Israel (Jews) and Our Views

[OakWood]

 

 

The way I define the term "Israel" is per God's Word in Genesis involving God's Promised Salvation by Faith that He first gave through Abraham, which then continued to Isaac, and then to Jacob. The word itself means those who prevail with God's help.

 

Isaac said to his son Jacob...

 

Gen.28

³ And God Almighty bless thee, and make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, that thou mayest be a multitude of people;

⁴ And give thee the blessing of Abraham, to thee, and to thy seed with thee; that thou mayest inherit the land wherein thou art a stranger, which God gave unto Abraham.

 

 

Then God appeared to Jacob in a dream...

 

Gen.28

¹³ And, behold, the Lord stood above it, and said, I am the Lord God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed;

¹⁴ And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

 

The same Blessing God first gave to Abraham was transferred to Jacob from his father Isaac, and then God made it official in those Gen.28:13-14 verses.

 

 

The later in Gen.32, Jacob wrestled with the Angel of The Lord, and prevailed, and with the blessing he received was given the new name Israel...

 

Gen.32

²⁸ And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.

²⁹ And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.

³⁰ And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

 

 

Thus the real... meaning of the name Israel was first and foremost, and always will be, about God's Promised Salvation by Faith that He first gave to Abraham. God chose Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to be the carriers of The Gospel of Jesus Christ and defenders of The Faith once shown to Abraham that God would accomplish His Promise as He said. Abraham believed and God counted it to Abraham as righteousness.

 

That Promise is not to be hoarded or used to exalt God's chosen seed of Israel that He established to be carriers and defenders of The Gospel, but the Promise is to all seeds, to all peoples on the earth that believe by Faith as Abraham did, and by this all the families on the earth are blessed (Gal.3 further defines this point, as does Rom.9 by Apostle Paul).

 

You've merely stated the purpose of Israel here, which I don't disagree with. That is not the same as a definition.

The purpose of Israel is to select a body of chosen people through whom salvation would be offered to everybody (they gave us Jesus Christ). That does not mean that their definition is anything other than being the seed of Jacob.

 

 

But I did... define the meaning of the name Israel, even per God's Word involving Jacob and his wrestling with the Angel of The Lord Who gave him the new name.

 

But obviously some here think otherwise than God's Word. And if you read all of what I showed, the Promise of Salvation began with Abraham. That was the same Blessing given to Isaac, and then to Jacob.

 

Thus the name Israel = those entrusted to carry The Gospel of Jesus Christ to all peoples, and thus prevail with God like Jacob did. This is why Apostle Paul used the expression "commonwealth of Israel" in Eph.2 about Gentile believers on The Faith. It is why Paul said what he did in Rom.9 that those of The Promise are 'counted' for the seed.

 

So how is it any of the seed of Israel would want to change that commission from God, and try to make that name only mean the seed?

 

 

I believe God's word and Israel is defined as the seed of Jacob and the nation of those people. That's God word. So i suggest that you take your own advice and stop thinking otherwise than God's word. You accuse others of which you do yourself. You're teaching false things. Your views are no different to those who believe in replacement theology, and look at what that caused.

[Macs Son]

Hi Shiloh, this is in response to your last post to me - as you may have misunderstood my context

I think what you did not say in your response to me says much more about your Christian position than what you do say.

In Christ, Pat

What it says is that I believe the Bible. I don't have time to study out every instance of Ekklesia in the OT. I have a lot of other, more important things to do. But I know what the Bible says and I know how to exegete Scripture and the fact remains that there is no Church in the OT. If you say otherwise, you are simply wrong.

Okay.

You believe in the Bible.

I do as well but it just seemed somewhat disconnected and strange to me that you did not see fit to even provide even the most casual courtesy to comment any concern towards a fellow Christian. After all I did tell you that my wife and I, as well as our associate pastor were in a rather serious accident. Certainly there is no requirement or that I am offended by the terse response but I do have to say I found it somewhat unusual brother.

Happy Lord's Day Shiloh. Glad to be here this morning as last night returning from our music ministry and as we were stopped with our left hand signal to turn into the church driveway we were hit from behind by a man who was perhaps going between 60 and 65 and never hit his brakes. All I remember was a flash of light and the next thing wondering why my driver's seat was lying in the back seat. I praise the Lord that other than a sore necks and backs my wife, our associate pastor, and the guy who hit us are okay. The cars are not but praise the Lord destroyed engine blocks, sheet metal, and glass don't really matter. I'm reminded this morning that life is a very precious but very fragile thing this morning. I'll take that into this morning's worship.

But let's set that aside for now. The rest of my post was:

I agree usage and context are all important but have you truly done the homework and looked at all 80 examples? Generalization rarely teach us anything. That said Paul clearly talks about a remnant, no doubt he Jerusalem Church. He speaks of us being grafted into Israel, which I exegete as we are not the natural members of the promise but made to be so by the work of Christ on the cross - for salvation is of the Jews. Paul clearly states the majority of Israel has through jealousy turned away but he also stated that their "acceptance" is life from the dead - the finale where faith shall be sight. All these Scriptures I have quoted above so I'm not just stating the word "ekklessia being in the LXX shows Israel is part of the promise. God always keeps His promises they are irrevocable, for God cannot lie. The history shows

1. the Jews were the nation the promise was given - the natural heirs.

2. Christ came as their promised Messiah and he was rejected except for a remnant of Jews

3. After rising from the dead the Church started in Jerusalem and spread to Jews far and wide

4. The Gentiles were grafted in (Cornelius & the church at Antioch.

5. Jealousy prevailed among the Jews (Trypho)

6. The of the Gentiles came to be where Israel and Jerusalem were trodden down for over 1800 years.

7. They are back in their land and Jerusalem is theirs - which is part of Jesus' prophecy of the fulfillment of the time of the Gentiles

8. Paul prophesies they will return to the promise and see it's fulfillment in Christ

9. And when that happens it will be the end of the Church age

10. Or perhaps only the beginning.

In Christ, Pat

to which you replied

"There is an important rule of hermeneutics that says that a passage of Scripture cannot mean today what it didn't mean when it was originally penned."

I understand you have priorities but simply stating, "There is an important rule of hermeneutics that says that a passage of Scripture cannot mean today what it didn't mean when it was originally penned.", doesn't really prove to anyone that you yourself have any greater understanding of the historical context either. Yet you were the one making the claim that it has nothing to do with it. Now, if we are searching for the truth, which in my mind is all that matters, then why not address the context? I don't believe anyone's gets to truth by the way of personal fiat and I gave you many more reasons then just word usage for why I believe what I do; including New Testament Scripture. Are those points irrelevant as well? Now it's no big deal for two Christians to disagree on some points and to arrive at a different opinions but at one point I truly thought we were having a discussion and yet now somehow it doesn't seem so.

In Christ, Pat

[JohnD]

A friend we'll call Adam wrote the following to me...

 

God's chosen people has always been the Church, though primarily composed of the geo-political body of Israel for a time, but now expanded to include the elect from all tribes and tongues. The current day nation of Israel is no more God's chosen people than America or any other nation is. I pray for the peace of Jerusalem, as well, and for the repentance of the nation of Israel, who as a whole rejects the Messiah and has been cut off, and who are idolaters and cannot rightly be considered God's people in any sense.

The promises were made to the true seed of Abraham, Christ and those who are in Him. Please read Galatians 3.

 

 

First, how do you view Israel (Jews)?

Second, how would you respond to this friend?

God bless,

GE

 

Romans 11:28 (NASB95)

28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;

 

Romans 11:28 (KJV)

28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.

 

This is what I keep trying to tell the naysayers who refuse to believe the Bible teaches a physical Israel and a Spirit Israel. Physical Israel are the chosen / elect people of this life; this world. Spirit Israel (the Church, that is: the assembly, the great assembly {going back at least as far as Exodus 12}, or the cloud of witnesses {going back as far as according to Abel Hebrews 11}  are the chosen / elect people of the after life; the heaven-earth to come. 

 

A distinction drawn as  far back as:

 

 

Genesis 17:11 (KJV)

11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

 

Deuteronomy 10:16 (KJV)

16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

 

Jeremiah 4:4 (KJV)

4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings.

 

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.

 

Galatians 6:13-16 (KJV)

13 For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.

14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

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

 

Jeremiah 9:25-26 (KJV)

25 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised;

26 Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that are in the utmost corners, that dwell in the wilderness: for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart.

 

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:

 

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all (spirit) Israel, which are of (physical) Israel:

[Guest shiloh357]

I understand you have priorities but simply stating, "There is an important rule of hermeneutics that says that a passage of Scripture cannot mean today what it didn't mean when it was originally penned.", doesn't really prove to anyone that you yourself have any greater understanding of the historical context either. Yet you were the one making the claim that it has nothing to do with it. Now, if we are searching for the truth, which in my mind is all that matters, then why not address the context? I don't believe anyone's gets to truth by the way of personal fiat and I gave you many more reasons then just word usage for why I believe what I do; including New Testament Scripture. Are those points irrelevant as well? Now it's no big deal for two Christians to disagree on some points and to arrive at a different opinions but at one point I truly thought we were having a discussion and yet now somehow it doesn't seem so.

In Christ, Pat

 

 

In the OT, there's no scripture from which we can derive any part of the doctrine of "the Church"    "The Church" is not taught about anywhere in the OT.   There are no OT prophecies of the Church Age.    Paul tells us that "the Church" was a mystery hidden in God and was not revealed until it He chose to reveal the mystery through His apostles (Eph. 3:1-13).

 

The OT prophets spoke of Jesus' first coming, his birth, life, ministry, death, burial, resurrection, ascension.   They also spoke of His second coming, His millennial Kingdom and His presence in the New Heaven and New Earth.

 

But nohwere in the OT is there any teaching on the Church.  Nowhere in the OT is there any indication that the Church finds it origins with the OT.  The doctrine of the Church is ONLY found in the NT.  And the NT does NOT ever reference the OT in any passage where it teaches on the doctrine of the Church.

 

To try and teach that the Church began in OT is to force something onto the Bible that it doesn't actually say.

 

That's why when we read of the restoration of Israel in the OT, it isn't referencing the Church.  Israel means "Israel."   Church means, "Church."

 

That's why I said that a passage cannot mean today what it did not mean when it was originally penned.  The OT saints had no point of reference for what would one day be known as the Church.  That mystery was hidden from them.   So the OT cannot teach that the Church started with Abraham, Moses, David, etc. 

[Reformed Baptist]

 

But then I suspect the reason for your rejection of this is your definition of the church, as opposed to the accepted definition of the church which is simply the one called out by God from every generation, tribe and tongue throughout time. Before Israel existed as a person there was a church - it's first members were Adam and Eve, for a time that church was largely restricted to one family, then one nation (Israel) but never exclusively so, then in the NT era the church enters into a new epoch of it's existence. So, of course, if you narrowly define the church by how it looks in that epoch you will struggle to find it anywhere but in that epoch - the question is can you justify that narrow definition from God's word?

 

Where does the Bible offer that definition of the Church?   You call it the accepted definition.  Accepted by who?   It might be accepted by some in certain denominations but to assume that it is THE definition accepted church-wide would be rather presumptuous.  It might be the accepted view in your reformed circle, but you need to presume that everyone shares that view.

 

My assertion is that this is how the term 'church' has been understood generally by the church all along, this has been the accepted definition/ understanding until the 19th century when it needed to be redefined by a small group of people so that they could make a rational distinction between the Israel of God and the Church of Christ so that they could divide the word of God and sustain any otherwise unsustainable hermeneutic of a pre-trib, pre mill rapture.   

 

As for the assumption that this view is limited to the reformed alone, might i suggest that you read some of the church father like Augustine on this matter! 

[Reformed Baptist]

 

Of course there is no mention of the specific word 'church' in the OT, it would be anachronistic for one to expect there to be! However, as I have demonstrated linguistically, it appears that the concept was there, and must have been there, or else what both Jesus Christ and Stephen said without explanation would have been nonsense to everyone who heard - However it meant something to them because the concept was something that was familiar to them, just two references from the English translation of the LXX will suffice to make this clear: 

 

Deuteronomy 9:10 And the LORD delivered unto me two tables of stone written with the finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words, which the LORD spake with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the Church. 

 

Deuteronomy 18:16 According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the Church, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.

 

It's interesting because, "Church" isn't a translation of ekklessia.  

 

 

Of course it is, the fact that we translate ἐκκλησία as church other 110 in the NT demonstrates the fallacy of this type of reasoning. The term "church" is an English word that is used in the English speaking world to identify a concept that in Greek used the word ἐκκλησία and in Hebrew used the word עֵדָה that is how translation works - you take a word from the go to language that has the closest possible meaning to the term used in the original language. The two words do not have to have any etymological link, they just need to have semantic overlap in their respective languages.   

 

 

 

The word "Church' is a teutonic word and it has no connection to the Greek word, ekklesia.  The word "Church" comes from the old Teutonic/Germanic/Gaelic "kirke" which means "circle."   The ancient druids worshiped the sun in a kirke on the first day of the week.

 

 

 

I am sorry but that is not the case. This what the on-line etymological dictionary has to say about the noun 'church'

 

church (n.)  Old English cirice, circe "church, public place of worship; Christians collectively," from Proto-Germanic *kirika (cognates: Old Saxon kirika, Old Norse kirkja, Old Frisianzerke, Middle Dutch kerke, Dutch kerk, Old High German kirihha, German Kirche), probably [see note in OED] from Greek kyriake (oikia), kyriakon doma "Lord's (house)," from kyrios "ruler, lord," from PIE root *keue- "to swell" ("swollen," hence "strong, powerful"); see cumulus. Phonetic spelling from c.1200, established by 16c. For vowel evolution, see bury. As an adjective from 1570s. 

Greek kyriakon (adj.) "of the Lord" was used of houses of Christian worship since c.300, especially in the East, though it was less common in this sense than ekklesia orbasilike. An example of the direct Greek-to-Germanic progress of many Christian words, via the Goths; it probably was used by West Germanic people in their pre-Christian period. 

Or if you wonder about the credibility of an on-line source what about the MW Collegiate dict. (11th edition) 

 

 1church \ˈchərch\ noun

[Middle English chirche, from Old English cirice, ultimately from Late Greek kyriakon, from Greek, neuter of kyriakos of the lord, from kyrios lord, master; akin to Sanskrit śūra hero, warrior] before 12th century

 

[Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc.]

 

 

 

So really your references are don't impress me at all.

 

No, and I am not surprised  

 

However, when we consider that 9unless i have missed it) you haven't given me a definition of the church as I asked, and also looking at the standards by which you have rejected what I have to say like the fallacy and the error highlighted above, and the fact that you have skimmed over so much of the case I have presented without much in the way of meaningful answers then can you be surprised that your words don't impress me much either. So, that puts us at an impasse my friend, and as I am not one for useless disputations maybe we should leave our discussion where it is for the time being  

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

But then I suspect the reason for your rejection of this is your definition of the church, as opposed to the accepted definition of the church which is simply the one called out by God from every generation, tribe and tongue throughout time. Before Israel existed as a person there was a church - it's first members were Adam and Eve, for a time that church was largely restricted to one family, then one nation (Israel) but never exclusively so, then in the NT era the church enters into a new epoch of it's existence. So, of course, if you narrowly define the church by how it looks in that epoch you will struggle to find it anywhere but in that epoch - the question is can you justify that narrow definition from God's word?

 

Where does the Bible offer that definition of the Church?   You call it the accepted definition.  Accepted by who?   It might be accepted by some in certain denominations but to assume that it is THE definition accepted church-wide would be rather presumptuous.  It might be the accepted view in your reformed circle, but you need to presume that everyone shares that view.

 

My assertion is that this is how the term 'church' has been understood generally by the church all along, this has been the accepted definition/ understanding until the 19th century when it needed to be redefined by a small group of people so that they could make a rational distinction between the Israel of God and the Church of Christ so that they could divide the word of God and sustain any otherwise unsustainable hermeneutic of a pre-trib, pre mill rapture.   

 

As for the assumption that this view is limited to the reformed alone, might i suggest that you read some of the church father like Augustine on this matter! 

 

The term "israel of God" never referred to the Church. It only refers to believing Jews.   Every usage of Israel in the Bible only refers to the ethnic Jews, be they believers or not. 

 

Making the appeal that "this is how we always defined it"  is a rather weak argument to rest on.  The Catholics would have made a similar argument against Luther and his reformation theology.

[Salty]

 

Thus the real... meaning of the name Israel was first and foremost, and always will be, about God's Promised Salvation by Faith that He first gave to Abraham.

 

That has nothing to do with Israel.  Abaraham was a Gentile when He was justified before God.  Israel is later and is only counted through Jacob, not Abraham. You have a definition of Israel that the Bible doesn't offer.

 

 

I see you've completely missed what that Promise to Abraham was really about, and how it continued... to Isaac, then to Jacob whom God gave the new name Israel to in direct... association with that Promise to Abraham.

 

Instead, you apply the name Israel to a fleshy definition. NONE can be saved by their flesh, and that applies to all the seed of Israel too, because they ALSO MUST confess that Jesus Christ is God's Promised Saviour in order to be saved, just as Apostle Paul taught in Romans 11. Once Jesus comes and reveals Himself to the unbelievers of Israel that... is when they will have to make their choice to believe on Him, or not. Those who still refuse Him will be cut off from His Salvation. There is no Salvation of the flesh. It is by Faith only, and not by the law, which brings up another point.

 

When God gave the Promise by Faith to Abraham, He had not yet given His law. The Promise was 430 years before... the law. So no one can substitute a law salvation for that Promised Salvation by Faith first given through Abraham.

[Salty]

 

I believe God's word and Israel is defined as the seed of Jacob and the nation of those people. That's God word. So i suggest that you take your own advice and stop thinking otherwise than God's word. You accuse others of which you do yourself. You're teaching false things. Your views are no different to those who believe in replacement theology, and look at what that caused.

 

 

Then is the seed of Israel excluded... from God's Salvation Promise by Faith first given to Abraham? You don't see how you contradict yourself and God's Word.

 

Even the seed of Israel MUST believe that Promise by Faith which is The Gospel of Jesus Christ, in order to be saved. Now if you want to go against Apostle Paul on that per Romans 11 and Galatians, then you go directly against the foundational NT Books of Christian Doctrine.

[Guest shiloh357]

I see you've completely missed what that Promise to Abraham was really about, and how it continued... to Isaac, then to Jacob whom God gave the new name Israel to in direct... association with that Promise to Abraham.

 

 

Yes, the promise was passed down from Abraham to his descendents, Isaac and Jacob.  But "Israel" only applies to Jacob and his descendents.  Abraham was saved as a Gentile.  Abraham and Isaac were not "Israelites."

 

 

Instead, you apply the name Israel to a fleshy definition.

 

The Bible never spiritualizes the name Israel to apply to believing Gentiles.  Believing Gentiles participate in the blessings given to Israel, but they are not Israelites. 

 

 

NONE can be saved by their flesh, and that applies to all the seed of Israel too, because they ALSO MUST confess that Jesus Christ is God's Promised Saviour in order to be saved, just as Apostle Paul taught in Romans 11.

 

I understand that.  But, the identity of Israel has nothing to do with how a person is saved.  You are confusing issues.  The Bible only ever uses Israel to refer to descendents of Jacob.  It has nothing to do with salvation

 

 

Once Jesus comes and reveals Himself to the unbelievers of Israel that... is when they will have to make their choice to believe on Him, or not. Those who still refuse Him will be cut off from His Salvation. There is no Salvation of the flesh. It is by Faith only, and not by the law, which brings up another point.

 

No one has claimed that anyone is saved by virtue of their ethnic lineage.  You are trying to refute an argument I never raised.

 

 

When God gave the Promise by Faith to Abraham, He had not yet given His law. The Promise was 430 years before... the law. So no one can substitute a law salvation for that Promised Salvation by Faith first given through Abraham.

 

Again, you are having a different discussion than I am having you are on some rant about how a person is saved and I am speaking to the Bible's definition of Israel.