Israel (Jews) and Our Views

[GoldenEagle]

After reading this thread it seems there are several views on Israel.

1. Replacement Theology (also known as Supersessionism) – Can include Covenant Theology
The Church and Israel refer to the same group of people.

2. Separation Theology – associated with Dispensationalism
The Church and Israel refer to different groups of people.

3. Remnant Theology
The Church and Israel overlap in some manner.

While digging through the internet this source is probably the best I’ve found. I think he does a good job of defining the Israel and the Church for the purpose of our discussion on this thread. I intend on summarizing the views in the following posts.

[GoldenEagle]

1. Replacement Theology (also known as Supersessionism) – Can include Covenant Theology
The Church and Israel refer to the same group of people.



1. Replacement Theology (also known as Supersessionism) – the “Church” and “Israel” actually refer to the same group of people. More specifically, since Israel rejected Jesus as Messiah, the ekklesia of Jesus is now the recipient of all conventional blessings and promises of God originally made to the nation/people of Israel. Unfortunately, this is the more popular view with many in the Church today.

Those with this view believe that “Israel” refers to all those who obey the New Covenant of Jesus, who are called the “true children of Abraham” and heirs according to the promise (see for example Gal. 3:29) The Church is now referred to as “the Israel of God” (See Gal. 6:16) and is composed of Jews and Gentiles who are regenerated by means of their faith in Jesus (see for example Matt. 3:9, Luke 3:8, Gal. 3:6, 9). National Israel  was under this view just the “seed” of the future Church, which will eventually restore the entire earth under God’s dominion (see for example Mal. 1:11, Rom. 4:13). This view believes that after the Church came into existence on the Day of Pentecost God was “finished” with Israel. Today, a “true Jew” is anyone born of the Spirit, whether he or she was physically born Jewish or not. (See for example Rom. 2:28-29) This view believes that all the promises in the OT made to Israel are now the right of the Church who now symbolically reigns on David’s throne (2 Cor. 1:20).

This also can lead to “Covenant Theology” where God made several overarching “covenants” with “all of creation.” Somehow, all the Biblical covenants (think Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, etc.) are really aspects of the overarching “Covenant of Grace” that God enacted after the fall of mankind. This view makes use of the allegorical method of interpretation which forces the literal definition of a term (like “Israel”) to be either not a true definition or one of a different definition. This view focuses on the corresponding spiritual reality which is the “real” or ultimate meaning of a term of a given passage instead of the grammatical-historical understanding of the term.

This view emphasizes that the Church predated the coming of Christ. Most seriously, Covenant Theology implies that God changed His mind about the nation of Israel and the eternal nature of His promises to Israel are subject to nullification.
 

-------------

Those who disagree with this view point out Jesus told Peter that upon the rock of his confession (that Jesus was God) He would build His Church (Matt. 16:18). Paul also spoke clearly and distinctly about the mystery of the Church of God’s prophetic plan for the ages (Eph. 3:9; Col 1:26 for example).

This kind of view has consistently led to anti-Semitism and some would argue false eschatological views.

Advocates of this view surprisingly include Roman Catholic Church, the United Methodist Church, The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ECLA), the Presbyterian Church, the Lutheran Church, The Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, the United Church of Christ, the Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

 

[GoldenEagle]

2. Separation Theology – associated with Dispensationalism
The Church and Israel refer to different groups of people.



2. Separation Theology – the “Church” and “Israel” refer to different groups of people. This distinction is the essence of what is often called “dispensationalism.”  

Dispensational theology consistently uses the “grammatical-historical” approach to Scripture. This approach inevitably leads to a clear distinction between Israel and the Church. For example, in the book of Acts both “Israel” and the “Church” exist simultaneously but the two terms always refer to two distinct groups of people. The Church is understood as a new creation that began at Pentecost and will continue until the fullness of time (seen in Eph 1:9-11).

This view emphasizes that the Church began with the ministry of Jesus Christ (seen in Matt. 16:18) and is based on Jesus’s death, resurrection, and ascension (Eph 1:20-23; Col 1:28 for example). So to this view Israel refers to the modern nation of Israel, though being in temporary disobedience to the terms of the New Covenant, are still God’s chosen people who have a divine right to the land of Israel by the means of the unconditional Abrahamic covenant. God will ultimately restore the nation of Israel to the faith in Jesus, at which time Israel will be reinstated and will receive the blessings of the Kingdom of God promised to David.

 

[GoldenEagle]

3. Remnant Theology
The Church and Israel overlap in some manner.

 

 

3. Remnant Theology – the claim that the Church and Israel “overlap” in some manner. In Replacement/Covenant Theology, the Church is said to supersede Israel (so this view is also called suppercessionism) in such a way that Israel is abandoned with no redemptive future. In Seperation theology there is a distinction between Israel and the Church, but there is some question about how the two groups will interact in the future, particularly relevant to the millennial reign of Jesus into eternity. Remnant Theology attempts to mediate these positions by understanding the Church to be a subset of faithful ethnic Israel who received Jesus as the promised Messiah. This faithful subset of Israel is called the Remnant or “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:6 is used to support this).
 

This view understand that the Church is “grafted in” or “in-placed” with remnant Israel and NOT the other way around. So remnant Israel is NOT understood to be placed within the Church.

Paul spoke of the remnant of Israel chosen by God’s grace (Rom. 2:28-29, 9:27, 11:5) and the “new man” composed of Jews and grafted in Gentiles (Eph. 2:15). This view also believes that in the Tribulation God will preserve a remnant of Isreal (See Rev. 7:4)

The distinction is important so that the Church would not be guilty of “boasting” that it’s branches have been grafted into the Olive Tree, but rather than remembering that the root is what sustains the Church (Rom. 11:18). This view emphasized that only some of the ethnic Jews are part of the faithful remnant and that all Gentiles are spiritually made to be Jewish (see for example Rom. 2:29; Rom. 5:16; Eph. 2:12-19) A Jew doesn’t need to disown his or her heritage in order to be a member of the Church.

[GoldenEagle]

After studying this topic and reading this thread I probably land somewhere in the mix of 1st Seperation and then perhaps 2nd Remnant Theology.

[Qnts2]

3. Remnant Theology

The Church and Israel overlap in some manner.

 

 

3. Remnant Theology – the claim that the Church and Israel “overlap” in some manner. In Replacement/Covenant Theology, the Church is said to supersede Israel (so this view is also called suppercessionism) in such a way that Israel is abandoned with no redemptive future. In Seperation theology there is a distinction between Israel and the Church, but there is some question about how the two groups will interact in the future, particularly relevant to the millennial reign of Jesus into eternity. Remnant Theology attempts to mediate these positions by understanding the Church to be a subset of faithful ethnic Israel who received Jesus as the promised Messiah. This faithful subset of Israel is called the Remnant or “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:6 is used to support this).

 

This view understand that the Church is “grafted in” or “in-placed” with remnant Israel and NOT the other way around. So remnant Israel is NOT understood to be placed within the Church.

Paul spoke of the remnant of Israel chosen by God’s grace (Rom. 2:28-29, 9:27, 11:5) and the “new man” composed of Jews and grafted in Gentiles (Eph. 2:15). This view also believes that in the Tribulation God will preserve a remnant of Isreal (See Rev. 7:4)

The distinction is important so that the Church would not be guilty of “boasting” that it’s branches have been grafted into the Olive Tree, but rather than remembering that the root is what sustains the Church (Rom. 11:18). This view emphasized that only some of the ethnic Jews are part of the faithful remnant and that all Gentiles are spiritually made to be Jewish (see for example Rom. 2:29; Rom. 5:16; Eph. 2:12-19) A Jew doesn’t need to disown his or her heritage in order to be a member of the Church.

 

In remnant theology, it appears that the Gentiles join believing Jews, and become Jews themselves. However, what it fails to deal with is the idea that most children of Israel are not believers. Where is unbelieving Israel?

 

There really is not a lot of difference between Remnant theology, and Replacement theology. Replacement theology has a somewhat wide variation of the same theme, some mild, and some very extreme. I would place Remnant theology as one of the milder forms of Replacement theology. In the end, believing Gentiles claim to be Jews/Israel, while most of Israel is not in the picture. Gentiles get Israel's promises.

[Openly Curious]

After studying this topic and reading this thread I probably land somewhere in the mix of 1st Seperation and then perhaps 2nd Remnant Theology.

I find myself also in between  1) Seperation &  2) Remnant Theology as well. 

 

I also agree with much of what Salty has shared.

[Guest shiloh357]

That is exactly what the Jews think, whether believing or unbelieving, like shiloh357 said, "Israel is Israel; the Church is the Church." But that's not correct per God's Word.

 

Not only do deceived Jews believe that, but so do Christian Dispensationalists.

 

Those of us who know how to read, well know that Christ's Church is built upon Christ as its Chief Cornerstone, and His Apostles and the OT prophets as its foundation.

 

Ephesians 2

¹⁹ Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

²⁰ And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

²¹ In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

²² In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

 

So were those Apostles and prophets not children of the 'seed' of Israel? even Christ Jesus born of the tribe of Judah?

 

 

The first problem that stands out in this is the phrase, "seed of Israel."   Where is the concept of the "seed of Israel" found in Scripture.  You are introducing a theological concept that the Bible knows nothing of. 

 

Secondly, you are using that verse to confuse issues.  "household of God" is not "Israel."   Ephesians 2:19-21 is using the metaphor of a Roman family structure.  There is nothing about that passage that has anything to do with with who is or is not Israel.  So the passage you are citing doesn't really address the topic under discussion.

 

The Bible never spiritualizes Israel in the New Testament.  The Bible's description of Israel is always pertaining to an earthly Kingdom.  The blessings promised to Israel are always connected with a land, and physical nation, a physical throne (throne of David).  The throne of David, every time it is mentioned is always an earthly throne.

 

The Church, however, is a heavenly people.  Our blessings are spiritual, we are part of an eternal Kingdom that is not of this world.  The Church, unlike Israel, possesses a regenerate membership.   Membership in the nation of Israel is based on circumcision as a sign of that covenant.   Membership in the Church is based on a transformational, saving relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.  

 

Jesus' role as Messiah is an earthly role, not a redemptive role.  His relationship with Israel as their King/Messiah is fulfilled on earth.  But the Church's relationship with the Lord is spiritual and heavenly.    Israel is temporary.  Israel will not exist into eternity.   The Church is eternal.

 

The way the Bible describes Israel simply doesn't resemble the church at all.  The Church and Israel could not be more different really.   Trying to make the Church and Israel one and the same is theologically untenable.

 

 

 

Since when then are those NOT... part of The Church that we believing Gentiles also are members of?!?

 

The Church as we know it, didn't exist in the biblical times, so the Old Testament saints cannot be members of the Church.  The doctrine of the Church cannnot be derived at any point from the Old Testament.

 

 

How many of the 'seed' of Israel are members of Christ's Church today? so did those seed born Israelites who became part of Christ's Church by Faith lose the Promises of God?!?

Do unbelieving Jews still manifest God's Promises? what were those Promises? One of those Promises to Israel from God is that there would never fail a man of Israel to sit upon the throne of David, unto all generations (2 Sam.7).

 

Well, Zechariah, king of Judah, was the last one born of the seed of Israel to sit upon David's throne in Jerusalem, and that was all the way back in Jeremiah's days when Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon ended that throne in Jerusalem. It still has yet to be up there again since. So where's God's Promise to Israel with that one today???

Actually that promise was made in I Kings and it was a conditional promise, that there would not fail a man to sit on the throne of Israel so long as Israel walked in God's ways.   It was not an unconditional promise. The promise was not that there will always be a king in Israel on the throne, rather the promises was simply that they would be a king so long as the nation was obedient to the Lord. 

 

So your premise is completely wrong.  God's promises don't fail.

 

I can go on and on about His Promises that have been lacking fulfillment among the unbelieving Jews and the holy land since the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D.

 

I realize that to the biblically illiterate, it might look like God's promises failed to be fulfilled, but that reflects the logic of unbelievers who see the fact that Jesus' hasn't returned for over 2,000 years as proof that God's promises have failed.   The truth is that not all of God's promises are to be fulfilled during the church age.  There are many promises God made to biblical, OT Israel that will not come to pass until the millennium.  But all of God's promises to biblical Israel will be fulfilled.

 

 

 

 

So it actually looks like the unbelieving Jews have had a major falling out with our Heavenly Father, and we know why that is, because of their rejection of His Son Jesus of Nazareth as The Messiah.

 

yes, but God is still faithful to them, and every single promise He made to them will be fulfilled, not because of them but because of His faithfulness.

 

 

Yet some of God's Promises are still with the unbelieving Jews today, especially the one that He said He would always leave 'one tribe' in Jerusalem for His servant David's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake (1 Kings 11). His Promise that He would gather them still exists, and His Promise to remove His blindness He put upon them when the times of the Gentiles is fulfilled, still exists. But then they still must... choose to believe on Jesus Christ in order to be part of His Eternal Kingdom of the world to come.

 

Thus no one can be saved without becoming a member of Christ's Church by Faith on God's Promised Saviour Jesus Christ. That applies to the seed of Israel too.

 

And no one has said otherwise   The problem with you is that you keep trying to have a debate on how we are saved and that is not in dispute.  You are having a different discussion than we are.  No one has said that anyone can be saved apart from Jesus, but you keep harping on that as if we are making that argument. 

[Salty]

After studying this topic and reading this thread I probably land somewhere in the mix of 1st Seperation and then perhaps 2nd Remnant Theology.

 

I don't belong to any of those categories, simply because they're really just tethers of men's doctrines, and never  reach to the fulness of God's Word about such things.

 

There is no such thing as a strictly Gentile Church concept in God's Word. There is only one Church (or congregational) concept, and that is the same one of the Old Testament, and for the New Testament. The difference is the children of Israel were ordained in God's Promise of Salvation by Faith first given through Abraham, but not all them believed, just as it is today. And because The Gospel going to the Gentiles eventually is found in the writings of the OT prophets before it happened, it did not change God's concept of His Church when that was fulfilled by Christ Jesus by The New Covenant, bringing believing Gentiles into the 'fold'.

 

But from what factions today do we mostly hear that God's Israel has nothing to do with Christ's Church? It's mostly from those of both the Jews and Christians who refuse to believe that they could ever be joined together into one Body, under One Head, Jesus Christ.

[GoldenEagle]

 

After studying this topic and reading this thread I probably land somewhere in the mix of 1st Seperation and then perhaps 2nd Remnant Theology.

 

I don't belong to any of those categories, simply because they're really just tethers of men's doctrines, and never  reach to the fulness of God's Word about such things.

 

There is no such thing as a strictly Gentile Church concept in God's Word. There is only one Church (or congregational) concept, and that is the same one of the Old Testament, and for the New Testament. The difference is the children of Israel were ordained in God's Promise of Salvation by Faith first given through Abraham, but not all them believed, just as it is today. And because The Gospel going to the Gentiles eventually is found in the writings of the OT prophets before it happened, it did not change God's concept of His Church when that was fulfilled by Christ Jesus by The New Covenant, bringing believing Gentiles into the 'fold'.

 

But from what factions today do we mostly hear that God's Israel has nothing to do with Christ's Church? It's mostly from those of both the Jews and Christians who refuse to believe that they could ever be joined together into one Body, under One Head, Jesus Christ.

 

 

No idea where you get the idea of a Gentile Church or two Churches?

No idea where anyone here has said that Jews and Christians cannot be joined under one Body in Jesus Christ?

If anything the opposite has been said IMO. See for example.

Please point to what you are referring to... What post and by who? I think you are arguing against something that nobody has stated personally. Lol

God bless,

GE