Israel (Jews) and Our Views

[FreeinChrist]

I have to agree with Salty and all though who referred to Romans 9-11.

 

But I don't see this as a future event but nor do I see it as a pass event, but a current event.  For as we read Romans 11:25, fullness of the Gentiles, one notices that it is very close to the term time of the Gentiles, Luke 21:24.  In this verse in Luke we see that the city of Jerusalem was the key in understanding when the time or fullness of the Gentiles was to be, that is the time the Gentiles where in control of Jerusalem, but just by looking at the news today everyone knows that Jerusalem has belong to the Jews for nearly 50 years, so I see the time or fullness as nearing it end, if not already ended.

 

Reading Romans 11:25-27, we see that the Deliverer, Redeemer (Isaiah 49:20-21) shall take away the sin of Israel.  For this is My covenant to them when I shall take away their sins.  Romans 11:27  Jesus will soon Come again and reveal Himself to Israel.  But till than their are enemies as concerning the Gospel, but beloved of the Father according to the election, Romans 11:28

 

I would tell your friend, that God has always loved the nation of Israel,, and still does, but when they refused to accept His Son the first time, He had to discipline them, and after they had fulfilled their sin, God destroyed the city of Jerusalem, I Thessalonians 2:14-16; but at the Second Coming, He will call them to Himself again.

And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and supplications: and they shall look upon Me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for Him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

Zechariah 12:10

 

[Guest shiloh357]

If the Church is Israel, then Romans 9-11 makes no sense.  Romans 9-11 is an appeal by Paul to the Church to be blessing to Israel, particularly by sharing the Gospel with them.   Paul never states that the Church is Israel or that Gentile believers are spiritual Israelites or spriitual Jews or any other label that Replacement Theology likes to use.

[GoldenEagle]

Wow lot's of responses to this thread. Thank you all I will have to go back to read what has been shared.

God bless,

GE

[Macs Son]

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. Al 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.

The issue is not whether or not the word ekklessia is used in the OT  But it is not used in the sense that it is used in the NT.     The Church according to Paul was a mystery hidden in God.  There are no prophecies of the church or church age.  The OT prophets knew nothing of a "Church" in the sense that we understand the doctrine of the Church.    The OT prophets speak of Jesus' birth, ministry, death, burial and even his ascension and second coming.  But they never prophesy of the Church or Church age.

 

So it isn't enough that the word ekklessia appears in the LXX.   It is how it is used and applied.   Biblical israel was a worshipping congregation or ekklessia but that does NOT mean that we can call them "The Church."   That intellectual leap isn't warranted in Scripture.

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

[Guest shiloh357]

HI Mac,

 

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.  The Church is not an OT concept. 

 

The Church did not start with Abraham, or Israel or anyone or any entity in the OT.  The Church began on the day of Pentecost.   There is no continuation of the Church from the OT. 

 

I draw a necessary distinction between the OT uses of Ekklessia and how it is used in the NT with reference to the Church.  Since "Church" is not a translation of Ekkessia it cannot be stated that the uses of Ekkessia in the OT are references to an OT manifestation of the Church.

[GoldenEagle]

Who doesn't know that "commonwealth of Israel" is about peoples from all nations that have believed on Jesus Christ? That is... Christ's Church!

 

 

I know that I for one could never hope to answer your question without establishing clear definitions first because the risk of talking across each other is just too great as our meanings become lost upon the other person because of our own personal theological frameworks.  

 

 

The Church is not Israel, is not called Israel anywhere in the NT.  

 

 

Hence one must define what one means by the term 'Israel' before we can discuss the churches relationship to that entity! 

 

I think we need to identify and define the following terms in the discussion so that we’re not talking over each other as Reformed Baptist mentioned:

1. How do you define the term “Israel”?

2. How do you define the term “Jew”?

3. How do you define the term “Gentile”?

4. How do you define the term “Church”?

5. How do you define the term “Commonwealth of Israel”?

Possible for each person in the thread to identify/define these terms and explain how they are using them please? I think this would really help our discussion. Scripture or Scripture references are always helpful.

God bless,

GE

[Guest shiloh357]

I think we need to identify and define the following terms in the discussion so that we’re not talking over each other as Reformed Baptist mentioned:

1. How do you define the term “Israel”? - Israel and Jacob are terms the Bible uses interchangeably and only ever refer to the physical descendents of Jacob. It is never spiritualized to refer to the Church or Body of Christ.

2. How do you define the term “Jew”? - A "Jew" is a physical descendent of Jacob.  It is only ever used in the Scriptures to refer to a physical descendent of Jacob.  It is never spiritualized to refer to a Gentile believer.

3. How do you define the term “Gentile”? - A Gentile  is anyone who is not a natural descendent of Jacob.  The Bible also uses the term to denote pagans.

4. How do you define the term “Church”? - It is the Body of Christ.  It is a regenerate membership made up of all those who have accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior.  The Church was born at Pentecost.

5. How do you define the term “Commonwealth of Israel”?  - The commonwealth of Israel is made up of Jewish and Gentile believers.   Gentile believers are not Israelites, spiritually or otherwise, but they granted participation in the blessings that are promised to Israel. 

[Macs Son]

HI Mac,

 

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.  The Church is not an OT concept. 

 

The Church did not start with Abraham, or Israel or anyone or any entity in the OT.  The Church began on the day of Pentecost.   There is no continuation of the Church from the OT. 

 

I draw a necessary distinction between the OT uses of Ekklessia and how it is used in the NT with reference to the Church.  Since "Church" is not a translation of Ekkessia it cannot be stated that the uses of Ekkessia in the OT are references to an OT manifestation of the Church.

Hi Shiloh,

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

[Guest shiloh357]

 

HI Mac,

 

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.  The Church is not an OT concept. 

 

The Church did not start with Abraham, or Israel or anyone or any entity in the OT.  The Church began on the day of Pentecost.   There is no continuation of the Church from the OT. 

 

I draw a necessary distinction between the OT uses of Ekklessia and how it is used in the NT with reference to the Church.  Since "Church" is not a translation of Ekkessia it cannot be stated that the uses of Ekkessia in the OT are references to an OT manifestation of the Church.

Hi Shiloh,

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.

[Reformed Baptist]

 

 

I would like to know where, in the Bible, is it written that the OT are included as part of the Church.

 

Again, that cannot be answered until you define how you are using the term church. 

 

I would also have to challenge the standard of evidence you are demanding - what exactly would you accept as biblical proof? Bear in mind my friend that the word 'trinity' is never found in scripture either, but the concept of God being one, yet there being more then one who is God permeates scriptures, and from the pages of scriptures it is easy to discern that there are three persons who are all identified as being God - hence we have the doctrine of the trinity in scripture.  

 

What we need to understand then is the doctrine of the church as taught in scripture, now by my reckoning the word 'church' (in all forms) is found some 110 times in the NT and never in the old. The Greek term, ἐκκλησία is actually found 114 times - sometimes that word is just used to identify an ordering assembling of people. Now, what becomes immediately apparent as we look at the words used to describe the church in the NT most often the term refers to a local church - now quite obviously you wouldn't expect old testament Jews to be part of a local NT church.

 

Now more interestingly there are times where the term church is not used of a local congregation, but of the whole body of believers, for example Matt 16:18. So, how would a first century Jew understand this term, that Jesus hasn't previously explained?  I would suggest he would turn to the Old Testament to see what Jesus means when he says 'he will build his assembly' and in doing so they would discover the concept of God having an assembly in the old testament, see for example, Ex 12:6, Lev 4:14 (and about another 150 references) that this is what they understood becomes clear from references like Acts 7:38 "This is he who was in the congregation (ἐκκλησία) in the wilderness with the Angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, the one who received the living oracles to give to us," here Stephen refers to the church in the wilderness. Turning to the LXX we see that this term ἐκκλησία that Jesus Christ seems to have introduced is actually no introduction at all, for this is the word often used in the LXX to refer to the gathering together of God's people (some 102 times) 

 

What do we deduce from this quick study, well simply put, the term church is a transliteration of the Greek word ἐκκλησία and it is used primarily in reference  to those gathered together as the people of God, either in a local congregation or in a more universal sense. Further more this was not a new term coined by the Lord Jesus Christ or the NT writers, but was rather a common Greek term used by the Jews in references to the assembly of God's people in the Old Testament. So actually with a little bit of legwork we see that the Old Testament people of God are actually referred to as 'the church' in the NT and also in the Greek version of the Old testament.  

 

"The Church" is not an OT concept.   

 

 

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.

 

 

 

The Church was a mystery hidden in God and not revealed until God revealed to His apostles. There is no mention of the Church or Church age in the OT.  There are no prophecies of the Church in the OT. 

 

I am sorry, but simply asserting something does not make it to be case.

 

There are just so many references to the expansion of God's kingdom beyond the nation of Israel within the New Testament, The begin with God's promises to Abraham, "will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." (Gen 12:3 NKJ)  

 

In Jacob's live we see the God promising to make his descendent into a worshipping company, literally church of peoples, Gen 28:3

 

Then there are such prophecies as Is 42:1 and 49:6 that clearly speak of Messiah gathering the gentiles in. I will just quote Zech 2:11  "Many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and they shall become My people. And I will dwell in your midst. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent Me to you."

 

The church is an old testament concept, and the understanding that with the coming of the messiah there would be an explosion in it's population as the gentiles are gathered in to the church in a way that was previously unprecedented is also clearly foretold in the OT.

 

 

The term ekklessia may have already been in use prior to the New Covenant, but the doctrine of the Church is not an OT doctrine.  And there is no use of it in the NT that includes OT saints.  Acts. 7:38 is not teaching the doctrine of the Church.  You are really stretching on that one.

 

I never said Acts 7:38 was teaching the doctrine of the church! I said it assumes the doctrine of the church.

 

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? 

 

 

 

I would point out that Jesus in Matt. 16 speaking to His disciples says, "upon this rock, I will build my church (ekklessia).   He spoke of it in the future tense. He did not speak of it as a spiritual entity that already existed.  He didn't say, "upon this rock I am building my Church.

 

Indeed, but the point still stands that they understood what he was talking about when he referred to the word "church" it was a not a mystery to them that they begin to question, and remember that Jesus Christ is operating under the Old testament conditions and not the New - if the church is a mere New testament concept then Jesus Christ should not have been speaking about it in the way he did without further explanation. 

 

 

 

Furthermore, Paul, Romans 9:3b-4 in referring to ethnic Israelites still considers the covenants, the promises and even the Temple services as still belonging to Israel, even during the church age and even during a time when Israel is in a state of disobedience.   He still speaks of Israel as a separate entity from the Church.

 

And yet if we follow through his words we see him continue to say that these are the ones the Christ came through, v5, and notice how he is clear that there is nothing spiritual adout this people at all, Romans 9:5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen. He then continue his line of thought with this, Romans 9:6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, (NKJ) so, Isreal according to the flesh is not the Israel of God, that Israel is those who have faith That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. (Rom 9:8 NKJ) (compare with Gal 3) 

 

So Yes, Paul speaks of ethnic Israel in separate terms to the church because Ethnic Israel is not the seed of Abraham, and never has been, the seed of Abraham is those who live by faith, by they Jew or Gentile (otherwise known collectively as the church). 

 

 

There is not ONE reference to Israel in the NT that speaks of it as continuance of biblical Israel.  It never equates Israel with the Church.   Israel Is Israel and the Church is the Church.  Israel and the Church are radically separate.

 

So you keep saying, but shouting doesn't make the case you present more convincing my friend