So, apparently The Church Is Israel

[Jamdoc]

This new point is actually off topic to the point you originally brought up, about Paul being sent to the uncircumcised.

He was sent to the Gentiles to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Not to preach some different Gospel that's different to the one of the Jews.

 

[Guojing]

He was sent to the Gentiles to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Not to preach some different Gospel that's different to the one of the Jews.

We are discussing, in case you have forgotten, whether "only the epistles of Paul are to Gentile Christians", from Galatians 2:7-9.

Not how many gospels there are.

 

[David Lamb]

The term "Body of Christ" is not synonymous with the term "church", the latter term means "called out assembly"

The Body of Christ is indeed the church for today

But in scripture, there are churches that are not the Body of Christ, whether in time past (Acts 7:38). or the age to come.

So in Rev chapter 1, those churches are churches in the age to come.

That doesn't make any sense. Why should John be told to write to churches in the age to come?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Galatians was written before Paul's final visit to Jerusalem in Acts 21.

If the Israel of God, is us, and he taught us that we are dead to circumcision (Galatians 5:2), then what James and the elders accused him of in Acts 21:18-25 would have been correct.

That is how I know the and the Israel of God in Galatians 6:16 is not us

I don't know what you're talking about. Can you clarify? I see nothing in Acts 21:18-25 that would refute anything I'm saying about Galatians 6:15-16.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

To all the people who claim that the Church replaces Israel
Explain how Zechariah 12:10 works for "the Church", how is the Church the ones who pierced Jesus, and explain what is meant in Romans 11 by Israel being blinded until the fullness of the Gentiles are come in?

Name even one person here who is claiming this. I don't believe anyone is.

and to all who say that the Church is fully separate from Israel.
Explain how Romans 11 fits in, that says we're grafted in,

Because there is more than one Israel, as shown in Romans 9:6-8.

Romans 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

Paul refers to national Israel and spiritual Israel here. Paul indicated that being a natural descendant of national Israel and of Abraham does not make someone part of spiritual Israel. That's why he said "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel". He expanded on that by saying "it is not the children by physical descent who are God's children". Instead, what makes someone a part of spiritual Israel is to be a child of God and of the promise. They are the ones who "are regarded as Abraham's offspring" and are part of spiritual Israel.

So, Gentile believers are grafted into spiritual Israel, not national Israel. If you fail to differentiate between the two Israels then I think it's impossible for you to understand Romans 11 properly.

and how in Revelation 12, Christians are referred to as the rest of the woman's seed that the dragon makes war on after failing to kill the woman.

I don't understand what you're asking here. The woman represents spiritual Israel, not national Israel. That's why the only children of the woman referenced in Revelation 12 are Jesus Himself (Rev 12:5) and those who follow Him (Rev 12:17).

Because both of those positions (the hard dispensationalist position, and the replacement position) fail Romans 11, which teaches that Israel got blinded, broken off, the Gentiles grafted in, and God will graft Israel back in after the fullness of the Gentiles.

Yes, I agree. That's why my view is neither dispensationalist nor replacement theology.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You seem to miss the distinctions in Paul’s letter to the Galatians.

You seem to be wrong.

There were definitely two groups mebtioned. And yes both Jews and Gentiles are the children of God through faith and in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek etc. . But Paul says clear things like this, being aware that the Jews (the Israel of God) we’re still going through a reformation (Hebrews 9:10 And transition from the old covenant that was fading away abd ready to vanish Hebrews 8:13).

The old covenant became obsolete upon the death of Christ and the new covenant was ushered in by His blood. It is NOT the case that the old covenant itself was fading away when Hebrews was written or else it couldn't be said that it was obsolete. And, yet, Hebrews 8:13 says that it was made obsolete at that point. When it talks about it being ready to vanish, it's not talking about the old covenant itself or else that would be a contradiction. You need to differentiate between the old covenant being made obsolete and it vanishing away. You seem to be making those things the same. The old covenant vanishing relates to any traces of it vanishing such as the existence of the temple. It has nothing to do with making the old covenant obsolete and no longer in effect since the blood of Christ accomplished that.

We ajso see the Jewish believer in Israel still by the thousands many years after Christ death going into the temple and sacrificing animals and trying to keep the law and Jewish customs etc Acts 21..

Not because they were required to do that, though. They did that out of ignorance. They did not understand that Jesus ushered in the new covenant by His blood and made the old covenant and its animal sacrifices obsolete. That's what the tearing of the veil of the temple in two signified. The blood of Christ brought Jew and Gentile together as one in the body of Christ! To act as if it didn't happen until many years later is to completely miss what Christ's death accomplished. Read Ephesians 2:11-22. Paul very specifically says there that Jew and Gentile believers were brought together as one by the blood of Christ which brought down the wall of hostility between them. You can't then say there was still a difference between them. No, there was not.

We see this distinction clearly (to the unbiased reader in faith), here;

Galatians 2: 7-9,14 “ But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8. (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles 9. And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision… 14. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”

And so Paul clearly shows two groups the circumcised and the gospel of the circumcision and the uncircumcised and the gospel of the in circumcision.

Galatians 6: 15. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. 16. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.”

By the way, there is only o r gospel of salvation and the issue here is not two different gospels to both groups but that the Jews and Gentiles were both given the gospel within the sphere of understanding and influence they were in. The Jews were still in a time if reformation coming out of the old into the new so it would not make sense to bring Gentiles to live as the Jews did and then eventually have to bring them out of the old covenant and law as well. Paul alludes to this here ;

Galatians 2: 14. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

And consider this among the Jewish believers in Jesus as well ….carefully;

Acts 21: 19. And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. 20. And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: 21. And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. 22. What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. 23. Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; 24. Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. 25. As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. 26. Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purifcation, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.”

Sone things to consider

God bless

I believe you are completely missing the reason why Paul did what he did there. It surely was not because the Jews were still required to follow the law! No way! Otherwise, the following passage would not make any sense:

Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Jesus took the burden of the "handwriting of ordinances" of the old covenant law upon Himself and "took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross". To be under the law was a curse and Jesus removed that. Just read Galatians 3. The only reason Paul took part in the Jewish customs after the death and resurrection of Christ can be seen here:

1 Corinthians 9:19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. 20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. 22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

He did it, not because he had to, but for the purpose of leading those Jews to Christ and salvation.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Good point and we see clearly two groups Israel and the Gentiles in these verses and others

Romans 11: 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. 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:”

And both groups have believers who are called the children of God. But we do see a distinction and we don’t read if the Gentiles being called Jews or Israel. As I understand this far.


Romans 9: 24. Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? 25. As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. 26. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. 27. Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: 30. What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. 31. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.”

You don't seem to understand that there isn't just one Israel and that's why you can't understand how a Gentile can be part of Israel. Of course Gentiles are not part of national Israel, but they can be part of the Israel of which not all who are descended from national Israel are part.

How do you interpret this passage:

Romans 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

And I am one of those HARD DIEPENSARIONALIST am not surprised by your reply .

And here why we believe that Peter was the Preacher to ONLY to Israel .

Gal 2:7 says that Peter was a preacher to the CIRCUMCISION , PERIOD !! Why was what Peter preached NOT called a GOSPEL ??

Also , in Gal 2:14 definitely , Peter was a Jew , WHY do you COMPEL the GENTILES to ADOPT Jewish CUSTOMS and RITES ??

Because the THE GOSPEL of the CIRCUMCISION was to be set side as written in Acts 28:25--28 !!

Verse SEVEN says that Paul preached the Gospel of the UNCIRCUMCISION !!

dan p

Do you believe in more than one gospel? If so, you are mistaken. Galatians 2:7 is not referring to two different gospels. It's referring to Paul preaching the one gospel to the uncircumcised (Gentiles) and Peter preaching that same one gospel to the circumcised (Jews).

Galatians 2:7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised.

 

[Guojing]

I don't know what you're talking about. Can you clarify? I see nothing in Acts 21:18-25 that would refute anything I'm saying about Galatians 6:15-16.

Did Paul taught the Israel of God, Galatians 5:2?

If your answer is yes, then you are also saying that Acts 21:21 accusation about Paul is true.

 

[Guojing]

That doesn't make any sense. Why should John be told to write to churches in the age to come?

Because Israel churches needed doctrine during the tribulation.

That simple fact makes zero sense to you?

 

[Jamdoc]

Name even one person here who is claiming this. I don't believe anyone is.

I mean the thread is suggesting that the Church is Israel, that is the replacement theology stance.

Because there is more than one Israel, as shown in Romans 9:6-8.

Romans 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

Paul refers to national Israel and spiritual Israel here. Paul indicated that being a natural descendant of national Israel and of Abraham does not make someone part of spiritual Israel. That's why he said "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel". He expanded on that by saying "it is not the children by physical descent who are God's children". Instead, what makes someone a part of spiritual Israel is to be a child of God and of the promise. They are the ones who "are regarded as Abraham's offspring" and are part of spiritual Israel.

So, Gentile believers are grafted into spiritual Israel, not national Israel. If you fail to differentiate between the two Israels then I think it's impossible for you to understand Romans 11 properly.

But it's National Israel that is blinded, and still promised to be saved.

I don't understand what you're asking here. The woman represents spiritual Israel, not national Israel. That's why the only children of the woman referenced in Revelation 12 are Jesus Himself (Rev 12:5) and those who follow Him (Rev 12:17).

Incorrect, "spiritual Israel" is not what gave birth to Jesus, the Church came from Jesus not the other way around.

Yes, I agree. That's why my view is neither dispensationalist nor replacement theology.

The simple question is.. do you believe in an eschatalogical pouring out the spirit of grace and supplications on "National Israel" (the House of David and Inhabitants of Jerusalem), the ones that pierced Jesus, that removes their partial blindness and they repent and get saved?

Because where a lot of people "spiritually" interpreting scripture can go wrong is, believe that God is done with National Israel. That no part in prophecy is left for them.

 

[David Lamb]

Because Israel churches needed doctrine during the tribulation.

That simple fact makes zero sense to you?

It does indeed make zero sense, because John was told then to write to those seven churches in Asia, not to write to them during a tribulation which was yet to take place. Also, these churches were not "Israel churches" as you call them: they were churches in Asia.

 

[Jamdoc]

Because Israel churches needed doctrine during the tribulation.

That simple fact makes zero sense to you?

ah yes, Ephesus, Israel
Pergamos, Israel
Sardis, Israel
I'm really familiar with all these Israeli cities

 

[Jamdoc]

It does indeed make zero sense, because John was told then to write to those seven churches in Asia, not to write to them during a tribulation which was yet to take place. Also, these churches were not "Israel churches" as you call them: they were churches in Asia.

I believe that the letters were both applicable to 1st century churches and will also be applicable to 7 church "types" during the end times. Jesus threatens the Church at Thyatira with great tribulation, well there's only going to be one great tribulation and it didn't happen in the late 1st century/early 2nd century shortly after Revelation was written in the 90's AD, so they are perhaps MORE relevant to end time churches. But they were still dual purpose for both then and in the (perhaps near) future.

One interpretation I've always thought was just plain dumb was the "7 church ages" interpretation.
because all of these church types have existed throughout all of history.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Did Paul taught the Israel of God, Galatians 5:2?

If your answer is yes, then you are also saying that Acts 21:21 accusation about Paul is true.

I have no idea of what you're intending to say. Can you try to be more clear or are you just unable to do that?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I mean the thread is suggesting that the Church is Israel, that is the replacement theology stance.

Who is suggesting that there is only one Israel and the church is it? Name one person who is doing that. If anyone is doing that, then I would assume they've never read Romans 9:6-8.

But it's National Israel that is blinded, and still promised to be saved.

Why do you act as if the entire nation is blinded when it never says that? That was never the case. It says they were blinded in part. That means some of them were blinded while the remnant that Paul referenced in Romans 11 were not blinded and were saved. And, if you read Romans 11:11-14, you can see that Paul hoped to help save some of those who were blinded in his day. So, this idea that the nation of Israel as a whole was blinded and will all see the truth one day in the future is not at all what Paul taught. And that is not taught in any other scripture, either.

God wants all people to be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-6), so this idea that He has withheld salvation from the people of Israel for the past almost 2,000 years is simply not true.

Incorrect, "spiritual Israel" is not what gave birth to Jesus, the Church came from Jesus not the other way around.

I'm talking about who the woman is in Revelation 12. She gave birth to both Jesus (Rev 12:5) and those who follow Jesus (Rev 12:17). Those are the only children of the women referenced in Revelation 12. That isn't a description of national Israel which also gives birth to unbelievers, so it has to be spiritual Israel.

The simple question is.. do you believe in an eschatalogical pouring out the spirit of grace and supplications on "National Israel" (the House of David and Inhabitants of Jerusalem), the ones that pierced Jesus, that removes their partial blindness and they repent and get saved?

No, I believe that some of the part of Israel that was blinded going back to Paul's day had their blindness removed when they repented and put their faith in Christ and that has happened ever since. Your understanding of their partial blindness is completely flawed. You either ignore or miss the fact that Paul said he hoped to help save some of them back in his day to salvation. In your dispensational view, those who were blinded in his day and ever since had no chance at salvation, but that is not true. Read this...

Romans 11:11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring! 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

In your dispensational view, the ones who were blinded fell beyond recovery. And that would continue to be the case until a future time when they would all be saved. But, according to Paul, the ones who were blinded stumbled, but did not fall beyond recovery. That's why Paul said he hoped to "arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.". Based on how you look at what it means for them to be blinded, it was impossible for Paul to lead any of them who were blinded to salvation, but thank God Paul knew otherwise.

Because where a lot of people "spiritually" interpreting scripture can go wrong is, believe that God is done with National Israel. That no part in prophecy is left for them.

Paul very specifically said God is not done with the people of national Israel, so why would anyone say that?

Romans 11:1 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: 3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”? 4 And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.

Paul said that God was not done with the people of national Israel and the evidence for that was the fact that there was a remnant of saved Israelites in his time. Dispensationalists are the ones who think God has been temporarily done with Israel for the past almost 2,000 years, but that is not the case. He was never done with Israel. They have all had the opportunity to be saved since Jesus died for all of their sins and for the sins of the whole world.

Where you go wrong is looking at Romans 11 from a national perspective instead of from an individual perspective. Salvation is not a national issue, but rather an individual issue. Each individual Israelite and Gentile must choose to repent and believe or not and that has always been the case. The ones who were blinded in Israel were not blinded permanently, but rather were blinded so that salvation could come to the Gentiles who, in turn, would provoke those blinded Israelites to jealousy so that they too would want to be saved. It's all there in Romans 11. Unfortunately, Romans 11 is possibly the most misunderstood and misinterpreted passage in the entire Bible.

 

[Dan Perez]

That doesn't make any sense. Why should John be told to write to churches in the age to come?

And it does not make SENSE you say ??

Read Rev 1:6 And hath made ujs kings and priests unto God ?

Has it happened yet , and why not , because it yet into the FUTURE !!

dan p

 

[Jamdoc]

Who is suggesting that there is only one Israel and the church is it? Name one person who is doing that. If anyone is doing that, then I would assume they've never read Romans 9:6-8.

What is suggested is not that there isn't a national Israel, is that the National Israel has no further part to play and God is "done" with them and exclusively deals with 'spiritual Israel" now.

Why do you act as if the entire nation is blinded when it never says that? That was never the case. It says they were blinded in part. That means some of them were blinded while the remnant that Paul referenced in Romans 11 were not blinded and were saved. And, if you read Romans 11:11-14, you can see that Paul hoped to help save some of those who were blinded in his day. So, this idea that the nation of Israel as a whole was blinded and will all see the truth one day in the future is not at all what Paul taught. And that is not taught in any other scripture, either.

God wants all people to be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-6), so this idea that He has withheld salvation from the people of Israel for the past almost 2,000 years is simply not true.

What Paul did teach is that when the fullness of the Gentiles come in, the blindness in part will be healed and they'll be saved.

I'm talking about who the woman is in Revelation 12. She gave birth to both Jesus (Rev 12:5) and those who follow Jesus (Rev 12:17). Those are the only children of the women referenced in Revelation 12. That isn't a description of national Israel which also gives birth to unbelievers, so it has to be spiritual Israel.

Yeah, National Israel gave birth to unbelievers, that is, branches broken off in unbelief that God is able to graft back in, when their blindness in part is healed.

Remember it is to the unbelieving Pharisees that Jesus said they will not see Him again until they say "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord" (Matthew 23:39) That is, they acknowledge who He is, and they can't do that without the Holy Spirit. So God has to do something to them first.

No, I believe that some of the part of Israel that was blinded going back to Paul's day had their blindness removed when they repented and put their faith in Christ and that has happened ever since. Your understanding of their partial blindness is completely flawed. You either ignore or miss the fact that Paul said he hoped to help save some of them back in his day to salvation. In your dispensational view, those who were blinded in his day and ever since had no chance at salvation, but that is not true. Read this...

Romans 11:11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring! 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

In your dispensational view, the ones who were blinded fell beyond recovery. And that would continue to be the case until a future time when they would all be saved. But, according to Paul, the ones who were blinded stumbled, but did not fall beyond recovery. That's why Paul said he hoped to "arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.". Based on how you look at what it means for them to be blinded, it was impossible for Paul to lead any of them who were blinded to salvation, but thank God Paul knew otherwise.


Paul very specifically said God is not done with the people of national Israel, so why would anyone say that?

Romans 11:1 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: 3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”? 4 And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.

Paul said that God was not done with the people of national Israel and the evidence for that was the fact that there was a remnant of saved Israelites in his time. Dispensationalists are the ones who think God has been temporarily done with Israel for the past almost 2,000 years, but that is not the case. He was never done with Israel. They have all had the opportunity to be saved since Jesus died for all of their sins and for the sins of the whole world.

Where you go wrong is looking at Romans 11 from a national perspective instead of from an individual perspective. Salvation is not a national issue, but rather an individual issue. Each individual Israelite and Gentile must choose to repent and believe or not and that has always been the case. The ones who were blinded in Israel were not blinded permanently, but rather were blinded so that salvation could come to the Gentiles who, in turn, would provoke those blinded Israelites to jealousy so that they too would want to be saved. It's all there in Romans 11. Unfortunately, Romans 11 is possibly the most misunderstood and misinterpreted passage in the entire Bible.

Paul said "until the fulness of the Gentiles are come in"

and that is a yet future thing.

and that's where we'll differ. That I still see a yet future, eschatalogical repentence of National Israel, that is part of HOW the second coming happens.

Jesus made a promise in Matthew 23:39.

Zechariah 12:10, and Revelation 7 and 14's 144000 is the result of that promise.

 

[Guojing]

I have no idea of what you're intending to say. Can you try to be more clear or are you just unable to do that?

The first question is a yes or no question.

 

[Guojing]

It does indeed make zero sense, because John was told then to write to those seven churches in Asia, not to write to them during a tribulation which was yet to take place.

When Peter proclaimed the Joel prophecy at Acts 2, he already announced its the last days, so Daniel's 70th week was to begin at anytime.

Peter repeated that in 1 Peter 1:3-9.

Also, these churches were not "Israel churches" as you call them: they were churches in Asia.

Church simply means "called out assemblies".

During the Tribulation, the program with Israel will resume, that is why I call them Israel churches (Romans 11:25).

That basically means, if a gentile wants to be saved during the Tribulation, he must once again, go thru Israel to be saved.

He must belong to Israel's "called out assembly" to be saved, that is what the term Israel's churches meant.