the bride of Christ

[Guest Butero]

You were more than happy to define the good tree as being the commonwealth of Israel.  Why not do that with the wild olive tree?  The answer you gave tells me you don't know what the wild olive tree is. 

 

You stated that the good tree is the commonwealth of Israel, and it was an ethnic term.  If that is the case, how can a natural Jew be cut out of the commonwealth of Israel?  Lets examine what it means if the good tree is the commonwealth of Israel, based on what is taught in Romans.  Natural branches are removed for unbelief, and those natural branches are Jews.  Wild branches are graffed in when they accept Christ as their Lord and Savior.  That mix of believing Jews and gentiles would now become the commonwealth of Israel.  That means a whole lot of Jewish people, who are ethnic Jews, are no longer part of the commonwealth of Israel, so when we speak of who inherits the land of promise, we are speaking of those connected to that good tree.  That includes Christian gentiles.  In the sight of God, Israel is the church, Christians, whatever term you want to use for believers in Christ, made up of natural Jews and adopted Jews. 

[Guest shiloh357]

I defined the natural olive tree according to how the Scriptures portray it.  I didn't make that definition up.   The Bible defines the wild olive tree as the Gentiles.   That doesn't need to be labored upon, but you don't have a good  argument to make so you dance in circles around minutia.  

 

The commonwealth of Israel is not the physical Nation of Israel.  The commonwealth of Israel per this metaphor is the Kingdom of God.  It really is so simple, Butero.   But you are so busy trying to prove you're a Jew, that you miss the very easy to understand point that Paul is trying to make. 

 

It is the nation of Israel that was given the Land.  That land promise is not spiritual.  It is a physical promises made to national Israel. Genitles are  not grafted into the nation of Israel. They are not Israelites.

 

Honestly, if you stop trying to prove unbiblical concepts, it would really help.

 

No God does not see Israel as the Church.  The Bible does not say that.   YOU say that but that is replacement theology  which is of the devil and all followers of Jesus should reject that as false teaching.

[Guest Butero]

That is so typical of you Shiloh to make a closing rant like that.  Let me make one thing clear.  I didn't define the good olive tree as being the commonwealth of Israel.  You did that.  I asked you what it was, and that was your answer.  Now you say that is not your definition, but how scripture defines it.  Where in scripture does it say that the good olive tree is the commonwealth of Israel?  What chapter and verse can I look up and find that definition? 

 

So now you are saying that the good tree is the Kingdom of God, and that is the commonwealth of Israel.  Then what you are saying is that the Jews were originally part of the Kingdom of God, and the gentiles were not part of the Kingdom of God.  Through Christ, the Jews that don't believe are cut off from the Kingdom of God and the gentiles that believe become part of the Kingdom of God.  At least I understand your position.  Lets add some additional scripture to this discussion.  Can we agree that when the Bible describes the Jewish people, it often describes them as the circumcision, and when it describes the gentiles, it describes them as the uncircumcision?  From Romans 2:26-29

 

26  Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

27  And shall not the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfill the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

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. 

 

If the gentiles, the uncircumcision, obey God, they are "counted for circumcision."  A gentile is counted as a Jew. 

[Guest shiloh357]

Butero,

 

First of all, I didn't rant.   The notion that Israel is the Church IS replacement theology and it IS false teaching.  It's not a rant; it's the truth.

 

Secondly, I am not "now" saying that the commonwealth of Israel is the Kingdom of God, as if I am changing my position.  I am simply clarifying it.   The Kingdom of God is made up of both Jews and Gentiles who have put their faith in God.

 

One thing you need to understand is that the olive tree in Romans 11 is a METAPHOR.    It is not meant to address every issue related to Israel's relationship to the Church.  It is a metaphor to illustrate ONE singular point, and it needs to be understood in the context of the entire line of thought that begins in Romans 9:1.   Romans 9-11  is a defense of the justness of God to cause a partial blindness to come upon national Israel.   He is not trying to define who is or is not Jewish.   Using Romans 11 to define who a Jew is, is a misuse of the passage.

 

Romans 1 addresses the pagans and their rejection of the truth.   Romans 2 is where Paul turns his attention to the Jews, to inform them that they are not necessarily at an advantage simply because they are Jews.   The Jews in Paul's day saw themselves as privileged and that their "Jewishness'  shielded them from the contempt that would fall on the pagans.   They wore their ethnicity on their sleeves and Paul warns them that they are actually MORE accountable because they have received the law. 

 

Paul in Romans 2 an in Romans 3 anticipates how a Jew would respond to his arguments and so he addresses a hypothetical interlocutor, an antagonist on the Jewish side.  He knows how they think and the responses they will make.   So it is that Jewish interlocutor that he is talking to in Romans 2:26-29.

 

Paul's point in Romans 2 is not that Gentiles are Jews or are justified if they keep the law.   His point is that the Jews are NOT justified before God on  the grounds of circumcision.  So if the Jews who disobey the law are as sinful as the uncircumcised Gentiles, and the Gentiles who keep the law are considered as good as those  Jews who are circumcised, then both are on equal footing. Both are equally condemned.   Gentiles who keep the law are not better than the Jews who disobey the law.   Paul said that circumcision only has value if you are obedient, but he is addressing the disobedience.   Circumcision does not avail anyone before God.

 

So Paul finishing is address to the Jew in Chapter 2:28-29  is explaining to the Jew what it means to be a Jew.  He is telling the Jew that true Jewishness is about living one's life as a praise to God, which is a play on words with the word Judah.

 

Paul is not telling Gentiles they are Jews.  He is telling Jews what it means to be truly Jewish.

[Guest Butero]

First you stated that the good olive tree is the commonwealth of Israel.  Then you said, "The commonwealth of Israel per this metaphor is the kingdom of God."  I never said you changed your opinion.  I just referred back to what you said.  You also stated that your definition of the good tree being the commonwealth of Israel is a Bible definition, so I am still waiting on you to give me chapter and verse where it says that?  You made the claim about what the good tree is, and I simply stated what that would mean if that were true. 

 

As to the other scriptures I gave you from Romans chapter 2, you gave me your interpretation as to the meaning, but that doesn't mean you are correct about any of it.  That is the problem with so much of this debate.  We both read the same scriptures, and come up with an entirely different view as to what they mean.  There is no way in absolute terms to prove who is correct.  As such, it would be futile for me to just accuse you of giving a wrong interpretation and saying mine is correct.  It would be going in circles, though I believe that to be the case. 

[Guest shiloh357]

if I am wrong about Romans 2:26-29,  then take everything I said line by line and show what I said is wrong.    What I said is correct and you can't refute it, so the only option for you is to reject what I said on the grounds that no one can really know for sure.   That's just a cop out. 

[Ezra]

Dispensationalism = jews replace gentiles as "Israel of God"

 

Misrepresentation. "The Israel of God" is a reference to the Church in Heaven (Jew and Gentile in one Body). 

 

At the same time the kingdom of Israel on earth  -- redeemed and restored under Christ's authority -- will also be a reality in the future.

 

At present -- the Church Age -- God makes no distinction between Jew and Gentile.  All Jews are commanded to obey the Gospel.  All Gentiles are commanded to obey the Gospel.

 

After "the fulness of the Gentiles be come in" (Rom 11:25) God will resume His dealings with Israel and the Jews as a separate entity.  The next verse says "All Israel shall be saved", but that remains until the Second Coming of Christ.

 

[Guest shiloh357]

inchrist you don't understand dispensationalism, it is clear.  You can't bring yourself to say that Jesus is God.   So frankly, I don't take anything you have to say, seriously.

[Guest shiloh357]

No, I am a dispensationalist.    Dispensationalism teaches that Israel and the Church are radically separate.  Israel doesn't replace the church and the church doesn't replace Israel. 

 

"Israel of God"  is a reference to the remnant of Jewish believers that stand apart from the Judaizers of Galatians where the phrase occurs.

 

I am not accepting any correction from a nonbeliever who can't claim Jesus is God.  If you can't claim that Jesus is God, you really don't have a place at the table in this discussion.

[Ezra]

Your mistake is, you are presenting this phrase as the followong And then all Israel shall be saved.” In other words, you change the word “so” to “then” in order to build up a case of this notion of a future seperate plan for Israel.

This is not a doctrine based on semantics, therefore that is NOT a mistake.  Even if this passage was absent altogether, the truth still stands.

 

Just before Christ's ascension, His apostles asked Him this question: "When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6).

Did Christ rebuke them?  No

Did Christ tell them that God had no such plan? No

Did they believe that this would be literally fulfilled?  Yes

On what grounds did they hold this belief?  OT prophecies and the promise of Christ Himself.

 

So whether you want to play word games with Romans 11 or not, the restoration of the kingdom of Israel was an absolute given for the apostles.  And that is because it is an absolute given for God.  Note carefully what is stated by the Lord Himself regarding this future kingdom (Mt 19:28; Lk 22:30): "And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel... And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."