But would it not be something to look at with a skeptical eye?

 

Very skeptical.
Statements that have been made and need to be examined:
The true church is the true Israel.
The church has replaced Israel.
The church is a fulfillment of Israel.
The church is spiritual Israel.

Can any one of these statements be true?
No. Here are some reasons.
1. After Pentecost (the beginning of the Church), the Apostles differentiated between the Church and Israel. If they did, why shouldn't we.
2. Paul went to the Jews first and then to the Greek on every one of his missionary journyes. There again was a differentiation.
3. That differentiation held true right up until 70 A.D. until Jerusalem was destroyed, the Temple also destroyed, and the Jews were scattered. The key word here is "scattered," and not destroyed. They had been scattered a number of times before in their history, but never destroyed.
4. The worship place of the Jews is the Temple.
5. The worship place of the believers is the temple (1Cor.6:19.20), but our temple is our body where the Holy Spirit dwells. Thus the "Church" or any church cannot replace Judaism. That type just doesn't fit.
6. A new ordinance was instituted--baptism. It is a picture of our death to sin, and our resurrection to a new life in Christ as pictured in Rom.6:3,4--and thus the necessity of immersion. This in no way can replace circumcision. Again the type is destroyed. The church cannot replace or be a fulfillment of Israel. It is a separate and totally different entity.
7. The laws and ceremonies of Judaism were fulfilled on the cross. The Jews may continue with these because they have not accepted Christ as their Messiah. But we as believers have. Christ made an atonement for our sins and put all of these sacrifices to an end, with one sacrifice. However the nation of Israel still exists. They may not be saved. But they still exist. That is why in Romans 9:1-4 and in Romans 10:1,2 Paul's heart's desire was for Israel that they might be saved. Israel still existed, but as an unsaved people.

These are just some of many reasons why Israel still remains a separate nation today and why the church cannot be considered a replacement, a fulfilment, or even a type of Israel. God has called out a new nation unto himself.

1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

This is not the replacement or the fulfillment of Israel.

 

But somone else would take this same data and conclude that the church has replaced Israel.

 

If the church and Israel existed alongside each other how could one have replaced the other? Even the Apostles recognized this.

 

I do not doubt that a distinction existed between ethnic Israel and the church, but what should we make of such passages:

1. "that He might reconcile both [Jews and Gentiles] to God in one body [church] through the cross and put the hostility to death by it" (Eph. 2:16)

2. "There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28).

What ever distinction existed in the mind of Paul, it must not be a spiritual one, because both Jews and Gentiles are offered the same spiritual salvation in Christ and a part of the one body, with ethnic being lost.