If God can replace Israel, He can replace the Church, too

[Clare73]

Rom 9.8 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...
11.1 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means!...5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6 And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace...
11.11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all!..
11.23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!..
11.25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written:
“The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27 And this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Here is where I disagree with you. The "elect" of Israel are Christian Jews. But not all Jews who are yet to become Christians are illegitimately defined as "Israel." They can be restored to become legitimate Israel, in the spiritual sense, if the nation becomes a Christian nation.

So that's 2000 years of unbelieving Jews, "God's people," who were not saved, but condemned for unbelief in Jesus Christ.

 

[RandyPNW]

So that's 2000 years of unbelieving Jews, "God's people," who were not saved, but condemned for unbelief in Jesus Christ.

The name "Israel" identified the people we are talking about. Paul was using the name "Israel" to reflect upon their calling to be a faithful people.

So, when Israel failed to become a Christian nation, they were viewed as "untrue, or unfaithful, Israel." They did not stop being identified as "Israel." They stopped being who they were called to be.

Since they didn't stop being identified as Israel, the hope was that they would eventually live up to their name.

Let me be perfectly clear here. "Israel" refers to the *Jewish People,* and not to international Christianity. Their failure does not rob them of the name "Israel." Paul simply called them out for not living up to their name, indicating that they could be cut off from that group of people if they did not follow through and become a Christian nation.

In the Wilderness many Israelites were cut off from the assembly of Israel by death for their unfaithfulness. But they did not stop being called "Israelites."

The Jewish People have indeed failed, as a nation, to become a Christian nation for 2000 years. But they are still being identified as "Israel," ie as the Jewish People who are still called to eventually become a Christian nation. The definition of "Israel" did not change from "the Jewish People" to "the International Church."

 

[Clare73]

The name "Israel" identified the people we are talking about. Paul was using the name "Israel" to reflect upon their calling to be a faithful people.
So, when Israel failed to become a Christian nation, they were viewed as "untrue, or unfaithful, Israel." They did not stop being identified as "Israel." They stopped being who they were called to be.
Since they didn't stop being identified as Israel, the hope was that they would eventually live up to their name.

Let me be perfectly clear here. "Israel" refers to the *Jewish People,* and not to international Christianity. Their failure does not rob them of the name "Israel." Paul simply called them out for not living up to their name, indicating that they could be cut off from that group of people if they did not follow through and become a Christian nation.
In the Wilderness many Israelites were cut off from the assembly of Israel by death for their unfaithfulness. But they did not stop being called "Israelites."
The Jewish People have indeed failed, as a nation, to become a Christian nation for 2000 years. But they are still being identified as "Israel," ie as the Jewish People who are still called to eventually become a Christian nation. The definition of "Israel" did not change from "the Jewish People" to "the International Church."

Those of faith in Jesus Christ are Abraham's seed (Gal 3:29), the true Israel (Ro 9:6-8, Gal 3:7-9, 6:16).

And that is "international Christianity."

 

[FireDragon76]

If the sun still rises, God’s covenant with Israel still stands.

That’s the startling logic of Jeremiah 33where the fixed order of creation is offered as proof that God’s promises to the Jewish people are unbreakable. Yet in an age of rising theological confusion and mounting hostility toward Israel, many in the Church have begun to waver. Replacement Theology is back, often dressed in more “respectable” robes. But let’s be clear: if God can abandon Israel, then no one is safe. If He breaks that promise, why wouldn’t He break yours? Has God truly revoked His covenant? Has the Church replaced Israel in His plan? Or is the continued existence of Israel as certain as the sunrise?

The answer, resoundingly and unmistakably, is found in the mouth of the prophet Jeremiah:


These two verses are both a prophetic rebuke and a theological anchor. God Himself sets the terms: Only if the rhythm of day and night ceases — only if the laws that govern the cosmos unravel — then, and only then, would He cast off Israel.

Continued below.

If God can replace Israel, He can replace the Church, too

If the sun still rises, God s covenant with Israel still stands

www.christianpost.com

That's a dumb argument. The Church has human institutions, but isn't strictly a human institution in itself.

Israel, in the sense that Zionism would understand it, was a human community with identifiable members based on outward conformity to ethnic identity. The Church on the other hand, in both the Reformed and Orthodox traditions, has its origins in God's own life or covenant within the Godhead (the pactum salutaris of Reformed Scholasticism), and while there are certain outward signs associated with this covenant community, it's exact nature is a sacred mystery.

 

[RandyPNW]

Those of faith in Jesus Christ are Abraham's seed (Gal 3:29), the true Israel (Ro 9:6-8, Gal 3:7-9, 6:16).

And that is "international Christianity."

You are therefore introducing a *new definition* for "Israel," which to me is irrational. You are drawing upon Paul's use of the name "Israel" to indicate the ethical standard that was required of Israel to be "God's People."

But they did not stop being called "Israel" even in their infidelity. This is what you're missing. It is a matter of "faithfulness"--not a matter of redefinition.

Let me put it like this. If you are unfaithful as a Christian, I may say you are not a "true Christian," not at all meaning that you don't go to church or pledge allegiance to the doctrines of the Church. I may simply say you are not a "true Christian" because you don't happen to be living up to the high ethical standards required of Christians.

This is not a redefinition of "Christian." It is marking who is "true," or "faithful," in their Christian practice.

The same would be true of the Jew who is not acting like a "true Jew" or of the nation who is not acting like "true Israel" because they are not living up to the standards represented by the Law of Moses.

The Christian does not stop being a "Christian" simply because he or she is backslidden. The Jew does not stop being a "Jew" simply because he or she is backslidden. Israel does not stop being 'Israel" because it has gone apostate.

No, these are simply not being "true" to their calling. They are to be cut off in the judgment. But until then any "cutting off" is temporary. Christians remain "Christians" and Jews remain "Jews." And Israel remains "Israel." You cannot redefine who they are simply because they are backslidden.

 

[Clare73]

You are therefore introducing a *new definition* for "Israel," which to me is irrational. You are drawing upon Paul's use of the name "Israel" to indicate the ethical standard that was required of Israel to be "God's People."

Your issue is with Paul, not with me. . .those of faith in Jesus Christ are Abraham's seed (Gal 3:29), the true Israel (Ro 9:6-8, Gal 3:7-9, 6:16).

 

[RandyPNW]

Your issue is with Paul, not with me. . .those of faith in Jesus Christ are Abraham's seed (Gal 3:29), the true Israel (Ro 9:6-8, Gal 3:7-9, 6:16).

Rom 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.

As I told you, Paul is not redefining the meaning of the word "Israel" as it applies to *all* those descended from Israel. Rather, he is applying a standard of judgment by which one Israeli can be separated from another Israeli.

Matt 25.“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.

Again, Paul is using a special application of the word "Israel" to convey a spiritual standard, but not to redefine the meaning of the word "Israel." If one is not truly acting like "Israel," he is no longer a "true Israeli," not meaning that he isn't of Israel, but that he is acting inconsistent with what the word is intended to mean in terms of behavior.

So, Paul is talking about the ultimate constitution of Israel after judgment, and not redefining who "Israel" is today, except that he consigns those resistant to faith to exclusion from the company of faith. He is certainly not talking about the British, or Germans, or Russians, or Chinese who have faith!

So when you see "Israel" you apparently see only a small number of Jewish believers, and not a nation? And then you add in believers from all other nations, completely rendering the meaning of the word 'Israel" null and void?

Paul is only meaning to say that the nation was called to be a nation of faith, representative of God's Kingdom on earth. This is "true Israel," ie the nation as God intended for it to be. And this nation was meant to be a model for all nations, and not a term that represents all those of faith from all nations.

Gal 3.7 Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. 8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” 9 So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

This simply states the common element of faith that those from any nation have with those of other nations. It does not state that "Israel" means "all nations of faith."

Gal 6.16 Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God.

Paul here is referring to the nation biologically descended from Abraham, the nation of Israel. He is not redefining "Israel" as meaning other nations being included with Israel. Israel is the national standard when they are operating in true faith.

 

[A New Dawn]

If the sun still rises, God’s covenant with Israel still stands.

That’s the startling logic of Jeremiah 33where the fixed order of creation is offered as proof that God’s promises to the Jewish people are unbreakable. Yet in an age of rising theological confusion and mounting hostility toward Israel, many in the Church have begun to waver. Replacement Theology is back, often dressed in more “respectable” robes. But let’s be clear: if God can abandon Israel, then no one is safe. If He breaks that promise, why wouldn’t He break yours? Has God truly revoked His covenant? Has the Church replaced Israel in His plan? Or is the continued existence of Israel as certain as the sunrise?

The answer, resoundingly and unmistakably, is found in the mouth of the prophet Jeremiah:


These two verses are both a prophetic rebuke and a theological anchor. God Himself sets the terms: Only if the rhythm of day and night ceases — only if the laws that govern the cosmos unravel — then, and only then, would He cast off Israel.

Continued below.

If God can replace Israel, He can replace the Church, too

If the sun still rises, God s covenant with Israel still stands

www.christianpost.com

Which covenant with Israel?

A covenant initiated by God cannot be changed, but it can be ended or fulfilled.

The only covenant God had/has with Israel the the Mosaic covenant and Christianity sees that covenant as fulfilled by Christ.

I do not partake of Covenant Theology, but there are several prophecies that require future fulfillment that require Israel’s participation. So even if the Mosaic covenant is fulfilled, Israel still has an important role to play.

 

[ViaCrucis]

"If God can replace Israel, He can replace the Church, too"

Is that not what islam teaches??? That they replaced the church?

Not really That isn't a Muslim teaching.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Rose_bud]

If the sun still rises, God’s covenant with Israel still stands.

That’s the startling logic of Jeremiah 33where the fixed order of creation is offered as proof that God’s promises to the Jewish people are unbreakable. Yet in an age of rising theological confusion and mounting hostility toward Israel, many in the Church have begun to waver. Replacement Theology is back, often dressed in more “respectable” robes. But let’s be clear: if God can abandon Israel, then no one is safe. If He breaks that promise, why wouldn’t He break yours? Has God truly revoked His covenant? Has the Church replaced Israel in His plan? Or is the continued existence of Israel as certain as the sunrise?

The answer, resoundingly and unmistakably, is found in the mouth of the prophet Jeremiah:


These two verses are both a prophetic rebuke and a theological anchor. God Himself sets the terms: Only if the rhythm of day and night ceases — only if the laws that govern the cosmos unravel — then, and only then, would He cast off Israel.

Continued below.

If God can replace Israel, He can replace the Church, too

If the sun still rises, God s covenant with Israel still stands

www.christianpost.com

In its essence , the prophecy of Jeremiah has been fulfilled in and by the Lord of Righteousness. God has kept His promise, upholding His covenant with Abraham, Israel, and David. Christ is the true seed of Abraham, He is the Israelite who perfectly fulfilled the Law's requirements. As the Son of David, He is the rightful King. Both ethnic Jews and the Gentiles must come to this realization. The Church is a holy gathering, and comprises both Jews and Gentiles. Although Israel as a nation has failed, they have a representative in Christ who has not. In His humanity, He demonstrated faith like Abraham, and as an Jew/Israelite, He obeyed the Law. From the line of David, He reigns as King.

The covenants represent a progressive revelation of who God is and his plan for humanity, our redemption and restoration. Israel's history has provided the foundation for understanding this God. And Gentiles should be thankful for this heritage, which reveals God's character and requirements through their history with Him. But unbelieving Jews should also recognize that Paul's ministry to Gentiles served as a provocation, highlighting that eternal life comes not through works but through God's grace. This grace is embodied in Jesus Christ, the One they reject. The New covenant originated with the Jewish people, was promised to the Jews but in His wisdom he ensured that it expanded too all. For God is not a respector of persons.

 

[Clare73]

Rom 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.
As I told you, Paul is not redefining the meaning of the word "Israel" as it applies to *all* those descended from Israel. Rather, he is applying a standard of judgment by which one Israeli can be separated from another Israeli.
Matt 25.“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
Again, Paul is using a special application of the word "Israel" to convey a spiritual standard, but not to redefine the meaning of the word "Israel." If one is not truly acting like "Israel," he is no longer a "true Israeli," not meaning that he isn't of Israel, but that he is acting inconsistent with what the word is intended to mean in terms of behavior.

So, Paul is talking about the ultimate constitution of Israel after judgment, and not redefining who "Israel" is today, except that he consigns those resistant to faith to exclusion from the company of faith. He is certainly not talking about the British, or Germans, or Russians, or Chinese who have faith!

The fact remains: the only understanding of "Israel" that matters is God's understanding; i.e.,
those of faith in Jesus Christ are Abraham's seed (Gal 3:29), the true Israel (Ro 9:6-8, Gal 3:7-9, 6:16).

So Biblically, true Israel of faith in the Messiah is "international Christianiity."
Apostate Israel of unbelief in the Messiah is the country in the Middle East.

 

[RandyPNW]

The only understanding of "Israel" that matters is God's understanding; i.e.,
those of faith in Jesus Christ are Abraham's seed (Gal 3:29), the true Israel (Ro 9:6-8, Gal 3:7-9, 6:16).

True Israel is "international Christianiity."

You should be aware that saying "true Israel" consists of "Abraham's seed" says nothing to our discussion and does not address whether "Israel" refers to Jewish people or to International Christianity. *All* Christians are viewed, biblically, as "Abraham's seed" via faith in Christ.

Obviously, the literal nation of Israel was called to represent, as a nation, the believing descendants of Abraham in society. And many other nations have now been called to that, as well. Just being nations who represent children of faith, or Abraham's descendants through faith, does not determine which nation we are talking about, whether Israel or a community of nations.

I'll say it again....

Gal 3.7 Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. 8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” 9 So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

This simply states the common element of faith that those from any nation have with those of other nations. It does not state that "Israel" means "all nations of faith."

Gal 6.16 Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God.

Paul here is referring to the nation biologically descended from Abraham, the nation of Israel. He is not redefining "Israel" as meaning other nations being included with Israel. Israel is the national standard when they are operating in true faith.

It would be entirely irrational for Paul to refer to "Israel" unless he was referring to the literal nation. To use the term as a metaphor for the entire interntional Church would confuse the very distinciton among a plurality of nations that he referred to when referencing God's promise to Abraham to make for him nations (plural) of faith.

God did not promise Abraham a metaphorical nation (singular) of faith. Rather, He promised him a plurality of nations, along with a singular biological nation for his natural posterity.

Your use of the singular metaphor "Israel" is *not* how Paul is using the term, quite obviously. The choice to do so reflects a theological partiality towards what I call "Replacement Theology," an anti-Dispensational element in Covenant Theology.

I'm not a Dispensationalist (for the most part), and I do agree with much of Covenant Theology. But this strange use of metaphorical language using "Israel" as representative of the international Church is just not what I see Paul doing.

 

[DuaneR]

The fact remains: the only understanding of "Israel" that matters is God's understanding; i.e.,
those of faith in Jesus Christ are Abraham's seed (Gal 3:29), the true Israel (Ro 9:6-8, Gal 3:7-9, 6:16).

So Biblically, true Israel of faith in the Messiah is "international Christianiity."
Apostate Israel of unbelief in the Messiah is the country in the Middle East.

That is total bunk and the very heart of replacement theology.

Paul himself tells us that the TRUE Israel are "enemies of the gospel." (Romans 11) and that "all Israel shall be saved." The Gentile church was grafted into the Jewish people and faith.

 

[Clare73]

You are therefore introducing a *new definition* for "Israel,"

Don't lay that one on me. . .Paul did it!
He makes the distinction between Israel and true Israel.
The promises are to true Israel.

Those of faith in Jesus Christ are Abraham's seed (Gal 3:29), the true Israel (Ro 9:6-8, Gal 3:7-9, 6:16).

which to me is irrational. You are drawing upon Paul's use of the name "Israel" to indicate the ethical standard that was required of Israel to be "God's People."

Are you sure about that?

"True Israel" is just an "ethical standard". . .or is that God's meaning of Israel, those who believe in the promise (Ge 15:5-6, Seed, Jesus Christ, Gal 3:16)?
True Israel is a matter of faith. . .just as in the NT.

But they did not stop being called "Israel" even in their infidelity.

Which does not make them true Israel, the recipient of the promises.

This is what you're missing. It is a matter of "faithfulness"--not a matter of redefinition.
Let me put it like this. If you are unfaithful as a Christian, I may say you are not a "true Christian," not at all meaning that you don't go to church or pledge allegiance to the doctrines of the Church. I may simply say you are not a "true Christian" because you don't happen to be living up to the high ethical standards required of Christians.
This is not a redefinition of "Christian." It is marking who is "true," or "faithful," in their Christian practice.

And the unfaithful have no grounds for believing they are even Christians,
just as faithless Israel is not true Israel, to whom the promises are made.

The same would be true of the Jew who is not acting like a "true Jew" or of the nation who is not acting like "true Israel" because they are not living up to the standards represented by the Law of Moses.

The Christian does not stop being a "Christian" simply because he or she is backslidden. The Jew does not stop being a "Jew" simply because he or she is backslidden. Israel does not stop being 'Israel" because it has gone apostate.

Contraire. . .

Both the Christian and the Jew are not the people of God apart from faith in the Messiah.
Depends on what manner you are using the term, politically or Biblically.

Biblically is my reference points when it comes to being the people of God.

 

[Clare73]

That is total bunk

You get to address the Scriptures presented if your point is to have merit.

and the very heart of replacement theology.

Misnomer. . .

There is no such thing as "replacement" theology, there is only "fulfillment" theology.

God has only one people, those of faith in Jesus Christ in the NT, and those of faith in the promise (Ge 15:5-6, Seed, Jesus Christ, Gal 3:16) in the OT.

 

[RandyPNW]

Don't lay that one on me. . .Paul did it!
He makes the distinction between Israel and true Israel.
The promises are to true Israel.

As I said, Paul is *not* re-defining "Israel." He is distinguishing between faithlesss Jews and faithful Jews. It's like saying there are 2 Israels--the one that is obedient and the one that is faithful. "True Israel" is the one that is faithful, not at all meaning that the one who is faithless is one Israel and the one who is faithful is another Israel.

This is a literary device, based on how the Prophets distinguished between God's original calling of the nation to be faithful to the faith of Abraham, as opposed to the nation when it acted out of sorts with this calling. The nation could, in a sense, be scrubbed out of God's book of life, though we know God's intention all along was to write them back in. In fact it is critical that the nation be written back into God's book of life if He is to be true to His word and if He is to demonstrate grace to the whole world.

It becomes even more complicated when we realize that some names are scrubbed off the list of citizens, never more to be written back in. "True Israel" is a practical calling from the beginning, expecting flaws and even complete failures. But "True Israel" was always destined to come to perfection, by the elimination of all who do not belong.

Jews who have converted to Christ are faithful Jews, and become part of what God originally called Israel to be: "True Israel." God did not call Jews to be "Faithless Israel."

Still, as another poster just said, Paul identified "Israel" as "enemies of the Gospel." Does that sound like Israel is "International Christianity?" We are not speaking of "True Israel" as in re-defining "Israel" as "International Christianity." Rather, we are speaking of Israel's original calling *as a nation* and as their destiny to be a Faithful Christian Nation.

True Israel is a matter of faith. . .just as in the NT.

Which does not make them true Israel, the recipient of the promises.

Paul called "Israel" the "enemies of the Gospel." When he called Israel "True Israel" he was not talking about another Israel, but rather, about Israel achieving their true Christian calling. The reference was to the original Israel, assuming at least a remnant would be true to start with and eventually the whole nation would convert to Christianity.

.Both the Christian and the Jew are not the people of God apart from faith in the Messiah.

Israel did not, in the OT era, even know who the Messiah would be! And you are saying they were not at that time the "People of God?" That would be contrary to what Hosea called them.

Depends on what manner you are using the term, politically or Biblically.
Biblically is my reference points when it comes to being the people of God.

You have too many definitions of "Israel." You use the term "True Israel" as if it doesn't even refer, any longer, to the Jewish country, as if it applies now to International Christianity.

If you have one definition for the natural country in the Middle East, and another metaphorical definition meaning not just one nation but a multiplication of nations, you are confusing and speaking irrationally. "Israel" can be looked at in several different ways, but it always refers to the same thing--the Jewish nation.

 

[PatrickTate]

If the sun still rises, God’s covenant with Israel still stands.

That’s the startling logic of Jeremiah 33where the fixed order of creation is offered as proof that God’s promises to the Jewish people are unbreakable. Yet in an age of rising theological confusion and mounting hostility toward Israel, many in the Church have begun to waver. Replacement Theology is back, often dressed in more “respectable” robes. But let’s be clear: if God can abandon Israel, then no one is safe. If He breaks that promise, why wouldn’t He break yours? Has God truly revoked His covenant? Has the Church replaced Israel in His plan? Or is the continued existence of Israel as certain as the sunrise?

The answer, resoundingly and unmistakably, is found in the mouth of the prophet Jeremiah:


These two verses are both a prophetic rebuke and a theological anchor. God Himself sets the terms: Only if the rhythm of day and night ceases — only if the laws that govern the cosmos unravel — then, and only then, would He cast off Israel.

Continued below.

If God can replace Israel, He can replace the Church, too

If the sun still rises, God s covenant with Israel still stands

www.christianpost.com

I remember hearing a rather shocking prediction back in 2012 that was hard to imagine back then but obviously we are closer to this event. You can skip to the seventeen minute mark in this video to hear about a prediction of an Exodus of USA Jews up to Canada before they make Aliyah to Israel.



Jeremiah 16:14¶
Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that it shall no more be said, The LORD liveth, that brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt;

But, The LORD liveth, that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the lands whither he had driven them: and I will bring them again into their land that I gave unto their fathers."

 

[Clare73]

As I said, Paul is *not* re-defining "Israel." He is distinguishing between faithlesss Jews and faithful Jews. It's like saying there are 2 Israels--the one that is obedient and the one that is faithful. "True Israel" is the one that is faithful, not at all meaning that the one who is faithless is one Israel and the one who is faithful is another Israel.

This is a literary device, based on how the Prophets distinguished between God's original calling of the nation to be faithful to the faith of Abraham, as opposed to the nation when it acted out of sorts with this calling. The nation could, in a sense, be scrubbed out of God's book of life, though we know God's intention all along was to write them back in. In fact it is critical that the nation be written back into God's book of life if He is to be true to His word and if He is to demonstrate grace to the whole world.

It becomes even more complicated when we realize that some names are scrubbed off the list of citizens, never more to be written back in. "True Israel" is a practical calling from the beginning, expecting flaws and even complete failures. But "True Israel" was always destined to come to perfection, by the elimination of all who do not belong.

Jews who have converted to Christ are faithful Jews, and become part of what God originally called Israel to be: "True Israel." God did not call Jews to be "Faithless Israel."

Still, as another poster just said, Paul identified "Israel" as "enemies of the Gospel." Does that sound like Israel is "International Christianity?" We are not speaking of "True Israel" as in re-defining "Israel" as "International Christianity." Rather, we are speaking of Israel's original calling *as a nation* and as their destiny to be a Faithful Christian Nation.

Paul called "Israel" the "enemies of the Gospel." When he called Israel "True Israel" he was not talking about another Israel, but rather, about Israel achieving their true Christian calling. The reference was to the original Israel, assuming at least a remnant would be true to start with and eventually the whole nation would convert to Christianity.

Israel did not, in the OT era, even know who the Messiah would be! And you are saying they were not at that time the "People of God?" That would be contrary to what Hosea called them.

As previously stated, any who did not believe in the promise (Ge 15:5, Seed, Jesus Christ, Gal 3:16) were not true Israelites.
Those who rejected Christ were not true Israelites.

You have too many definitions of "Israel." You use the term "True Israel" as if it doesn't even refer, any longer, to the Jewish country, as if it applies now to International Christianity.

That is precisely how it is used in the NT, Abraham's offspring are all those who believe in the promise (Ge 15:5-6, Seed, Jesus Christ, Gal 3:16), who are of the faith of Abraham (Ro 4:16, Gal 6:16, 3:29, Eph 3:6, Heb 8:8--NewCov Israel).

If you have one definition for the natural country in the Middle East, and another metaphorical definition meaning not just one nation but a multiplication of nations, you are confusing and speaking irrationally. "Israel" can be looked at in several different ways, but it always refers to the same thing--the Jewish nation.

Not in Ro 4:16, Gal 6:16, 3:29, Eph 3:6, Heb 8:8.

 

[RandyPNW]

As previously stated, any who did not believe in the promise (Ge 15:5, Seed, Jesus Christ, Gal 3:16) were not true Israelites.
Those who rejected Christ were not true Israelites.

That is contrary to what Paul stated...
Rom 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!

Paul is here clearly admitting that Israel had rejected Jesus and asserts that they can clearly be recovered! So, as Hosea wrote those who had been "God's People" could be temporarily scrubbed as "Not God's People," only to be readmitted as God's People.

"True Israel" is only a term Paul used for when Israel is ideally in compliance with God's dictates. It did not mean that Israel ceased to be the Jewish nation when they were out of compliance with God's covenant.

Israel, according to Paul, is capable of being restored as "True Israel," the nation. Israel does not, upon complying with God's covenant, suddenly become more than a literal nation, ie an international group of Christians!

That is precisely how it is used in the NT, Abrahams offspring are all those who believe in the promise (Ge 15:5-6, Seed, Jesus Christ, Gal 3:16), who are of the faith of Abraham (Ro 4:16, Gal 6:16, 3:29, Eph 3:6, Heb 8:8--NewCov Israel).
Not in Ro 4:16, Gal 6:16, 3:29, Eph 3:6, Heb 8:8.

No, I'm sorry but you're wrong, in my opinion. Paul uses the word "Israel" only for the literal nation, and never for an international community. Whether referring to "True Israel" or to "Faithless Israel," Paul only references the literal nation. He never uses the term metaphorically to apply to the international Church.

 

[Clare73]

That is contrary to what Paul stated...

Actually this is what Paul states in Ro 11:16-23: that

God has only one tree (composed of his people),
unbelieving Israel has been cut off the one tree of God's people,
believing Gentiles were grafted into their place in the one tree of God's people, and
Israel will be "grafted back into the one tree of God's people IF (not "when") they do not persist in unbellief." (Ro 11:23)

Israel's destiny is to be grafted back into the one olive tree of God's people (the church of the OT and NT saints, Ac 7:38), IF they do not persist in unbelief (Ro 11:23). As long as they are in unbelief and cut off the one tree, they are not God's people.
Israel has no other destiny.