New Israel

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Do you see the Church as the new Israel?

No.

 

[dqhall]

First, let's deal with the doctrine of the New Israel. The New Israel doesn't replace Israel any more than New York replaces York. However, as a Jew, I still find the term highly insulting. Israel is God's first born son. When it comes to election,the Jews are loved for the sake of the patriarchs, and all Israel shall be saved, according to Scripture. Think of Israel and the Church as two children of a loving Father. Do you think the Father plays favorites? Does he replace the older child with the younger? Christ is King of the Jews AND Lord of the Church.

Check out my tagline of Cardinal Lustiger.

I recall Jesus giving testimony about two sons whose father asked them to work in the family vineyard (Matt. 21). Regardless of what they said they were going to do, one went to work and the other did not. Who will the father honor?

So it is with Israel and the Church. Both may be called by the Father to do good. Only those who accomplish it will receive the greater glory.

 

[Ken Rank]

Do you see the Church as the new Israel?

No, that would mean that God has made many promises that He will have broken. It is well understood by most of mainstream Christianity that Israel was cut off. However, there are many additional context related facts that are tied to this. I won't go into them all, nobody asked and I don't like hearing myself talk (so to speak)..... so let me just add that if you read Deut. 30:1-6 you'll see God scatter Israel into the nations because of disobedience, and God promising to call them back. If you read Hosea 1 you'll see the same thing in more detail with each of the names of Hosea's family telling the story. There, Israel is called "not my people" by God but then also promised to be called, "Son of the Living God." The return of Israel from the nations and the reunification of the whole House of Israel is THE most repeated prophesy in Scripture and it is unfulfilled at this point.

Let me throw something else out for consideration. Go read Romans 9 starting around verse 19ish. Notice that Paul is quoting Hosea, Isaiah and one other. Go read the chapters that contain the verses he is quoting and apply that context to what he is saying in Romans. Pay attention to Rom. 9:27. Notice it says, "all of Israel will be saved." He is quoting Isaiah 10:22. Go read that verse, look at that whole chapter and then come back with that context and read Romans again. I think it might open up a new window of understanding for you, I know it did me.

Blessings.
Ken

 

[Open Heart]

I recall Jesus giving testimony about two sons whose father asked them to work in the family vineyard (Matt. 21). Regardless of what they said they were going to do, one went to work and the other did not. Who will the father honor?

So it is with Israel and the Church. Both may be called by the Father to do good. Only those who accomplish it will receive the greater glory.

I don't see where it applies to Israel and the Church. The Church isn't any more obedient to the moral laws than Jews. As far as believing the gospel, the only reasons Jews don't believe is because God has placed a veil over their eyes until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, thus they are not responsible for their lack of belief.

 

[Tree of Life]

Do you see the Church as the new Israel?

Not exactly. I see "the church" and "Israel" as basically synonymous terms.

The NT refers to OT Israel as "the church". In Acts 7:38 Steven refers to Israel as the ekklessia in the wilderness. The Greek term for church (ekklessia) is related to the OT term for congregation (qahal). The LXX translates qahal as ekklessia. So OT Israel was the church - the assembly or congregation - of God.

Furthermore, the NT refers to the NT church as "the Israel of God" (Galatians 5:15) and the offspring of Abraham (Galatians 3:7, Galatians 3:29, Romans 4:12).

So the terms are, more or less, synonymous. As a member of the church I have fellowship with Abraham and all the OT saints. I am a son of Abraham, I belong to the covenant, I'm an heir of the world to come, I'm a citizen of the New Jerusalem.

Sometimes "Israel" is used in Scripture (usually in the NT) to refer only to the physical descendants of Abraham - Israel according to the flesh. But, more or less, Israel is the church and the church is Israel. There is only one people of God.

 

[SolomonVII]

Not exactly. I see "the church" and "Israel" as basically synonymous terms.

The NT refers to OT Israel as "the church". In Acts 7:38 Steven refers to Israel as the ekklessia in the wilderness. The Greek term for church (ekklessia) is related to the OT term for congregation (qahal). The LXX translates qahal as ekklessia. So OT Israel was the church - the assembly or congregation - of God.

Furthermore, the NT refers to the NT church as "the Israel of God" (Galatians 5:15) and the offspring of Abraham (Galatians 3:7, Galatians 3:29, Romans 4:12).

So the terms are, more or less, synonymous. As a member of the church I have fellowship with Abraham and all the OT saints. I am a son of Abraham, I belong to the covenant, I'm an heir of the world to come, I'm a citizen of the New Jerusalem.

Sometimes "Israel" is used in Scripture (usually in the NT) to refer only to the physical descendants of Abraham - Israel according to the flesh. But, more or less, Israel is the church and the church is Israel. There is only one people of God.

The symbol of the Church as Israel is the vision of the woman in heaven in Revelation, adorned by the twelve stars.

 

[Uber Genius]

Do you see the Church as the new Israel?

Traditionally known as "Replacement Theology."

Replacement theology is the teaching that the Christian church has replaced national Israel regarding the plan, purpose, and promises of God.

Therefore, many of the promises that God made to Israel must be spiritualized. For example, when it speaks of Israel being restored to the land, this really means that the Christian church will be blessed. Also, covenants made with Israel are fulfilled in the Christian church so, for example,

1. The Jewish people are no longer God's chosen people. Instead, the Christian church now makes up God's chosen people.
2. In the New Testament after Pentecost, the term "Israel" refers to the church.
3. The Mosaic covenant (Exodus 20) is replaced by the new covenant (Luke 22:20).
4. Actual circumcision is replaced by a circumcision of the heart (Rom. 2:29).

for more info see:https://carm.org/questions-replacement-theology (source of info above)

We would need to see significant warrant in order to adopt a hermeneutic principle like replacement theology. Paul in Romans 11 says,
"17Now if some branches have been broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others to share in the nourishment of the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, remember this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you."

If anything, it seems that gentiles are "grafted in" to the believing remnant of Jews, rather than the other way around.

Further in Rom. 2:28-29 Paul makes the following observation, "For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; But he is a Jew who 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."

Replacement theology seem hard to reconcile. That said it is worth the effort to fully engage the arguments and proof-texts for oneself.

 

[Tree of Life]

Traditionally known as "Replacement Theology."

Replacement theology is the teaching that the Christian church has replaced national Israel regarding the plan, purpose, and promises of God.

You should know that "Replacement Theology" is not traditional terminology. "Replacement Theology" is a pejorative term used to mischaracterize, misrepresent, and attack Covenant Theology which would not call itself "Replacement Theology" and does not believe that the church replaces Israel.

 

[redblue22]

Are some of you saying all Jews and all Christians will be in heaven? (saved, etc)

 

[Tree of Life]

Are some of you saying all Jews and all Christians will be in heaven? (saved, etc)

I'm saying that all true believers will be saved. Before Christ there were true believers who believed in Christ as they embraced the revelation that they had and the shadows that represented Christ such as the temple sacrificial system and levitical priesthood.

Abraham, for instance, was justified by his faith (Genesis 15:6). What was Abraham's faith in? God's promise of a miraculous son. Abraham believed in the miracle child that would come from his loins. Ultimately, this would be Jesus Christ. Abraham embraced Jesus without ever knowing him by name.

But so called "Jews" today who do not embrace Christ are not true Jews at all but imposters.

 

[Open Heart]

The NT refers to OT Israel as "the church".

Really? So THIS refers to the Church?

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. Romans 11:25

And THIS?

Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee Philippians 3:5

And THIS?

But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children ofIsrael, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. Revelation 2:14

And MORE, including 21 verses in Acts that clearly refer to the Children of Israel, not the Church.

 

[Uber Genius]

You should know that "Replacement Theology" is not traditional terminology. "Replacement Theology" is a pejorative term used to mischaracterize, misrepresent, and attack Covenant Theology which would not call itself "Replacement Theology" and does not believe that the church replaces Israel.

"The title “replacement theology” is often viewed as a synonym for “supersessionism.”
This title appears to be the most common designation in popular literature, at least for now. Many theologians who espouse a supersessionist view have used the terms “replace” and “replacement” in regard to Israel and the church to warrant the title “replacement theology.” It is not simply the case that nonsupersessionists have imposed the title “replacement theology” against the will of supersessionists." (TMSJ Spring 2009, "Various Forms of Replacement Theology," Dr. Michael J. Vlach)

So it seems I am in good company when I call it that. But the term "traditional" can refer to the last 50-100 years. I was not giving a historical gloss on supersessionism but that said, I have no intention of being derogatory. Or appealing to emotion by using loaded descriptors.

Above is a depiction of what I have experienced in some teaching I'm calling replacement theology.

Here is an illustration that properly depicts the biblical position held by a vast majority of Reformed thinkers.

Here is a site that defends the supersessionism view, http://replacementtheology.org

That said, there are a significant amount of historical references to choose from regarding supersessionism.

Martin Luther wrote:
“For such ruthless wrath of God is sufficient evidence that they [i.e., the Jewish people] assuredly have erred and gone astray. Even a child can comprehend this. For one dare not regard God as so cruel that he would punish his own people so long, so terrible, so unmercifully … Therefore this work of wrath is proof that the Jews, surely rejected by God, are no longer his people, and neither is he any longer their God” (“On the Jews and Their Lies,” (Trans. Martin H. Bertram, in Luther’s Works [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971], p. 265).

Elements of Replacement Theology can be traced as far back as Marcion (A.D. 160), who carried on a theological crusade to purge the Church of what he perceived to be dangerous Jewish errors and influences. Later, many of these same anti-Judaic sentiments found their way into the thinking (and writings) of the Early Church fathers. Irenaeus (c. 180), for instance, wrote, “The Jews have rejected the Son of God and cast Him out of the vineyard when they slew Him. Therefore, God has justly rejected them and has given to the Gentiles outside the vineyard the fruits of its cultivation” (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, [1885-1887], Volume 1, p. 493).

Over time, statements like these became the basis for full-blown anti-Semitism in some sectors of Christianity. Anything Jewish was renounced as an attempt to subvert and “Judaize” the Church. Teachings like chiliasm (millenarianism), for instance, were denounced as “Jewish fables.” The Early Church, which was clearly and undeniably Jewish, was described as “primitive,” unenlightened, and beset by erroneous notions that were carry-overs from ancient Judaism.

For more see:http://www.jeremiah111.org/Replacement Theology/replacement_theology.htm

This topic is a huge one involving systematic and progressive theologies, hermeneutically and exegetically challenging material. Dispensational, covenantal, eschatological inferences. Scholars take years to weigh-in on the slightest aspects of supersessionism. We won't solve this here.

 

[Tree of Life]

Really?

Yes. I offered a few examples in my former post. What are your thoughts on those references?

So THIS refers to the Church?

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. Romans 11:25

No. As I said above, sometimes "Israel" refers to the physical descendants of Abraham - Israel according to the flesh. This is one such occasion.

And THIS?

Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee Philippians 3:5

Same as above.

And THIS?

But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children ofIsrael, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. Revelation 2:14

This reference refers to OT Israel of the past which would be the church of God, so yes.

And MORE, including 21 verses in Acts that clearly refer to the Children of Israel, not the Church.

Like I said, sometimes "Israel" refers to the physical descendants of Abraham. But the NT also uses it to refer to the church.

 

[Open Heart]

This is essentially replacement theology, since "national isreal" is essentially Israel, and all believers (whether believing Israel or believing gentiles) are essentially the Church.

 

[Open Heart]

Like I said, sometimes "Israel" refers to the physical descendants of Abraham. But the NT also uses it to refer to the church.

Can you give your best example? Perhaps I'll even agree with you. But I doubt it.

 

[Tree of Life]

Can you give your best example? Perhaps I'll even agree with you. But I doubt it.

Sure.

Several times in Galatians Paul refers to believers in Christ as children of Abraham:

1. In Galatians 1:7-9 says that those "of faith" are sons of Abraham. "Of faith" means those who believe in Jesus and the gentiles are explicitly included here. So gentile believers in Jesus are sons of Abraham.
2. In Galatians 3:29 Paul says that those who belong to Christ are Abraham's offspring - literally Abraham's sperma (seed). This obviously includes gentiles.
3. In Galatians 4:7 Paul says that Gentile believers are sons and heirs. In Christ, gentile believers have a heritage in the land of God.
4. In Galatians 4:26 Paul says that believers in Christ are children of the heavenly Jerusalem.
5. Paul concludes his arguments in Galatians 6:16 by calling believers in Christ "The Israel of God".

Paul's other letters:

1. In Philippians 3:3 Paul says of believers in Christ that "we are the circumcision". Believers in Jesus are "the circumcision", in other words "Israel".
2. In Romans 2:28-29 Pauls says that no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly - or in other words via physical descent, circumcision, etc. Circumcision is of the heart. Believers in Christ Jesus are the true Israel.

Peter...

1. Peter calls the church "elect exiles of the dispersion" in 1 Peter 1:1. This is a term that refers to Israel in exile and dispersed around the world. Believers in Jesus are this exiled diaspora.

I could mention more, but we can start with that.

 

[redblue22]

This is essentially replacement theology, since "national isreal" is essentially Israel, and all believers (whether believing Israel or believing gentiles) are essentially the Church.

How would you correct it?

 

[Uber Genius]

This is essentially replacement theology, since "national isreal" is essentially Israel, and all believers (whether believing Israel or believing gentiles) are essentially the Church.

.....no.

All Jews are Israel (J)

All who have faith in God are people of God and are saved (F)

Not all Israel is national Israel as you suggest. This is called equivocation.

Some Israel are national and some are people of God.

Romans discusses Jewish believers,

"1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, has discovered? 2If Abraham was indeed justified by works, he had something to boast about, but not before God. 3For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.” (Rom. 4:1)

"
13For the promise that Abraham would be heir of the world was not made to him and his descendants through the Law, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14For if those who live by the Law are heirs, faith is useless and the promise is worthless, 15because the Law brings wrath. And where there is no law, there is no transgression.

16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may rest on grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.”c He is our father in the presence of God, in whom he believed, the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being what does not yet exist.

18Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.”d 19Without weakening in his faith, he acknowledged the decrepitness of his body (since he was about a hundred years old) and the lifelessness of Sarah’s womb.

20Yet he did not waver through disbelief in the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21being fully persuaded that God was able to do what He had promised. 22That is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.”e

23Now the words “it was credited to him” were written not only for Abraham, 24but also for us, to whom righteousness will be credited—for us who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25He was delivered over to death for our trespasses and was raised to life for our justification.(Rom. 4:13-23)

So faith in Christ, not works, produces righteousness for both believing. Jew and gentile alike, as the graphic represents.

What replacement theologians do is improperly exegete passages that are regarding God's plan for Israel and substitute "replace," those with the "Church" receiving the fulfillment.

It relies on allegorization of passages that are not allegorical in their literary form.

Hope this helps.

 

[Soyeong]

Do you see the Church as the new Israel?

The New Covenant, which was only made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, is based upon better promises and this is one of them:

Jeremiah 31:37 This is what the Lord says: “Only if the heavens above can be measured and the foundations of the earth below be searched out will I reject all the descendants of Israel because of all they have done,” declares the Lord.

The same Greek word "ecclesia" is used in the Septuagint to refer to the assembly of Israel in the wilderness, so the Church can not replace Israel because Israel has always been the Church. When translators of the Bible inconsistently translate "ecclesia" as "church" when it refers to an assembly of believers, but translate it as "assembly" everywhere else, they create the false impression that the Bible is talking about something that is brand new.

 

[Tree of Life]

What replacement theologians do is improperly exegete passages that are regarding God's plan for Israel and substitute "replace," those with the "Church" receiving the fulfillment.

It relies on allegorization of passages that are not allegorical in their literary form.

Hope this helps.

I do think that Jesus is the heir of all the promises of God - they were ultimately made to him (Galatians 3:16). So all of those who are in Christ are heirs of the promises of God (Galatians 3:9, Galatians 3:14). So I have no problem applying all of the promises of God to the church. In Christ there is some spiritualization and expansion. For instance, according to the promises of God the church can hope to inherit not just the land of Canaan, but the entire earth (Romans 4:13 - note that Paul says that God promised Abraham that he would inherit the "cosmos").

There is not a single OT promise of God that does not apply to Christ, and therefore that does not apply to those who are in Christ and Christ in them.