The Commonwealth of Israel to be added to the MJ Statement of Faith? (bis)

[GuardianShua]

Didn't say that. Just because a word happens to start with a particular set of letters does not mean that someone purposely thought of some pagan god from several millennia ago and thought to themselves, I know, lets call this after that god, or let's use that name for this purpose. That is a ludicrous idea. On the basis of how your mind worked on that there may have been an obscure pagan god called Gua - ergo, you are a pagan, yes?

The word catholic (derived via Late Latin catholicus, from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning "universal") comes from the Greek phrase καθόλου (katholou), meaning "on the whole", "according to the whole" or "in general", and is a combination of the Greek words κατά meaning "about" and όλος meaning "whole". The word in English can mean either "including a wide variety of things; all-embracing" or "of the Roman Catholic faith" as "relating to the historic doctrine and practice of the Western Church."

It was first used to describe the Christian Church in the early 2nd century to emphasize its universal scope. In the context of Christian ecclesiology, it has a rich history and several usages. In non-ecclesiastical use, it derives its English meaning directly from its root, and is currently used to mean the following:
universal or of general interest;
liberal, having broad interests, or wide sympathies; or
inclusive, inviting and containing strong evangelism.

Pope Gregory and Paganism.
The attitude of the Catholic Church toward paganism is best summed up by Pope Gregory the Great, in his words to a missionary: “You must not interfere with any traditional belief or religious observance that can be harmonized with Christianity.”
Not only were the Congregations divided by Gnosticism, but enticed by philosophy and paganism also, and there were geographic divisions as well.
Pope Gregory 540 – 12 March 604.

What were the Pagan beliefs harmonized with Christianity? Maybe the answer can be found by comparing Orthodox Judaism to Paganism.

 

[Avodat]

The word catholic (derived via Late Latin catholicus, from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning "universal") comes from the Greek phrase καθόλου (katholou), meaning "on the whole", "according to the whole" or "in general", and is a combination of the Greek words κατά meaning "about" and όλος meaning "whole". The word in English can mean either "including a wide variety of things; all-embracing" or "of the Roman Catholic faith" as "relating to the historic doctrine and practice of the Western Church."

It was first used to describe the Christian Church in the early 2nd century to emphasize its universal scope. In the context of Christian ecclesiology, it has a rich history and several usages. In non-ecclesiastical use, it derives its English meaning directly from its root, and is currently used to mean the following:
universal or of general interest;
liberal, having broad interests, or wide sympathies; or
inclusive, inviting and containing strong evangelism.

Pope Gregory and Paganism.
The attitude of the Catholic Church toward paganism is best summed up by Pope Gregory the Great, in his words to a missionary: “You must not interfere with any traditional belief or religious observance that can be harmonized with Christianity.”
Not only were the Congregations divided by Gnosticism, but enticed by philosophy and paganism also, and there were geographic divisions as well.
Pope Gregory 540 – 12 March 604.

What were the Pagan beliefs harmonized with Christianity? Maybe the answer can be found by comparing Orthodox Judaism to Paganism.

I know!

 

[visionary]

We all know... still don't fall for the idea.. just because catholic means universal, doesn't mean we fall for its usage in that decree... it is just too easily crossover mentally trick.. re-write the decree to say universal.. and then the mental bridge is no longer there.

 

[mercy1061]

Not sure where to start with the many difficulties in this OP.

Amen.

Maybe, to start off, I would like to know: what is a 'Pauline' Church? I've never heard of it in many years as a Christian and over 20 as a Minister.

Shaul was a pharisee, therefore he belonged to a religious community before he was rejected by his brothers. Many view Shaul as a preacher against the law, but if we uphold his legal position as pharisee we know he only built the gentile churches with the law of Moshe in mind. Traditionally, commonwealth refers to the law and customs determined by the people; the faith of the people decide what is right or wrong; the carnal law or government can be modified by a simple vote. Since Moshe walked by faith in the wilderness; Israel was not a sovreign nation under Moshe. Likewise Shaul has ministered outside of Israel, therefore he is a true jew living among gentiles, "circumcised on the 8th day". Shaul is not a converted gentile living among gentiles; he still visited the synagogue on the Sabbath. Shaul is an ambassador or citizen from Israel. A lawful citizen of ancient Israel may need to adequately define what "Messianic Judiasm" is all about.

The vast majority are clearly Jesus Churches (to one extent or another I admit). I've never heard of a Church that has been built around just a handful of letters from the latter part of The Book.

Amen. In fact, calling it "Pauline churches" exclude the actual commonwealth of Israel. The commonwealth of Israel is located in Israel, which would naturally require citizenship and proper government identification or Israeli passport. I would even include the ancient custom passed down from the patriarch Abraham "circumcision on the 8th day" as a requirement.

The Nicene Creed wasn't founded just to allow ecumenism, it was founded to state the minimum that those who take the title of Christian should hold to, in order to prevent a watering down of the basic tenets of the faith (although nowadays it seems you can believe, or disbelieve, anything - and many do!). That is rather different. There are in existence other Creeds, written at varying times, so why change just the Nicene Creed? As we have not defined what the Commonwealth of Israel actually is, I cannot see any benefit in removing the sentence 'one holy catholic and apostolic Church', unless you mis-understand the use of the word catholic, as many do. It has nothing to do with a denomination headquartered in Roma.

The Catholics primarily refer to "Western religion" or practices, that it is, it's origin do not stem from the commonwealth of Israel. Remember it were the Romans who actually crucified the Messiah; the jews only desired him to be martyred. I think the term from Pharisee Shaul to the ephesians "commonwealth of Israel" may refer to the 12 brothers born of Jacob having all things in common. Pharisee Shaul struggled with his image or stature among the other jewish apostles; since he planned to have Yeshua's followers crucified.

Btw. Just a minor correction to why it is better to use this tag. If you want only MJ's to debate an issue the tag you have used here is correct.

Amen. It is always a pleasure discussing with you.

 

[mercy1061]

I have reopened this thread under the tag debate for MJ’s only because I was informed that the tag MJ only would prevent some to debate my thread what is against my intention:
We acknowledge the Commonwealth of Israel which includes the Kahal Yeshua (Messianic Gentiles and Jews), the Pauline Church covered by the blood covenant of Yeshua who are grafted in the Olive tree of Israel (Romans 11:17) and the broken branches of Israel (unbelieving Jews) (Romans 11:24)
We hope and expect the return of Yeshua Ha Mashiach to establish His Thousand Year Kingdom in Zion (Rev. 20.4) At this opportunity, whole Israel will have the possibility to be saved ( Romans 11:26)
As additional remark (may not to be included into the Statement of Faith), Messianic Gentiles find their identity in Yeshua Ha Yehud Meshichim Gadol ( Yeshua the Messianic Jew the Great) as spiritual Messianic Jew. Pauline Christians, as long as they are not aware of and endorse this identity are psychologically incomplete members of the Commonwealth of Israel.
To Lulav:
I would not vote for this, for many reasons…
I would be grateful if you could elaborate the reasons.
I think it would be important for MJ to develop a Messianic Creed since some members of our MJ forum are unhappy with the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed has been developed for finding a common denominator for the sheer diversity of Christianity. The Nicene Creed is the common ground and the base to allow ecumenism. For my part, I would change the item “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.” We believe in the Commonwealth of Israel…”
The community of Messianic Judaism is also diverse and need a common denominator. I feel unease about the necessity to protect the Jewish Identity with regard to Messianic Gentiles although we are one in the Messiah. In the future, if Heaven allows me, I will write an apology of the One Law Theology. Finally, Ha Mashiach will decide who is Messianic Jew and who is not in due time.
However, in the present situation, I understand the necessity for some congregations to remain as Jewish as possible since the focus of their ministry is to bring the gospel to Jews and too many gentiles may decrease their credibility. On another side, I sympathize with Torah observant Gentiles who are following their call. Some Hebrew Christians find them ridicule. I appeal on those who know better to help them to be truer and more natural Torah observant.
I find the Divine Invitation is presently tactically the only way to minister the classical Christianity on her Hebrew Root, because of the Anti- Torah resistance within this Church. Focus on Ministry of Classical Christianity is an urgent concern since the “Shoah effect” is rapidly decreasing.
Ecumenism between the various Messianic Congregations is of eminent importance since it is a Mitzwot of Yeshua :
Yeshua prayed for his disciples and I report part of his prayer:
I ask not only on behalf of these (his disciples) but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one. As you Father are in me .and I am in You, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that You have sent me. (John 17.20)

Love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John, 13.31)
Almost two millennia of Christian History, the majority of nominal Christians constantly despised this commandment and hate each other resulting in divisions and numerous wars. These divisions contributed largely to the expansion of Islam in the Christian lands.

I know MJ's hold to the tradition of circumcision, but the sign of the everlasting covenant "circumcision on the 8th day" seem to fall on deaf ears. "Circumcision on the 8th day" would have to be apart of the creed. This may alert us of your true identity.

 

[visionary]

Yeshua never called for circumcision but the heart felt conversation with baptism into the community. So the sign of the everlasting covenant circumcision is into Abraham's faith and sign which Moses also adopted for the tribe of Israel.

 

[mercy1061]

Yeshua never called for circumcision but the heart felt conversation with baptism into the community. So the sign of the everlasting covenant circumcision is into Abraham's faith and sign which Moses also adopted for the tribe of Israel.

Yeshua, Isaac and Pharisee Shaul were circumcised on the 8th day. Yeshua gave the command to Abram.....

John 8
56 Avraham, your father, was glad that he would see my day; then he saw it and was overjoyed.”
57 “Why, you’re not yet fifty years old,” the Judeans replied, “and you have seen Avraham?” 58 Yeshua said to them, “Yes, indeed! Before Avraham came into being, I AM!” 59 At this, they picked up stones to throw at him; but Yeshua was hidden and left the Temple grounds.


Gen 14
18 Malki-Tzedek king of Shalem brought out bread and wine. He was cohen of El ‘Elyon [God Most High], 19 so he blessed him with these words:
“Blessed be Avram by El ‘Elyon,
maker of heaven of earth.
20 and blessed be El ‘Elyon,
who handed your enemies over to you.”
Avram gave him a tenth of everything.

 

[yedida]

If we want to be part of the family then we must accept the ways of the family (at least those that are commanded by the Father) and quit trying to say that the Son taught against what the Father taught. That simple. And no creed should be needed to just simply hear and obey.

 

[visionary]

Yeshua, Isaac and Pharisee Shaul were circumcised on the 8th day. Yeshua gave the command to Abram.....

John 8
56 Avraham, your father, was glad that he would see my day; then he saw it and was overjoyed.”
57 “Why, you’re not yet fifty years old,” the Judeans replied, “and you have seen Avraham?” 58 Yeshua said to them, “Yes, indeed! Before Avraham came into being, I AM!” 59 At this, they picked up stones to throw at him; but Yeshua was hidden and left the Temple grounds.


Gen 14
18 Malki-Tzedek king of Shalem brought out bread and wine. He was cohen of El ‘Elyon [God Most High], 19 so he blessed him with these words:
“Blessed be Avram by El ‘Elyon,
maker of heaven of earth.
20 and blessed be El ‘Elyon,
who handed your enemies over to you.”
Avram gave him a tenth of everything.

Worth the circumcision sign in Abraham's eyes too, even in his old age.

 

[Avodat]

Yeshua never called for circumcision but the heart felt conversation with baptism into the community. So the sign of the everlasting covenant circumcision is into Abraham's faith and sign which Moses also adopted for the tribe of Israel.

Not at all sure what you are saying about 'the heart felt conversation with baptism...'. Are you saying that Yeshua taught us to baptise?

 

[Qnts2]

I've never heard of the guy, though I know of the group. I see he published the book 7 years ago through MJRI.

What I was asking was: how widely is this defining statement accepted by Jews and Messianics?

FFOZ, although liked by a number of people, is hardly representative of a wide range of Jews and Messianics, neither is UMJC.

FFOZ is very recently under the umbrella of Messianic Judaism. UMJC of course was formed by Messianic Jews as was MJAA. And the AMC.

From my reading of the history of the Church, the various creeds were put together to define what constitutes a true Christian belief and what was outside of the Christian belief system. If I remember my history well enough, I think the Nicene creed was in response to Modalism. The belief that God is One, and as one can only be in one mode at a time. Therefore Jesus being God and the Holy Spirit being God and the Father being God can not work or appear at the same time. Some denied the Deity of Yeshua and others had only the Father appearing in the Tenakh, the Son in the NT and the Holy Spirit working now. Never at the same time.

The Nicene creed was working to block erroneous theologies from creeping into the Church and defining the beliefs of the Christianianity.

Not that unlike the SOF of this forum seeking to define what Messianic Judaism is and what it isn't.

Personally, I would rather not see the Common Wealth of Israel discussed at all of the SOF of this forum. The various views are too wide on this. The one and only view in common through out Messianic Judaism is that the Church is not Israel (no replacement theology).

Currently, the UMJC is writing statements of what is not Messianic Judaism (and some of what is Messianic Judaism). Many of the statements are widely accepted by the varying Messianic Judaism organisations but some are not and have caused contention among the diverse Messianic Jewish groups.

 

[visionary]

FFOZ is very recently under the umbrella of Messianic Judaism. UMJC of course was formed by Messianic Jews as was MJAA. And the AMC.

From my reading of the history of the Church, the various creeds were put together to define what constitutes a true Christian belief and what was outside of the Christian belief system. If I remember my history well enough, I think the Nicene creed was in response to Modalism. The belief that God is One, and as one can only be in one mode at a time. Therefore Jesus being God and the Holy Spirit being God and the Father being God can not work or appear at the same time. Some denied the Deity of Yeshua and others had only the Father appearing in the Tenakh, the Son in the NT and the Holy Spirit working now. Never at the same time.

The Nicene creed was working to block erroneous theologies from creeping into the Church and defining the beliefs of the Christianianity.

Not that unlike the SOF of this forum seeking to define what Messianic Judaism is and what it isn't.

Personally, I would rather not see the Common Wealth of Israel discussed at all of the SOF of this forum. The various views are too wide on this. The one and only view in common through out Messianic Judaism is that the Church is not Israel (no replacement theology).

Currently, the UMJC is writing statements of what is not Messianic Judaism (and some of what is Messianic Judaism). Many of the statements are widely accepted by the varying Messianic Judaism organisations but some are not and have caused contention among the diverse Messianic Jewish groups.

Too many evidences of the Father Son exchange to fit well with the idea of "never at the same time".

 

[aniello]

Too many evidences of the Father Son exchange to fit well with the idea of "never at the same time".

I have no desire to create controversy or a squabble. I just don't understand what the underlined 'Father Son exchange' means. Please help me understand the meaning, Viz, Thank you.

Eddy.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

FFOZ is very recently under the umbrella of Messianic Judaism. UMJC of course was formed by Messianic Jews as was MJAA. And the AMC.

From my reading of the history of the Church, the various creeds were put together to define what constitutes a true Christian belief and what was outside of the Christian belief system. If I remember my history well enough, I think the Nicene creed was in response to Modalism. The belief that God is One, and as one can only be in one mode at a time. Therefore Jesus being God and the Holy Spirit being God and the Father being God can not work or appear at the same time. Some denied the Deity of Yeshua and others had only the Father appearing in the Tenakh, the Son in the NT and the Holy Spirit working now. Never at the same time.

The Nicene creed was working to block erroneous theologies from creeping into the Church and defining the beliefs of the Christianianity.

Not that unlike the SOF of this forum seeking to define what Messianic Judaism is and what it isn't.

Personally, I would rather not see the Common Wealth of Israel discussed at all of the SOF of this forum. The various views are too wide on this. The one and only view in common through out Messianic Judaism is that the Church is not Israel (no replacement theology).

Currently, the UMJC is writing statements of what is not Messianic Judaism (and some of what is Messianic Judaism). Many of the statements are widely accepted by the varying Messianic Judaism organisations but some are not and have caused contention among the diverse Messianic Jewish groups.

I think it's good enough in many ways to note how the Church is not Israel nor Israel the Church (although there is a Spiritual Israel which includes the Church).

 

[visionary]

I have no desire to create controversy or a squabble. I just don't understand what the underlined 'Father Son exchange' means. Please help me understand the meaning, Viz, Thank you.

Eddy.

Example... "This is my son in whom I am well pleased" ... Father speaks in the presence of His Son.

 

[aniello]

Example... "This is my son in whom I am well pleased" ... Father speaks in the presence of His Son.

Uuum, ok, I think I follow.

 

[janwoG]

To Easy G (G2)
I think it's good enough in many ways to note how the Church is not Israel nor Israel the Church (although there is a Spiritual Israel which includes the Church).
I think it should also include Israel. For me the land of Israel is the base but Israel extends also everywhere where there is a congregation coming together (traditional Judaism or Messianic Judaism) and practicing Torah. I think that the Commonwealth of Israel (in the mind of Shaul) are all those linked to the promise of G-d to Abraham through Mashiach. Non-believing Jews are expected to repent and believe in due time. Therefore, one can include them in this Commonwealth of Israel.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

To Easy G (G2)
I think it's good enough in many ways to note how the Church is not Israel nor Israel the Church (although there is a Spiritual Israel which includes the Church).

I think it should also include Israel. For me the land of Israel is the base but Israel extends also everywhere where there is a congregation coming together (traditional Judaism or Messianic Judaism) and practicing Torah. I think that the Commonwealth of Israel (in the mind of Shaul) are all those linked to the promise of G-d to Abraham through Mashiach. Non-believing Jews are expected to repent and believe in due time. Therefore, one can include them in this Commonwealth of Israel.

If going strictly by the ways that the apostle Paul defined Israel, there was always more than one paticular perspective and that has to be kept in mind above how we'd prefer it to be....as Israel was never just those who are a congregation coming together/practicing Torah.

When it comes to defining what the Church is (said to be His bride in Ephesians 5:26 ), it can be quick to assume that one must think Israel is automatically seperated from any type of marriage connection...but when seeing the entirety of God's Word, one can see the ways it makes sense.

Before going any further, it should be noted that the understanding of marriage within the scriptures often seemed to evolve/have differing implications throughout differing eras. I'm reminded of what occurred with the religious leaders trying to trap Jesus by discussing the laws of Moses in regards to divorce ( Deuteronomy 24:2-4 / Deuteronomy 24 )---as they were focused on what Moses gave in the law and the Lord brought them back to the focus of how things were MEANT to be....and why laws were given ( Matthew 19:7-9 / Matthew 19, Mark 10:4-6/ Mark 10 ). Where they had actually glorifed one aspect of what Moses said, the Lord made clear that a specific law was never given because the Lord wanted others to walk in that for all time...but rather, it was given since the people were corrupt/wouldn't honor him and a system had to be given to restrain the damage that could be done to others when marriage wasn't upheld. His original intention was for ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN together for life

The same thing goes for laws made about polygamy, as the Law stated that a man could take another wife as long as he still provided for his first wife (Exo.21:10). And for others who had multiple wives:

• Jacob married Leah and Rachel (Gen.29:23-30; 31:17; 32:22) and then he married Leah and Rachel's handmaids, Zilbah and Bilhahand (Genesis 30:1-24; 37:2)
• Judge Gideon had many wives and a concubine (Judges 8:30-31)
• Elkanah married Hannah and Peninnah (1 Sam.1:2)
• David married Abigail and Ahinoam (1 Sam.25:42-43; 30:18), then later took more wives (2 Sam.5:13) at Jerusalem (1 Chron.14:3)
• In 2 Sam.12:7-8, God gave David these multiple wives as a blessing, just as anointing him as king over Israel, protecting him from Saul, and giving him the house of Israel and Judah were also blessings from Him
• Ashur married Helah and Naarah (1 Chron.4:5)
• Shaharaim married Hushim and Baara (1 Chron.8:8)
• Abijah had 14 wives (2 Chron.13:21)
• Jehoiada the priest had 2 wives (2 Chron.24:3).

Many other examples besides that....but it is not necessarily the case that polygamay was something that ALL were to assume they were to support simply because Moses said something about it in the law---as the Lord Jesus again made clear that God's original intention was for ONE man and ONE Woman to become one. ....but within that system when polygamy occurred, the Lord spoke to others through it/noted how He could be seen in it.

Moving on from there and connecting the concept of polygamy with what seems to be present in the NT, for all of those wondering "Why does the Bible seem to give instances multiple times of polygamy when one wife/one man was the standard Christ noted in Matthew 19/Matthew 19:5", in some senses it seems that the ways Israel and the Church are contrasted often seem to be in view of that. As said elsewhere, if I was playing the role of Devil's Advocate, I could make an argument that Polygamy plays out in the life of the Lord when seeing how He felt toward the Nation of Israel (His original Bride) and the Church made of both Gentiles/Jews (Remnant)---which is also called "Israel" in the spiritual sense.

Isaiah 50:1 reads...

"Thus saith the LORD, Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away." ​

​

In Isaiah 50:1, God is asking Israel if He has ever been unfaithful? God reminds the Jews that He has never divorced Israel; but Israel did abandon God. God never divorced Israel...and the Lord was hurt and angry because Israel had abandoned Him.

Romans 11:1-5 clearly teach that God did NOT divorce Israel...

"I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace."
​

We read in the Old Testament book of Hosea that he never divorced Gomer for her continued adultery and unfaithfulness. .....for . Hosea pictures God, Who is longsuffering and forgiving (II Peter 3:9).

Some could consider Jeremiah 3:8 as showing how the Lord divorced Israel...

"And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also."
​

Doesn't Jeremiah clearly say that God divorced Israel? Of course...although it seems best to see divorce as a seperation from them AS A NATION; but not as His people. This Scripture must be reconciled with Hosea's refusal to divorce Gomer and the Scriptures in Romans 11:1-5. God divorced the NATION of Israel (as termination of a business agreement); but NOT His children (saved Jews). For God never forsakes His own (Hebrews 13:5)...and because of Israel's rebellion, God instead decided to turn to the Gentiles to do His business of preaching the Gospel (and they did); but God never divorced His own.

Sadly, many in Replacement Theology assume that the Church has REPLACED Israel---although anyone understanding of Messianic Judaism realizes that the Church was meant to exist alongside Israel and what the Lord would do through her. Both Israel and the Church have UNIQUE Roles to play in His Kingdom---with both being considered collectively as "THE BRIDE" of Christ since all people trusting in the Lord are His beloved He'll return for ( John 3:28-30, Revelation 19:6-8/ Revelation 19 /Revelation 21:8-10 /Revelation 22:16-18 ...more discussed here and here in #113 on the that reality of what Christ meant when he told the Apostle Paul "On this rock I'll build my Church" and what "all Israel will be saved" means)....and yet the ways that Israel and the Church act operate before the Lord are like two differing brides before Him with their own type of relationship. Dr.Michael Brown spoke on the subject at length, as seen here...and here. Additionally, Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum (another Messianic Jewish/Hebrew Christian) of Ariel Ministries shared more on the issue as well....as seen here. As he shared when stating the 6 reasons why the Church and Israel are distinct:

1) "The first evidence is the fact that the church was born at Pentecost, whereas Israel had existed for many centuries" (116). This is supported by "the use of the future tense in Matthew 16:18 shows that it did not exist in gospel history" (116). Since the church born at Pentecost is called the "Body of Christ" (Col. 1:18), and entrance into the body is through "Spirit baptism" (1 Cor. 12:13), in which Jew and Gentile are united through the church. It is evident that the church began on the Day of Pentecost since Acts 1:5 views Spirit baptism as future, while Acts 10 links it to the past, specifically to Pentecost.

2) "The second evidence is that certain events in the ministry of the Messiah were essential to the establishment of the church-the church does not come into being until certain events have taken place" (117). These events include the resurrection and ascension of Jesus to become head of the church (Eph. 1:20-23). "The church, with believers as the body and Christ as the head, did not exist until after Christ ascended to become its head. And it could not become a functioning entity until after the Holy Spirit provided the necessary spiritual gifts (Eph. 4:7-11)" (117).

3) "The third evidence is the mystery character of the church (117)." A mystery in the Bible is a hidden truth not revealed until the New Testament (Eph. 3:3-5, 9; Col. 1:26-27). Fruchtenbaum lists "four defining characteristics of the church [that] are described as a mystery. (1) The body concept of Jewish and Gentile believers united into one body is designated as a mystery in Ephesians 3:1-12. (2) The doctrine of Christ indwelling every believer, the Christ-in-you concept, is called a mystery in Colossians 1:24-27 (cf. Col. 2:10-19; 3:4). (3) The church as the Bride of Christ is called a mystery in Ephesians 5:22-32. (4) The Rapture is called a mystery in 1 Corinthians 15:50-58. These four mysteries describe qualities that distinguish the church from Israel" (117-18).

4) "The fourth evidence that the church is distinct from Israel is the unique relationship between Jews and the Gentiles, called one new man in Ephesians 2:15" (118). During the current church age God is saving a remnant from the two previous entities (Israel and Gentiles) and combining them into a third new object-the church. This unity of Jews and Gentiles into one new man covers only the church age, from Pentecost until the rapture, after which time God will restore Israel and complete her destiny (Acts 15:14-18). 1 Corinthians 10:32 reflects just such a division when it says, "Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God."

5) "The fifth evidence for the distinction between Israel and the church is found in Galatians 6:16" (118). "It appears logical to view 'the Israel of God' (Gal. 6:16) as believing Jews in contrast to unbelieving Jews called 'Israel after the flesh' (1 Cor. 10:18)" (124).2 This passage does not support the false claim of replacement theologians who claim that Israel is supplanted by the Church. Instead, the Bible teaches that a remnant of Israel is combined with elect Gentiles during this age to make up a whole new entity the New Testament calls the church (Eph. 2).

Replacement theology tries to teach that because Gentiles believers are described as the "seed of Abraham" (Gal. 3:29) that this is equivalent to saying that they are Israel. This is clearly not the case. Paul's description of Gentile believers in Galatians 3:29 simply means that they participate in the spiritual (i.e., salvation) blessings that come through Israel (Rom. 15:27; 1 Cor. 9:11, 14). "Those who are the spiritual seed are partakers of Jewish spiritual blessings but are never said to become partakers of the physical, material, or national promises" (126). Therefore, Israel's national promises are left in tact awaiting a yet future fulfillment.

6) "In the book of Acts, both Israel and the church exist simultaneously. The term Israel is used twenty times and ekklesia (church) nineteen times, yet the two groups are always kept distinct" (118). Thus, the replacement theologian has no actual biblical basis upon which he bases his theological claim that Israel and the church have become one.

​

Dr. Fruchtenbaum has taught his Israelology course for Chafer Theological Seminary and it was recorded at West Houston Bible Church in Texas. The entire course is available free online at the Dean Bible Ministries website. Audio files can be downloaded or heard online here ): And the Powerpoint slides he did are found here.

That said, again, if one wanted to make a case that the Lord lived out the concept of what the patriarches experienced when it came to polygamy and multiple wives, one could again make an argument based on how the Church and Israel are distinct from one another and have differing relationships with each other...even though both must look to the Messiah for redeemption

P4CM Presents Ready or Not by Featured RHETORIC Poets Ezekiel & Janette..ikz​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The Commonwealth of Israel is explained for instance in the book of “Grafted In” by D. Thommas Lancaster edited by the First Fruit of Zion. This organization works closely with UMJC - Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations.

Dr.Thomas Lancaster has some very engaging thoughts and insights. Many thanks for much of the work that he does

 

[Qnts2]

I think it's good enough in many ways to note how the Church is not Israel nor Israel the Church (although there is a Spiritual Israel which includes the Church).

Personally, I don't see a 'Spiritual Israel'. The terminology is not a scriptural terminology so is a short hand for a theological view.

Obviously there are those who think the Church is Israel and confuse the two entities. Literally Israel, of the children of Israel, are physical descendants of Israel (aka Jacob). That is the crux of the issue. Jacob was renamed Israel and the descendents of Jacob are called the children of Israel. Gentile believers are never said to be sons of Jacob or sons of Israel. Gentile believers are said to be sons of Abraham, but not Jacob. Therefore Gentile believers who are not physical sons of Abraham but are 'Spiritual sons of Abraham' and not Spiritual sons of Jacob/Israel.

On this forum, the term church carries a different connotation connected to the method of practice. I view the term Church, with the capitol to comprise all born again believers and the term church the organizational structure like denominations or simply the building. Since the term is confusin, I'll use the Ecclesia, to me meaning all born again believers.
Israel today is not all born again. Some are. Most aren't. It is the physical descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Therefore Israel is not part of the Ecclesia, althourgh some members of Israel are also members of the Ecclesia.

So the Ecclesia is brought near to the commonwealth of Israel. Now the question is, what did commonwealth mean? It is simply the wealth of the state held in common. What is the wealth of Israel? The promise of the Messiah. Israel was promised the Messiah, but one of the so called mysteries revealed in the NT is that Gentiles (not Israel or not Jewish), share in that wealth and are equal partakers of the blessings of the Messiah. Becoming (spiritual) sons of Abraham, sons of God by adoption.