The church didn't replace Israel, Christ did.

Trailblazer,

Sorry, should have told you that my schedule is very full again. Been traveling.

My silence is neither a surrender nor an indication that I have nothing to say in response.

Your post deserves an adequate response. May not get to it till Monday or Tuesday though. Sorry for the delay. I know how it feels to wait for a response that is slow in coming. Will get to this one as soon as I can.

 

rjprince,

I'll be patiently waiting. In the meantime, let me summarize the main issues that you seem to be avoiding because I don't believe there is a letitimate answer to them. So, let me remind you that my last post was based on the following portion of your post:

That was basically just "your personal opinion” as no references were used, so I had to dust off the Lexicons, the Commentaries and the Word Studies books so that my response to your above quote on Gal 6:16 would not just be "my personal opinion," as I choose to defer to those more learned than I. However, no comment appeared from you disputing the points that I made about the lack of your documentation on the Greek kai (and) concerning Paul's blessing upon "the new creation" as being the true Israel of God;"

(Scholar #1 on the Greek KAI)
In 'Word Studies In the New Testament' by Vincent, pg.180, Paul bases the next verse; 16, on the new creation;

"KAI" as being connective;
"And upon the Israel of God. The kai "and" may be simply connective, in which case the Israel of God may be different from "as many as walk," etc., and may mean truly converted Jews.

"KAI" as being "explicative";
Or the kaimay be explicative, in which case the Israel of God will define and emphasize "as many as,” and will mean the whole body of Christians, Jewish and Gentile. In other words, they who walk according to this rule [of being a new creation] form the true Israel of God.

Vincent's conclusion is that the explicative kai is doubtful and defers to kai being "connective" by saying..."Then (.*..) will refer to the individual Christians, Jewish and Gentile, and Israel of God to the same Christians, regarded collectively, and forming the true messianic community.

(REFERENCE #2 on the Greek KAI)
Another learned scholar,Wuest, 'Word Studies....", pg 179, on Gal 16:15….."It is because, while circumcision is of no avail to the Jew, nor the lack of circumcision of any avail to the Gentile, yet the Cross has power to make of believing Jew and Gentile a new creation which results in a radical transformation of character. (v16)...Those therefore, who order their lives by the Holy Spirit's control, constitute the true Israel of God, not the Jews who have the name of Israel but are only children of Abraham after the flesh. The Greek word for "and" also has the meaning of "even" in some contexts. We translate here, even the Israel of God as identifying those who walk according to this rule [of having been made a "new creation" by the Cross.]

(REFERENCE #3 on the Greek KAI)
'Galatians' by R. Alan Cole, Tyndale, pgs 182-184
"…. If the word is to be translated 'and,’ then Paul's final prayer is directed towards those Gentiles who realize the unimportance of their physical state, and to Jews who likewise realize the unimportance of circumcision. By so doing, they prove themselves to be the true Israel, God's Israel, the 'righteous remnant.'...It would be a full recognition of the fact that Jew and Gentile alike are fellow-heirs of the grace of life;..." Cole goes on to say;

"The other translation is bolder, ...This would identify the new group, the 'THIRD RACE OF MEN' of whom the Church fathers delighted to talk – neither Jew nor Gentile, but Christian- with God's Israel. This is often put bluntly as 'the Church is the new Israel.' …if kai does not mean 'even,' then Paul is allowing two groups side by side in the kingdom of God; first, those who 'live according to the principle' enunciated in verse 15, and, secondly, God's Israel [the Jews that don't]. Thus there cannot be two groups; there can only be one."

(REFERENCE #4 by Matthew Henry, [pre-Darby]...pg 1846)
"And as many as walk according to this rule [of being a new creation] peace be upon them, and mercy upon the Israel of God...[Peace and mercy, Paul] declares, shall be the portion of "all the Israel of God, all sincere Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, all who are Israelites indeed."

(REFERENCE #5 the MOST learned scholar, Paul)
Romans 10:10-13 …."For MAN (that is Jew and Gentile RJ) believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved. The scripture says, NNE who belives in him will be put to shame. For there is NO DISTINCTION between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon ALL (Jews included RJ) who call upon him. For, EVERY ONE[/] (Jews aren't excluded here either RJ) who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved."

QUESTIONS:
...Now if they are saved, are they not the ELECT?

...Now, if Paul says there is no distinction between Jews who call upon Him and Greeks who call upon Him, are you still defying scripture by claiming that there IS A DISTINCTION?
...If they- the Jews, are saved and the elect, are they not also apart of the Church?[b/]
…If you say “No” they you must be prepared to show just when they “stopped” being a part of the elect church.
...Now, since “multitudes” of remnant Jews believed at the birth of the church because they had been looking forward to the Christ, were they not brought into the New Covenant?

The heart of the third chapter of Galatians is that “in Christ Jesus…there is neither Jew nor Greek…[We] are all one in Christ Jesus…if [we/all mankind] is in Christ, then [we] are all Abraham’s offspring.” (3:26-29)

Now, if as a dispensationalist would have it, when this juxtaposition is rendered and, it produces this ability to twist the intent… ”that after having pronounced God's blessing upon all those who place their trust exclusively in Christ Crucified, the apostle pronounces an additional blessing upon ‘the Israel of God,’ which is then interpreted to mean ‘the Jews,’ or ‘all such Jews as would in the future be converted to Christ."

Now this interpretation tends to make Paul contradict his whole line of reasoning in this epistle. And would he now, at the very close of the letter, undo all this by first of all pronouncing a blessing on "as many as" (or: "all") who walk by the rule of glorying in the cross, be they Jew or Gentile by birth, and then pronouncing a blessing upon those who do not (or: do not yet) walk by that rule?

Paul uses the term "the Israel of God" only in the present passage, and in this particular manner and for this particular purpose - nowhere else. Therefore, each passage in which that term occurs must therefore be explained in the light of its context

 

rjprince,

I forgot to add the primary question that arises to the questions above concerning this isolated use of "The Israel of God" if the dispensationalist would have it referring to national or ethnic Jews in Gal 6:16..."Where else does the prophets of the OT, Christ Himself, the apostles or any other Biblical writer BLESS UNREPENT ANYONE?

 

Gal 6:16 is a clear distinction between Israel and the church. Paul, as in other places, has a fond affection for his own kinsmen even though they are still Christ rejectors. That is why he pronounces a blessing on them. The passage would make little if any sense if he were equating the two. Why say something you have already said, and why contradict the consistent distinction he has always maintained in his writing?

It is exegetically and theologically better to see a distinction here.

 

Larry,

Now, I repeat, the interpretation where a dispensationalist would claim that Paul is blessing "the Jews" or "all such Jews to be converted in the future, tends to make Paul contradict his whole line of reasoning in this epistle. And would he now, at the very close of the letter, undo all this by first of all pronouncing a blessing on "as many as" (or: "all") who walk by the rule of glorying in the cross, be they Jew or Gentile by birth, and then pronouncing a blessing upon those who do not (or: do not yet) walk by that rule?

I noticed that you, along with rjprince, do not answer the other questions by using scripture or pre-Darby/Scofield scholarly works, nor do you refute the works of the learned scholars quoted who have extensively dealt with the Greek "kai"and the consequenses of interpreting it in all the various ways that can be put forth.

We, too, have "fond affection" for those who reject Christ, but we don't pronounce blessings on them any more than Paul does in verse 16 - but we are to love them and to pray for them.

Therefore, I will wait to see if rjprince deals with it more directly.

 

I have interacted with all that before, TB. This is not a new issue. The fact remains that the "and" solution is far better than "even."

As for Paul's reasoning in the whole letter, you must properly identify what that reasoning is. His writing is dedicated to the defense of the true gospel against the judaizers who would insert works. He plainly states in chapter 3 that the promise is not void. In other words the Abrahamic covenant was not made void by Israel's disobedience. But for now, all are one in Christ; there are no more Jew Gentile distinctions in the body of Christ.

So his reasoning does uphold a distinction. Furthermore, it is common at the end of Paul's letters to make references to people or things that had no reference in teh book. It would be expected here that he would do the same.

I think your reasoning is flawed and is driven by a conclusion you need to reach, rather than by what the text says.

 

I've dealt with many things in the past too, but we are talking about the here and now.Again, you provide no scriptural, scholastic support for your personal preferences.

We aren't just talking about a mere reference to people here, we are talking about a serious error in doctrine that has been developed by Darby and followers. Paul is pronouncing a blessing of "Peace and mercy upon the Israel of God" Scripture does not do that lightly.

To put Paul's intent into proper perspective in verses 15 & 16 another way:"Peace and mercy be...upon the Israel of God - the new creation, whereas neither circumcision counts for anything, nor circumcision."

Therefore, by using the very same words in reverse order, you cannot come up with the blessing being bestowed upon national Israel and then create a distinction out of it.

I think your reasoning is flawed and is driven by a conclusion you need to reach, rather than by what the text says, too.

Therefore, the questions still remain unanswered for rjprince. (or the highly suspect alter ego: TakeChrist4Life)

 

I have provided it many times, and if you have studied it, then you know what it is. You can start with Burton and Bruce, both of whom will summarize the arguments for you.

Wait a second ... You talk about serious errors in the midst of a conversation about the distinction between Israel and the church. Make up your mind what you want to talk about. You know as well as I do that dispensationalism is not a "serious error in doctrine." That is an absurd statement. Unfortunately, it is all too typical of the hyperbole that is too often exercised. The distinction between Israel and the church is a clear biblical distinction; it is not the invention of anyone after the Bible times. It is clearly seen in Scripture.

So now you get to rearrange SCripture?? That is bad exegesis. It cannot be supported.

But you are wrong. The text clearly supports my conclusion and clearly does not support yours. Paul never uses the term "Israel" in reference to the church. He uses it in distinction from the church, and this is no exception. In view of the teaching of Paul's letter, it is important for him to acknowledge that he still holds hope for the fulfillment of hte promises to Israel that he talks about in Rom 9-11. That is why he mentions them in distinction from the church.

 

Larry,

I said pre-Darby/Scofield - Burton and Bruce are post-Darby/Scofield.

 

Why? The best scholarship always takes into account recent scholarship. Neither Burton nor Bruce are friends of dispensationalism. They have no axe to grind with dispensationalism. They reject it. But they can see what the passage says.

You pick and choose commentaries based on what they say. That way you can deny them. But the truth is that if Paul wanted to make a distinction, he did what you do. If he wanted to make an equation, he would have better done it differently.

The equation of Israel and the church is a far more serious error than the distinction between them (if for no other reason because the former is an actual error while the latter is not). But neither are destructive. With your position on the equation of the two, you run into problems with God's truthfulness and faithfulness. You have nothing to gain by the position you hold. You do not defend any text nor any truth. But you do give up some and create some serious problems. Besides that, the text clearly delineates between Israel and the church. There is no reason why we should not.

 

Larry,

You know full well that it is a perfectly legitimate use of ANYthing written to rearrange the sentence(s) - SO LONG AS IT DOES NOT CREATE A NEW MEANING THAT DID NOT EXIST BEFOREHAND! I DID NOT DO THAT! The sentence was merely to better reflect the full intent from a better perspective. The blessing of "Peace and Mercy" was placed by Paul "upon the Israel of God" because they were they one walking by the rule of "being a NEW CREATION" because "neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counted for anything."

 

In addition, Bruce is a member of the Brethren Movement - which Darby arose from.

 

Now,I have this to say...I stated to rjprince in a previous post concerning the importance of correctly interpreting Galatian 6:16 because it is exactly the problem that I had in dealing with a young Jehovah's Witness by the name of Nancy. I said that I would, at some point in time, tell the story. I will now.

Nancy was a Jehovah's Witness that I became quite attached to. I asked her a question one day that she could not answer. Very uncharacteristicly for a JW to do so, she came back to the house alone with an answer that had been provided by the elders. We sat and talked for several hours. I was able again to get her to come back alone several more times and she began to tell me about her personal life and how her husband, before recently becoming a JW, had dealt in drugs and alcohol and had abused her. When it came to scripture, I was able to show her, by using their own Interlinear Bible, how the Watchtower Society had changed all but ONE verse in Hebrews which, according to the way it was written, they could not change. Because this ONE verse had been left as it was, when compared with the Greek, it clearly refuted everything she had been told by Charles Taze Russell and his followers. I could tell that it hit home hard because she leaned forward, her eyes opened widely, her mouth opened wide and then took a deep breath and sat up straight. In a nervous voice, she simply said "I have to leave." I never saw her again and she moved to the west coast a few weeks later. To this day, I don't know what happened to Nancy but I think about her often. I know that the Holy Spirit was working in her but her whole life would have changed again - for the worse. Her husband would not have tolerated it and she was terrified of him.

She chose her husband over the truth of scripture.

That is why I say that when a "new" interpretation of a certain scripture interpretation comes along by a "sudden" revelation" that contradicts doctrine that was held for two centuries (other that a minute minorty of what was always considered "abberant" followers)it needs to be dealt with. Every generation, admittedly, has had abberant doctrines, but with technology today, it has resulted in the preferred doctrine of the widespread "comfort" zone Christians that, as one board poster put it, "...would not tolerate a God that allowed him to be persecuted."

[ January 03, 2005, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: trailblazer ]

 

Larry,

Also, Bruce supported dispensationalism.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/bruce.html

http://www.bible-researcher.com/gal6-16.html

 

You created a new meaning that wasn't there. That is illegitimate. You cannot rearrange the text to fit your notion.

I don't see anything that indicates Bruce is a dispensationalist. But that is irrelevant. The text makes a distinction between the church and Israel and that is a consistent distinction in the Bible which can only be denid by a priori assumptions.

We need to become more in tune wiht Scripture and abandon the idea that the church is Israel. It is not now, nor will it ever be. The truth of Scripture clearly teaches us that. We should not be fooled by the teachers who, for whatever reason, would teach otherwise.

 

Larry,

You aren't going to accept the fact that I can support my position with all sorts of support using scripture, scholars, and 2,000 years of history for support and when I challenge any dispensationist to support their position with scripture, scholars and history, they can't. If they could, there would be an abundance of support produced.

You should not be accusing me of creating a new doctrine out of scripture. Instead, accuse 2,000 years of history of it. Accuse the scholars of heresy. I did not create new doctrine - it was there.

Even your use of Bruce for support wasn't seen as solid proof...check out the 2 links! Bruce's "Letter's" were just a paraphrase and support his dispensational position.

 

TB,

I can accept that you can support your position with scholars and history. That is not the point. The point is that your position depends on an unscriptural presupposition.

We have long supported our position with Scripture and shown why it is the position that the church should hold. We have done it in many different places, beginning with the Bible itself that presents a clear teaching. You must realize that the writers of history are sometimes wrong. On this point, many of them are. The Israel Church distinction is fundamental to sound biblical theology. To deny it is to make mincement of some of hte teachings of Scripture.

Bruce makes a very good case, as does Burton. You should know that. I read the links and saw nothing that is in the least convincing. What you posted was a critique apparently of Bruce, and the part I read was extremely weak. It basically consisted of "He's wrong becuase we're right." It is in essence your argument here.

You cannot legitimately deny that the Bible does not teach that church is the Israel. There is not one passage of Scriputre that will stand without the presupposition of its conclusion. This passage of Gal 6:16 is one of the weakest. The grammar and point is extremely simple. It has been made difficult by those who want to support their position. I don't buy it and neither should you.

And I didn't accuse you of creating a new doctrine out of Scripture. I said your paraphrase created a new meaning for the verse that wasn't in the verse. It certainly wasn't original with you. You learned it from somewhere, because apart from being taught it, it would be one of hte last things you would find in that text. I would stop short of calling it heresy, because it really doesn't rise to that level. It is simply wrong.

Face it, whether you are right or wrong on teh big issue of the church and Israel (and I am firmly convinced on the basis of the exegesis of God's word you are wrong), this is not a good passage to use in support. It is extremely weak.

 

Let's try the Greek,

quote:

rjprince's above statement was basically just "personal opinion” as no references were used, so I had to dust off the Lexicons, the Commentaries and the Word Studies books so that my response to his above quote on Gal 6:16 would not just be "my personal opinion," as I choose to defer to those more learned than I. However, no comment appeared from disputing the points that I made about the lack of his(or yours) documentation on the Greek kai(and) concerning Paul's blessing upon "the new creation" as being the true Israel of God;"

(Scholar #1 on the Greek KAI)
In 'Word Studies In the New Testament' by Vincent, pg.180, Paul bases the next verse; 16, on the new creation;

"KAI" as being connective;
"And upon the Israel of God. The kai "and" may be simply connective, in which case the Israel of God may be different from "as many as walk," etc., and may mean truly converted Jews.

"KAI" as being "explicative";
Or the kaimay be explicative, in which case the Israel of God will define and emphasize "as many as,” and will mean the whole body of Christians, Jewish and Gentile. In other words, they who walk according to this rule [of being a new creation] form the true Israel of God.

Vincent's conclusion is that the explicative kai is doubtful and defers to kai being "connective" by saying..."Then (.*..) will refer to the individual Christians, Jewish and Gentile, and Israel of God to the same Christians, regarded collectively, and forming the true messianic community.

(REFERENCE #2 on the Greek KAI)
Another learned scholar,Wuest, 'Word Studies....", pg 179, on Gal 16:15….."It is because, while circumcision is of no avail to the Jew, nor the lack of circumcision of any avail to the Gentile, yet the Cross has power to make of believing Jew and Gentile a new creation which results in a radical transformation of character. (v16)...Those therefore, who order their lives by the Holy Spirit's control, constitute the true Israel of God, not the Jews who have the name of Israel but are only children of Abraham after the flesh. The Greek word for "and" also has the meaning of "even" in some contexts. We translate here, even the Israel of God as identifying those who walk according to this rule [of having been made a "new creation" by the Cross.]

(REFERENCE #3 on the Greek KAI)
'Galatians' by R. Alan Cole, Tyndale, pgs 182-184
"…. If the word is to be translated 'and,’ then Paul's final prayer is directed towards those Gentiles who realize the unimportance of their physical state, and to Jews who likewise realize the unimportance of circumcision. By so doing, they prove themselves to be the true Israel, God's Israel, the 'righteous remnant.'...It would be a full recognition of the fact that Jew and Gentile alike are fellow-heirs of the grace of life;..." Cole goes on to say;

"The other translation is bolder, ...This would identify the new group, the 'THIRD RACE OF MEN' of whom the Church fathers delighted to talk – neither Jew nor Gentile, but Christian- with God's Israel. This is often put bluntly as 'the Church is the new Israel.' …if kai does not mean 'even,' then Paul is allowing two groups side by side in the kingdom of God; first, those who 'live according to the principle' enunciated in verse 15, and, secondly, God's Israel [the Jews that don't]. Thus there cannot be two groups; there can only be one."

(REFERENCE #5 the MOST learned scholar, Paul)
Romans 10:10-13 …."For MAN (that is Jew and Gentile RJ & Larry) believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved. The scripture says, NNE who belives in him will be put to shame. For there is NO DISTINCTION between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon ALL (Jews included RJ & Larry) who call upon him. For, EVERY ONE (Jews aren't excluded here either RJ & Larry) who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved."

QUESTIONS:
...Now if they are saved, are they not the ELECT?

...Now, if Paul says there is NO DISTINCTION between Jews who call upon Him and Greeks who call upon Him, are you still defying scripture by claiming that there IS A DISTINCTION?

...If they- the Jews, are saved and the elect, are they not also apart of the Church?

...If you say “No” they you must be prepared to show just when they “stopped” being a part of the elect church.

...Now, since “multitudes” of remnant Jews believed at the birth of the church because they had been looking forward to the Christ, were they not brought into the New Covenant?

The heart of the third chapter of Galatians is that “in Christ Jesus…there is neither Jew nor Greek…[We] are all one in Christ Jesus…if [we/all mankind] is in Christ, then [we] are all Abraham’s offspring.” (3:26-29)

Now, if as a dispensationalist would have it, when this juxtaposition is rendered and, it produces this ability to twist the intent… ”that after having pronounced God's blessing upon all those who place their trust exclusively in Christ Crucified, the apostle pronounces an additional blessing upon ‘the Israel of God,’ which is then interpreted to mean ‘the Jews,’ or ‘all such Jews as would in the future be converted to Christ."

Now this interpretation tends to make Paul contradict his whole line of reasoning in this epistle. And would he now, at the very close of the letter, undo all this by first of all pronouncing a blessing on "as many as" (or: "all") who walk by the rule of glorying in the cross, be they Jew or Gentile by birth, and then pronouncing a blessing upon those who do not (or: do not yet) walk by that rule?

Paul uses the term "the Israel of God" only in the present passage, and in this particular manner and for this particular purpose - nowhere else. Therefore, each passage in which that term occurs must therefore be explained in the light of its CONTEXT.

 

Again, your scholars support their own opinion and you cite them because you agree. You don't cite those who disagree and you don't answer their reasoning. That is weak on your part. You overlook one important word used twice in Vincent ... the word "may." It "may" be. That means you position is not conclusive. And the context of Paul's writings as a whole and the book of Galatians specifically mitigates against your position. It is so unlikely as to be able to be discarded easily. It just isn't waht Paul says anywhere else, and it is not what he says here.

But then you quote Paul in Romans 10 as a most learned scholar. But Paul in Romans 10 is talking about something entirely different. He is talking about hte universality of sin, that both Jews and Gentiles are sinners and can be saved. That can in no way be legitimatley used to point to any identification of the church as Israel. That text is totally irrelevant. But had you continued on into chapter 11 you would have seen that Paul clearly distinguishes between Isreal and the church in vv. 25ff. In fact, that passage shows how absurd it is to say that the church is Israel. It simply makes the passage nonsense.

Of course, but they were the elect before they were saved.

YOu completely miss the point. (This is so common that people don't understand what they are talking about.) In dispensationalism, the body of Christ is the church and in the church there is no distinction betweeen Jew and Gentile. They are one and are on equal footing before God. That has nothing to do with dispensationalism's distinction. The distinction in dispensationalism has to do with the dinstction between Isreal as a nation (made of Isrealites) and the church as the body (made up of both Jews and Gentiles). It deals with the future of God's promises made to Isreal the nation. It does not deal with the body of Christ, this age. All the verses you cite as proof that "there is no distinction" deal with the present age of the church. But as Paul points out in Gal 3, the promises are not annulled. They are still good and will be fulfilled to the people to whom they were made, national Israel. That will happen in the end time as prophesied in the OT. You appear to not understand what the distinction really is.

Yes, but based on the same misunderstanding above. This is irrelevant to the point of dispensationalism.

AGain, irrevelant because it is based on a misunderstanding.

Not technically no, since the New Covenant is for the nation of Isreal specifically in the end times when God brings them to repetance. Jews and Gentiles alike now participate in the blessings of the New Covenant.

And again, this has direct reference to the church. It is not about the nation. But Paul points out clearly that the nation has not lost the promises. They are still in effect.

Not if you understand his reasoning. He is writing to the church.

Yes, to show his affection for the Jewish people that he shows elsewhere (cf Rom 9-11) and perhaps to clarify that his comments should not be taken as a sign of hatred or dislike for the Jewish people. He pronounces a blessing on those who walk by this rule (meaning those who are saved) and on the Israel of God. If he wanted to make a distinction between the two, this is exactly how he would do it. If he wanted to show that they were the same, he would likely have done it in a more clear way.

 

Vincent uses the word "may" twice, yes, and then proceeds to enumerate on the "may" by disproving the uncertainty of using "may" in "the connective" and "the expliciative."

Show me your Greek scholars, pre-Darby then!

I am finished with this. It is useless to go further with intellectually dishonest dispensationalist.