Israel (Jews) and Our Views

[Salty]

Sounds like Covenant Theology, to me.   His view would be true if Israel were a type of the church, but they are not.  No such Israel - Church typology can be found anywhere in the Bible.

 

 

 

Man, you are so wrong about that...

 

Eph.2:11-13

¹¹ Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

¹² That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

¹³ But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

 

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!

 

A commonwealth is especially what Christ's Church is about, as all members inherit together.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

Sounds like Covenant Theology, to me.   His view would be true if Israel were a type of the church, but they are not.  No such Israel - Church typology can be found anywhere in the Bible.

 

 

 

Man, you are so wrong about that...

 

Eph.2:11-13

¹¹ Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

¹² That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

¹³ But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

 

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!

 

A commonwealth is especially what Christ's Church is about, as all members inherit together.

 

Do you believe the Church is Israel?

[Salty]

 

Is Jesus not the root of the olive tree Israel and Israelites the branches and as Romans11 says because some branches were broken off it allowed born again Christians to be grafted in. We are warned not to think of ourselves as the true branches of the tree. We will never replace Israel in God the Father's eyes.

 

Four reasons why Paul’s concerns in Romans 11 are present and not future focused. 

The first reason is found in verse 1: I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.   Note how Paul answers his own question, “has God cast away His people?”   He does not answer, “May it never be! For do you not know that in the millennium God will restore Israel to her former glory?” No, rather in answer to his own question ,‘Has God cast away his people?’   Paul identifies himself as current proof that God’s purposes for Israel are being realized in the present time. Paul is saying it is not the case that God has entirely rejected Israel, rather he stills has a plan for Israel, and Paul himself was the living evidence of that plan – he does not point to the future but the present. 

Secondly we notice that Romans 11 focuses on God’s present intentions for Israel when we consider v5: “Even so then, at this present timethere is a remnant according to the election of grace.   (Rom 11:5 NKJ).” Notice particularly the phrase “at this present time” .  Clearly these two references  in v1 and 5 set this first paragraph of Romans 11 in the present age that Paul is writing in. 

I would contend that this concern with Israel’s present salvation continues into the next pericope (it must as Paul doesn't switch his language from talking about the present), which provides the third reason. V13-14 say “For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. (Rom 11:13 NKJ).”   Paul’s most earnest desire is that by his present ministry among the Gentiles he might see the salvation of his kinsmen according to the flesh. Is that not what he saying? Is it not readily apparent that by his current ministry to the gentiles he is expecting to see Jews moved to jealousy when they see Gentile believers sharing in the blessings of the messianic kingdom?

Fourth, the concluding paragraph (v30-32) emphasises the fact that the entire chapter is oriented not toward a future hope but a present expectation. For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, 31 even so these also havenow been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all. (Rom 11:30 NKJ) 

Notice those ‘now’s in these concluding verses, they indicate that Paul’s emphasis on the present responsiveness of Israel and not a future response from them in another age. 

 

Now Romans 11:26 in more detail

 

Romans 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved1, as it is written: "The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; (Rom 11:26 NKJ) 

Or if you read Greek

καὶ οὕτως πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ σωθήσεται, καθὼς γέγραπται• ἥξει ἐκ Σιὼν ὁ ῥυόμενος, ἀποστρέψει ἀσεβείας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβ.

I am amazed by how people import the word ‘then’ into this verse. It changes the whole meaning of the text, shifting the focus to a future event that applies to the nation of Israel alone. However Paul does not say ‘then’, he says ‘so’ οὕτως – Paul is doing nothing more than summarising what he has said already – he is actually saying that the way God’s Israel will be gathered in will be by the process of the grafting of the gentiles into the olive tree that provokes a remnant of Jews to jealousy. How else do we understand the words "so/thus/ therefore"? 

 

 

That's kind of straining at a gnat, more like man's seminary philosophy than the simple flow of that Rom.11 chapter.

 

 

Rom.11:25-29

²⁵ For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

 

Based on what you say, that "fulness of the Gentiles" timing is past already. A little child knows that isn't true yet for today; especially in foreign lands outside the West and Israel which are flocking to Christ Jesus. That's how long God's blindness in part upon unbelieving Israel is to continue, until the last Gentile in this world has believed on Jesus Christ.

 

 

²⁶ And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

²⁷ For this is My covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

 

That event in Isaiah Paul mentions includes the timing of Christ's second coming with, "There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer...". That is when God will remove the sins of those of Israel which He blinded for this world, so His Gospel could go to the Gentiles.

 

 

²⁸ As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.

²⁹ For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

 

This God will not change His mind about. His choosing of the seed of Israel will not be affected by their blindness He put upon them for this present world time. But when our Lord Jesus is revealed from Heaven, if then, in that time, they still refuse Him, that's a different matter. But that time has not come yet today.

[Reformed Baptist]

 

 

Sounds like Covenant Theology, to me.   His view would be true if Israel were a type of the church, but they are not.  No such Israel - Church typology can be found anywhere in the Bible.

 

 

 

Man, you are so wrong about that...

 

Eph.2:11-13

¹¹ Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

¹² That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

¹³ But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

 

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!

 

A commonwealth is especially what Christ's Church is about, as all members inherit together.

 

Do you believe the Church is Israel?

 

I might be butting in where I am not wanted -but hey ho! 

 

I think before such a question can be answered you need to define what you mean by Israel - off the top of my head I can think of at least 4 different ways the Bible uses that term, to which are you referring, a single person, a land, a physical nation or a spiritual nation. It would also be helpful if you carefully define what you mean by church - my understanding of that term is 'all those who God has gathered out of the world in very age to be a people unto himself' but I suspect yours is different to mine  

 

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.  

[Salty]

I might be butting in where I am not wanted -but hey ho! 

 

 

I think before such a question can be answered you need to define what you mean by Israel - off the top of my head I can think of at least 4 different ways the Bible uses that term, to which are you referring, a single person, a land, a physical nation or a spiritual nation. It would also be helpful if you carefully define what you mean by church - my understanding of that term is 'all those who God has gathered out of the world in very age to be a people unto himself' but I suspect yours is different to mine

 

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.  

 

 

No, you're not butting in. All are always welcome even if I don't address posts to all.

 

I don't think what Paul said there in Eph.2 is some big mystery, nor some political treatise. He is talking to... Gentiles that once were without God and His Son, but now... have been made co-inheritors of the promises, like he said there. And those promises are about the promises God's gave to His chosen Israel.

 

This is why Apostle Paul made no distinction about those of Christ's Body being made up of both believing Jew (Israelite) and Gentile.

 

The separation of Israel and Christ's Church is a doctrine of men that came mostly out of Darby's Dispensationalism. It was a doctrine devised to support his pre-trib secret rapture theory. (Yes, I hold to Christ's coming and gathering of His Church after... the tribulation, as written).

[Reformed Baptist]

 

 

Is Jesus not the root of the olive tree Israel and Israelites the branches and as Romans11 says because some branches were broken off it allowed born again Christians to be grafted in. We are warned not to think of ourselves as the true branches of the tree. We will never replace Israel in God the Father's eyes.

 

Four reasons why Paul’s concerns in Romans 11 are present and not future focused. 

The first reason is found in verse 1: I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.   Note how Paul answers his own question, “has God cast away His people?”   He does not answer, “May it never be! For do you not know that in the millennium God will restore Israel to her former glory?” No, rather in answer to his own question ,‘Has God cast away his people?’   Paul identifies himself as current proof that God’s purposes for Israel are being realized in the present time. Paul is saying it is not the case that God has entirely rejected Israel, rather he stills has a plan for Israel, and Paul himself was the living evidence of that plan – he does not point to the future but the present. 

Secondly we notice that Romans 11 focuses on God’s present intentions for Israel when we consider v5: “Even so then, at this present timethere is a remnant according to the election of grace.   (Rom 11:5 NKJ).” Notice particularly the phrase “at this present time” .  Clearly these two references  in v1 and 5 set this first paragraph of Romans 11 in the present age that Paul is writing in. 

I would contend that this concern with Israel’s present salvation continues into the next pericope (it must as Paul doesn't switch his language from talking about the present), which provides the third reason. V13-14 say “For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. (Rom 11:13 NKJ).”   Paul’s most earnest desire is that by his present ministry among the Gentiles he might see the salvation of his kinsmen according to the flesh. Is that not what he saying? Is it not readily apparent that by his current ministry to the gentiles he is expecting to see Jews moved to jealousy when they see Gentile believers sharing in the blessings of the messianic kingdom?

Fourth, the concluding paragraph (v30-32) emphasises the fact that the entire chapter is oriented not toward a future hope but a present expectation. For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, 31 even so these also havenow been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all. (Rom 11:30 NKJ) 

Notice those ‘now’s in these concluding verses, they indicate that Paul’s emphasis on the present responsiveness of Israel and not a future response from them in another age. 

 

Now Romans 11:26 in more detail

 

Romans 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved1, as it is written: "The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; (Rom 11:26 NKJ) 

Or if you read Greek

καὶ οὕτως πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ σωθήσεται, καθὼς γέγραπται• ἥξει ἐκ Σιὼν ὁ ῥυόμενος, ἀποστρέψει ἀσεβείας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβ.

I am amazed by how people import the word ‘then’ into this verse. It changes the whole meaning of the text, shifting the focus to a future event that applies to the nation of Israel alone. However Paul does not say ‘then’, he says ‘so’ οὕτως – Paul is doing nothing more than summarising what he has said already – he is actually saying that the way God’s Israel will be gathered in will be by the process of the grafting of the gentiles into the olive tree that provokes a remnant of Jews to jealousy. How else do we understand the words "so/thus/ therefore"? 

 

 

That's kind of straining at a gnat, more like man's seminary philosophy than the simple flow of that Rom.11 chapter.

 

Maybe you would like to read my subsequent post, and if you questions are not answered in that post then I will be happy to address them.

 

 

 

Based on what you say, that "fulness of the Gentiles" timing is past already. A little child knows that isn't true yet for today; especially in foreign lands outside the West and Israel which are flocking to Christ Jesus. That's how long God's blindness in part upon unbelieving Israel is to continue, until the last Gentile in this world has believed on Jesus Christ.

 

That is not what I am saying, and in truth there is no way my words should be interpreted in that fashion. the position I am presenting is properly understood as a historicist position - that means Paul's present tense explanation is still in force, i.e. still occurring today. It will go on until all the the gentile are gathered in, that will be the point in when when all Israel will also have been saved - Paul is entirely silent in regards to what happens after that in Romans 11 as I have explained in some detail already

[Salty]

 

 

Sounds like Covenant Theology, to me.   His view would be true if Israel were a type of the church, but they are not.  No such Israel - Church typology can be found anywhere in the Bible.

 

 

 

Man, you are so wrong about that...

 

Eph.2:11-13

¹¹ Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

¹² That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

¹³ But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

 

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!

 

A commonwealth is especially what Christ's Church is about, as all members inherit together.

 

Do you believe the Church is Israel?

 

 

Not the state of Israel, but God's Israel, yes, most definitely. When Jesus is revealed to the unbelieving Jews at His coming, many of them will also be brought back into His fold, becoming a part of His Church. So when I speak of the idea of The Church, I mean the whole Church of God, including the OT saints.

 

Moreover, the Promise of Salvation by Faith was first given through Abraham, prior to the nation of Israel's existence on earth, and prior to God's giving Israel His laws. By that first Promise all those of Faith have become the children of Abraham, which is exactly what Apostle Paul taught in Galatians. That's why Paul mentioned the subject of God's promises in Eph.2 when speaking to what the Gentile believers have inherited with the believers of Israel...

 

¹² That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

 

That Promise by Faith did not involve the rebellious factions among the Israelites, but only those who believed like Abraham. It also involved God's Birthright which was part of that first Promise to Abraham, by Faith. So that first Salvation Promise by Faith and the Birthright, both go together and CANNOT ever be separated. It continued through Abraham's son Isaac, then through his son Jacob whom God renamed 'Israel' to represent that Promise & Birthright.

 

When Jacob slept making a rock his pillow, he had heavenly dreams, then awoke and said God must be in this place. Then he anointed that stone and called it Bethel, which means 'house of God'. That stone followed Israel throughout its history. God also agreed and called it Bethel. Jacob wrestled with the Angel of The Lord and God renamed him Israel, which is about those who overcome with God's help. And to that name Israel God attached His Promise first given to Abraham along with His Birthright.

 

God's Birthright involves His promises to Abraham, that then went to Isaac, then Jacob, then to Jacob's son Joseph, and then to Jacob's two sons Ephraim and Manasseh, where it still... rests today, with the portion that Judah would keep the royal sceptre rule staying with Judah (house of David).

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

Sounds like Covenant Theology, to me.   His view would be true if Israel were a type of the church, but they are not.  No such Israel - Church typology can be found anywhere in the Bible.

 

 

 

Man, you are so wrong about that...

 

Eph.2:11-13

¹¹ Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

¹² That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

¹³ But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

 

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!

 

A commonwealth is especially what Christ's Church is about, as all members inherit together.

 

Do you believe the Church is Israel?

 

I might be butting in where I am not wanted -but hey ho! 

 

I think before such a question can be answered you need to define what you mean by Israel - off the top of my head I can think of at least 4 different ways the Bible uses that term, to which are you referring, a single person, a land, a physical nation or a spiritual nation. It would also be helpful if you carefully define what you mean by church - my understanding of that term is 'all those who God has gathered out of the world in very age to be a people unto himself' but I suspect yours is different to mine

 

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.  

 

I guess I am referring to what is known as supercessionism or the more common term, "Replacement Theology" which is the view that God has replaced biblical Israel with the Church and that the blessings of Israel's restoration spoken of by the prophets are really speaking to the blessings of the Church age.

[Qnts2]

 

I might be butting in where I am not wanted -but hey ho! 

 

 

 

I think before such a question can be answered you need to define what you mean by Israel - off the top of my head I can think of at least 4 different ways the Bible uses that term, to which are you referring, a single person, a land, a physical nation or a spiritual nation. It would also be helpful if you carefully define what you mean by church - my understanding of that term is 'all those who God has gathered out of the world in very age to be a people unto himself' but I suspect yours is different to mine

 

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.  

 

 

I am butting in also.

 

You have 4 different so called definitions of Israel.

1. Jacob was renamed Israel, and the children of Jacob are called the children of Israel, or Israel as a short hand term

2. a land.   That is a modern view but is not biblical. In the bible, a nation comes from the Hebrew word 'goy'. It refers to a people group of a common ancestor. Certain land belonged to certain people groups. Egypt was a people group who owned the land called 'the land of Egypt'. Why the land of Egypt. It was an area of land which belonged to a people group called Egyptians, so it was the 'land of Egypt'. The land was never called Egypt, but is called the land of Egypt. Likewise, Israel is a people group made up of the children of Israel/Jacob, who were given a land. That land is referred to as the 'land of Israel'. Never just Israel, but the land of Israel. 

3. A nation. That is correct and has already been explained. A nation is a people group, not a country. The sons of Jacob are starting point of the children of Israel, and in biblical terms is a nation.

4. Israel is not a spiritual nation, ever, in scripture. Today, Israel is made up of people; some who are saved and most who are not saved. There is reference in scripture to a foolish nation, made up of people from diverse nations. The foolish nation is to make Israel jealous. The foolish nation is the church.     

[Guest shiloh357]

The NT never refers to the Church as "Israel."  The word name "Israel" is used 71 times in the NT and in each case it is refers to the descendents of Jacab.  It is always an ethnic word and it is never spiritualized to refer to the Church or Gentile Christians.