Let's discuss Israel

Hank77 said:

The same way the Abraham was saved, by God's grace through faith. He believed/faith and it was accounted to him as righteousness.
Genesis 15:6
Romans 4:3
Galatians 3:6

Click to expand...

Faith applied is, an act, based upon a belief, sustained by confidence.

Abrahams Faith or faithing was in God " Himself" not in God's promises.

The mistranslated words believe, believer,and believing cause people to make Gods word and His promises their object of Faith, instead of God Himself.

I do not believe in the replacement theology either. God calls us all into one church, not separated. He calls us His Churchbride. Together we are called the body of Christ.

Southernscotty said:

Ok I would like some opinions on this issue because I am in total and complete disagreement with this "theology"
I haven't spent any time really researching this until today, However a dear friend is stating his belief that Israel has been replaced by the church.
I can not comprehend this thinking as I read my bible and the many scriptures in it pointing to the fact that Israel is indeed the apple of God's eyes and He is the same yesterday, Today and tomorrow.
My bible [KJV Personally] Points to Israel being very special in God's eyes and in fact the Israelites were the ones given the very Oracles of God.

I thought it would be interesting how many here believe this replacement theology .

Perhaps we can see some differing views on this and tell us what scriptures supports your basis?
I have deliberately left out any scripture supporting and/or opposing this view so that you can use them yourself as to why you concur or oppose?

This is my very first poll so hopefully I have done this correctly
Thank You

Click to expand...

Spiritual Israel is the apple of God's eye, not physical Israel.

Aspzan said:

If anyone cares I have withdrawn from my previous standpoint to gather more knowledge about the topic.

I may resolve the issue quickly or it may take a long time. I definitely need to ask God for guidance here and also analyse everything I hear and compare with scripture.

As a new-ish Christian I find a lot of this very heavy. Can anyone relate?

Click to expand...

I really appreciate your humble attitude.

I agree with Hank77, you're fortunate to have even been exposed to this theology now. I've been a Christian for 50 years and am only now reading about what the destruction of the temple in 70 AD meant to ancient Jerusalem. I'm sure you're head is spinning with all the alternate beliefs, though.

For me....it's simpler to approach this in the "big picture" sort of way. This article was one of the first articles that shed light on this framework for me:

mkgal1 said:

I really appreciate your humble attitude.

I agree with Hank77, you're fortunate to have even been exposed to this theology now. I've been a Christian for 50 years and am only now reading about what the destruction of the temple in 70 AD meant to ancient Jerusalem. I'm sure you're head is spinning with all the alternate beliefs, though.

For me....it's simpler to approach this in the "big picture" sort of way. This article was one of the first articles that shed light on this framework for me:

Quoting Ray Vander Laan------->The Jewish Revolts

Jewish people of Jesus' day had a passionate desire for freedom from the domination of the pagan Romans and the oppressive Herod dynasty that had ruled them for many years. Revolt seethed continuously, mostly underground, for more than 100 years from the time Herod became king (37 BC) until the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple (AD 70).It is helpful to realize that this underlying struggle is the backdrop for Jesus' ministry, and why so many hoped he would be a conquering king. This helps us understand why the adulation of the crowds during the triumphal entry reduced Jesus to tears, and probably why many rejected his message. ~ The Jewish Revolts​

Click to expand...

Thanks. I agree approaching in the "big picture" or bird's eye view is a good way of looking at it all. Earlier I was too focused in on things and it wasn't helping

Well what is the Church? Is it another distinct people of God apart of the Israel of old? What does that make the Apostles whom were both Jewish and the leaders of the Church to which they were constituted?

The problem for me whenever someone suggests that the Church is not the continuation of Israel, is that makes a fundamental distinction between what God did in the Old Testament and what he does in the New Testament. As if he was abandoning the Jews and moving on to the Gentiles.

If we take seriously what John the Baptists says regarding sons of Abraham being made out of Stones, then fleshly descent from Abraham does not seem like the ultimate way of determining whether one belongs to Israel. What counts is faith, as Paul says, we (gentiles) were adopted on account of our faith. We were incorporated into Abraham's family by that same faith and if that family isn't the continuation of Ancient Israel, is there then a distinction between the children of Abraham and Israel?

This isn't to suggest that God has abandoned the Jews or does not care for them. But it is to suggest that that Jews do not hold pride and place as God's people since they have willingly rejected Christ as Messiah. If you then bring in this distinction, between the Church and Israel, you in effect create two classes of God's people which seems anethma to the whole point of the biblical story which is one of continuation and not starting over. It's the same problem I have with Islam, which basically suggests God starts over again with the Arabs because he couldn't help the earlier people.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Well what is the Church? Is it another distinct people of God apart of the Israel of old? What does that make the Apostles whom were both Jewish and the leaders of the Church to which they were constituted?

The problem for me whenever someone suggests that the Church is not the continuation, of Israel is that makes a fundamental distinction between what God did in the Old Testament and what he does in the New Testament. As if he was abandoning the Jews and moving on to the Gentiles.

If we take seriously what John the Baptists says regarding sons of Abraham being made out of Stones, then fleshly descent from Abraham does not seem like the ultimate way of determining whether one belongs to Israel. What counts is faith, as Paul says, we (gentiles) were adopted on account of our faith. We were incorporated into Abraham's family by that same faith and if that family isn't the continuation of Ancient Israel, is there then a distinction between the children of Abraham and Israel?

This isn't to suggest that God has abandoned the Jews or does not care for them. But it is to suggest that that Jews do not hold pride and place as God's people since they have willingly rejected Christ as Messiah. If you then bring in this distinction, between the Church and Israel, you in effect create two classes of God's people which seems anethma to the whole point of the biblical story which is one of continuation and not starting over. It's the same problem I have with Islam, which basically suggests God starts over again with the Arabs because he couldn't help the earlier people.

Click to expand...

Well said !

Southernscotty said:

Ok I would like some opinions on this issue because I am in total and complete disagreement with this "theology"
I haven't spent any time really researching this until today, However a dear friend is stating his belief that Israel has been replaced by the church.
I can not comprehend this thinking as I read my bible and the many scriptures in it pointing to the fact that Israel is indeed the apple of God's eyes and He is the same yesterday, Today and tomorrow.
My bible [KJV Personally] Points to Israel being very special in God's eyes and in fact the Israelites were the ones given the very Oracles of God.

I thought it would be interesting how many here believe this replacement theology .

Perhaps we can see some differing views on this and tell us what scriptures supports your basis?
I have deliberately left out any scripture supporting and/or opposing this view so that you can use them yourself as to why you concur or oppose?

This is my very first poll so hopefully I have done this correctly
Thank You

Click to expand...

It is not a replacement it is a fulfillment of the Lord's promise that the just should life by faith(Galatians 3;Romans 4;Hebrews 11; Hebrews 10:38;Romans 1:17). No longer does the circumcision of flesh or being a descendant of Abraham mean anything(a jew these things do not make)
Romans 4:13-14
13For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, wasnot to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

Instead we are all the Children of God through Christ being made a part of his Spiritual kingdom Israel(John 1:12; Galatians 3:26; Romans 8:16-19)
Galatians 2:28-29
28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

1 Peter 2:9-10
9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 10Which in time pastwere not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Before it was the descendants of Abraham and physical circumcision. Now it is about faith and Christ(Galatians 6:15-16). The Circumcision of the Heart and Spirit(Romans 2:28-29; Acts 15:7-9; Romans 10:8; Colossians 2:11-13; Philippians 3:3) is for the each and every person alive today, and every man who does not accept Christ is none of his(Matt 10:33-35). The nation of Israel that is in the middle-east today is not God's Kingdom. The Kingdom of Israel was taken from the Old testament Jews and Given to us(Matt 21:43; Romans 10:19,20; Acts 28:25-28) who are Jews in faith and Spirit. The Lord's spiritual nation is within each of us(Ephesians 2:19-22).

Those who claim to be Jews in Israel do not have any right to the name based not only on the fact that they deny Christ, but also because their blood is impure(making them ineligible to claim the name or any right based on blood) breaking the commanded given not to mix(Ezra 9:1-4, 10-14; Ezra 10:2-5, 10-12, 14-44; Nehemiah 13:13; Malachi 2:11,14,15,16; Deut 7:2-4; Deut 23:1-10; Leviticus 21:7:13-15; Exodus 34:12,16; 1 Kings 11:1-9,23-28; Genesis 27:46-Genesis 28:1-6; Genesis 24:3-4; Psalm 106:34-32). Those Jews who today claim to be Jews by blood or by keeping the Torah are in fact not Jews but of the synagogue of Satan. The same who work against Christ and his people and are spoken of in Revelation( Revelation 3:9 Revelation 2:9).

Those in Israel(worldly/earthly Israel) today are those who will be destroyed as prophesied in Zech 14:1-2, Isaiah 13:16, where only a residue will survive Zech 14:2.

brinny said:

Gentiles (like me) who come to Christ, are "grafted in" to the root. We do not "replace" anything.

Click to expand...

In the grafting process, the rootstock (ancient Israel) is completely cutoff to promote the growth of the scion (us). Grafting as an analogy only supports replacement theology.

nonaeroterraqueous said:

the rootstock (ancient Israel) is completely cutoff

Click to expand...

....but like Ignatius the Kiwi said earlier: where does that leave the early church (including the apostles) that were both Jewish and followers of Jesus? Certainly they weren't "cut off".

This is a crude image - but I see the "grafting in" process as looking more like this (with only a few branches cut off, but the tree is continuing):

nonaeroterraqueous said:

In the grafting process, the rootstock (ancient Israel) is completely cutoff to promote the growth of the scion (us). Grafting as an analogy only supports replacement theology.

Click to expand...

The "root" is Jesus the Christ. the Messiah. (The "root of Jesse") He is surely not "cut off", is He?

It is written that we (Gentiles) are "grafted" on.

the Hebrew word used for “root” (sheresh) implies a root that remains alive and sends up a shoot or branch; thus, the root of Jesse was a root from which more descendants could come.

Click to expand...

What is the meaning of root of Jesse in the Bible?

Southernscotty said:

Ok I would like some opinions on this issue because I am in total and complete disagreement with this "theology"
I haven't spent any time really researching this until today, However a dear friend is stating his belief that Israel has been replaced by the church.
I can not comprehend this thinking as I read my bible and the many scriptures in it pointing to the fact that Israel is indeed the apple of God's eyes and He is the same yesterday, Today and tomorrow.
My bible [KJV Personally] Points to Israel being very special in God's eyes and in fact the Israelites were the ones given the very Oracles of God.

I thought it would be interesting how many here believe this replacement theology .

Perhaps we can see some differing views on this and tell us what scriptures supports your basis?
I have deliberately left out any scripture supporting and/or opposing this view so that you can use them yourself as to why you concur or oppose?

This is my very first poll so hopefully I have done this correctly
Thank You

Click to expand...

"Replacement Theology" is not a term that anyone would claim for themselves. It's a pejorative term used to refer to Covenant Theology.

The Bible teaches that God has a covenant people and is faithful to this covenant people. He made promises to them. He always works to fulfill these promises. And he delivers them from their sins. These people are the children of Abraham. The question is - who are the true children of Abraham?

The Jews of Jesus' day who did not believe in Jesus thought they were the sons of Abraham. They told Jesus at the temple in John 8 - "We are sons of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone!" And "Abraham is our father." Jesus acknowledged that Abraham is their father in a fleshly sense, but he denied that they were true sons of Abraham. He told them that if they were sons of Abraham, then they would be doing what Abraham did. As it was, though, they were seeking to kill Jesus. The true sons of Abraham are identified by all those who love Jesus and believe in him. This is what Abraham did. Apart from this faith in Christ, a physical descent from Abraham is not eternally meaningful.

Paul teaches similarly that it is those of faith (in Christ) who are sons of Abraham - from both Jews and Gentiles. So it's not so much that the church has replaced Israel. It's that God's people - the church - was once contained exclusively within the nation of Israel but is now universal and scattered among the nations. A physical descendant of Abraham who rejects Jesus Christ has no special status in God's eyes.

Tree of Life said:

"Replacement Theology" is not a term that anyone would claim for themselves. It's a pejorative term used to refer to Covenant Theology.

The Bible teaches that God has a covenant people and is faithful to this covenant people. He made promises to them. He always works to fulfill these promises. And he delivers them from their sins. These people are the children of Abraham. The question is - who are the true children of Abraham?

The Jews of Jesus' day who did not believe in Jesus thought they were the sons of Abraham. They told Jesus at the temple in John 8 - "We are sons of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone!" And "Abraham is our father." Jesus acknowledged that Abraham is their father in a fleshly sense, but he denied that they were true sons of Abraham. He told them that if they were sons of Abraham, then they would be doing what Abraham did. As it was, though, they were seeking to kill Jesus. The true sons of Abraham are identified by all those who love Jesus and believe in him. This is what Abraham did. Apart from this faith in Christ, a physical descent from Abraham is not eternally meaningful.

Paul teaches similarly that it is those of faith (in Christ) who are sons of Abraham - from both Jews and Gentiles. So it's not so much that the church has replaced Israel. It's that God's people - the church - was once contained exclusively within the nation of Israel but is now universal and scattered among the nations. A physical descendant of Abraham who rejects Jesus Christ has no special status in God's eyes.

Click to expand...

The very reason that God called Abraham His "friend", is because Abraham "believed" God.

All of Abraham's spiritual "descendants" are those who "believe" God.

That would include Gentiles, who are "grafted" on to the "root of Jesse", and that would be Jesus the Christ, the long-promised Messiah, Who God spoke of in the Garden of Eden.

Southernscotty said:

Ok I would like some opinions on this issue because I am in total and complete disagreement with this "theology"
I haven't spent any time really researching this until today, However a dear friend is stating his belief that Israel has been replaced by the church.
I can not comprehend this thinking as I read my bible and the many scriptures in it pointing to the fact that Israel is indeed the apple of God's eyes and He is the same yesterday, Today and tomorrow.
My bible [KJV Personally] Points to Israel being very special in God's eyes and in fact the Israelites were the ones given the very Oracles of God.

I thought it would be interesting how many here believe this replacement theology .

Perhaps we can see some differing views on this and tell us what scriptures supports your basis?
I have deliberately left out any scripture supporting and/or opposing this view so that you can use them yourself as to why you concur or oppose?

This is my very first poll so hopefully I have done this correctly
Thank You

Click to expand...

Geopolitical Israel is not the same as Spiritual Israel and the New Jerusalem yet to come when Jesus appears the second time.
The Church which is the Body of Christ contains many converted Jews through the ages. Starting with the 12 Apostles. Paul over and over tried to explain the grafting in of the Gentiles into the branches of the olive tree while some were broken off , Jews who reject Christ.

So now what are we to make of these Jews who reject Christ?

Are they being held in some special place? It is not just the Jews of today it is ALL of them through the ages. Where are they?

Jesus said where they are and they are not with Him and will never be with Him. So if you want to believe that God has a special place for the unbelieving Jew, then you will have to take this up with Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Israel is now where Jesus Christ of Nazareth is...... King in the Kingdom of God. It is wrong to give hope to those who reject Christ.

Blessings

I don't believe in replacement theology. Israel as a nation emerged 70 years ago. God is not done with the Jews.

Southernscotty said:

Ok I would like some opinions on this issue because I am in total and complete disagreement with this "theology"
I haven't spent any time really researching this until today, However a dear friend is stating his belief that Israel has been replaced by the church.
I can not comprehend this thinking as I read my bible and the many scriptures in it pointing to the fact that Israel is indeed the apple of God's eyes and He is the same yesterday, Today and tomorrow.
My bible [KJV Personally] Points to Israel being very special in God's eyes and in fact the Israelites were the ones given the very Oracles of God.

I thought it would be interesting how many here believe this replacement theology .

Perhaps we can see some differing views on this and tell us what scriptures supports your basis?
I have deliberately left out any scripture supporting and/or opposing this view so that you can use them yourself as to why you concur or oppose?

This is my very first poll so hopefully I have done this correctly
Thank You

Click to expand...

The elect in the church and the elect in Israel belong to one fold.

Well politically one could say I am a Zionist because I believe the Jewish people should have a state in their ancestral homeland. Theologically however Israel was never God’s chosen people. It was always the Church, the Church never replaced Israel. It was just widened to include Gentiles. The Church has always been Israel itself.

Southernscotty said:

Ok I would like some opinions on this issue because I am in total and complete disagreement with this "theology"
I haven't spent any time really researching this until today, However a dear friend is stating his belief that Israel has been replaced by the church.
I can not comprehend this thinking as I read my bible and the many scriptures in it pointing to the fact that Israel is indeed the apple of God's eyes and He is the same yesterday, Today and tomorrow.
My bible [KJV Personally] Points to Israel being very special in God's eyes and in fact the Israelites were the ones given the very Oracles of God.

I thought it would be interesting how many here believe this replacement theology .

Perhaps we can see some differing views on this and tell us what scriptures supports your basis?
I have deliberately left out any scripture supporting and/or opposing this view so that you can use them yourself as to why you concur or oppose?

This is my very first poll so hopefully I have done this correctly
Thank You

Click to expand...

I clicked undecided cause neither other option really said it.

That God has preserved the Jewish people through 3000 years against all odds should be regarded as a proof of the existence of a loving and faithful God who is true to His promises. That he has brought them back to Israel also seems to be a fulfilment of prophecy. I believe a Messianic Jew , praying in the name of Jesus, has the right to claim the land promise given to Abraham. There is no authority on earth that can make a higher claim. In this sense Israel persists and is blessed by God and continues to have a special purpose in his plan.

On the other hand there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ. Any special distinction that the Jews once had is broken down by the new covenant. The laws that set them apart e.g. food laws have been superceded by this new reality ( as Peter discovered in Acts). In this sense the church has replaced Israel as the true focus and community of Gods people on earth.

In essence BOTH are true.

Al Masihi said:

Well politically one could say I am a Zionist because I believe the Jewish people should have a state in their ancestral homeland. Theologically however Israel was never God’s chosen people. It was always the Church, the Church never replaced Israel. It was just widened to include Gentiles. The Church has always been Israel itself.

Click to expand...

So, are you saying that you don't believe physical Israel was ever God's people, because physical Israel is just a type of the Church?