If Amils are right and we are in the Millennium "Kingdom" now, what other verses back this up?

RandyPNW said:

It may be hopeless. I feel frustrated, as well. I feel certain I've understood your argument, and have answered it the best I can. The Bible is not creating "groups," but identifying two kinds of people in the same nation--believers and unbelievers. There are different quantities of unbelievers and different quantities of believers at different times in Israel's history. At the time of Jesus, the quantity of unbelievers was large, and the quantity of believers small.

Again, these two groups are not entities or organizations, and cannot be called "nations." They are the same nation in different times and in different conditions. I will quote it again, and you tell me whether the believers form one political group and the unbelievers form another political group? After all, you referenced "nations," plural, and these are political entities!

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. 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.

As you can see, this is not speaking of a plurality of political groups, nor of "nations" plural. Rather, it is speaking to whether there is a pedigree that can be claimed in order to inherit Abraham's promises, simply by being descended from Abraham. The assumption then has to be made that the pedigree matters, since that is the claim that is being made.

But Paul's argument is not that the pedigree doesn't matter, but that it alone is worthless if there is no reference to the faith of Abraham. The promise concerns God's choice to have people of faith.

So those who don't have faith may populate Israel at one time, and it is still "Israel." But it is only at that point "the hope of Israel" to be populated with those of faith when those who don't have it repent and receive it.

In other times, Israel's population majority may exercise faith and come closer to the promise of Abraham's national inheritance. Those who reject faith forever are cut off from Israel forever. It isn't that they weren't "Israel," but that they were not what God promised, and were rendered "illegitimate."



1 Peter 2.9 is a different passage from the one I discuss above, and has a different answer. As I said before, the international Church is not the nation Israel--neither literally nor figuratively.

Peter began his letter by addressing Jewish exiles, and it is to them he is explaining that they were called to be a holy nation. He does that in the light of the fact Israel, in that time, had largely turned against their calling. Peter was encouraging believers to hold onto their calling so that in due season Israel would be restored, as a nation, to faith. My take...



It's in the nature of human beings to have difficulty understanding one another for a variety of reasons, not the least of which we are imperfect. But there's no reason to savage one another simply because fences are not mended instantly, and all is clear in the blink of an eye. I think you're sincere, and I accept that you're frustrated. So am I, quite frankly.

But this is part of the process. We'll continue trying until we burn out, or?

Click to expand...

Spiritual Jew said:

You said to me: "you think every scripture in the NT, is about you or written to you.". That was an accusation you made about me and it is false. That is a false accusation. Period. You can deny it all you want, but everyone can see that.

Click to expand...

Spiritual Jew said:

Wow. I couldn't disagree more. I believe he made it clear that it had everything to do with being a child of God and child of the promise and, according to what he wrote in Galatians 3:26-29, it is all of those who have faith in Christ that are the children of God and children of the promise, whether Jew or Gentile.

Sorry, but I can't make any sense out of what you said here.

Click to expand...

1. True Israel comprised of Jews from Israel who also believed Jesus is their promised Messiah
2. Natural Israel comprised of all Jews from Israel.

sovereigngrace said:

Here was your response:

"Answer to all your questions: that is the Body of Christ."

So, has the body of Christ become ethnic Israel or spiritual Israel? They have to be one or the other. After all, you admit these relate to the NT Church.

Click to expand...

Guojing said:

As I said, people make comments about my doctrine all the time in Internet forums, most of them are incorrect.

I don't go around "accusing" them of making false accusations. We are all strangers on Internet forums, why would I expect them to be correct about what I believe in?

Click to expand...

Spiritual Jew said:

Maybe you should think about whether or not you know what you're saying about someone is true before posting it? Is that something that ever enters your mind? Or do you prefer to just make unfounded assumptions about people instead?

Click to expand...

Guojing said:

He is simply saying, as I have also said

1. True Israel comprised of Jews from Israel who also believed Jesus is their promised Messiah

Natural Israel comprised of all Jews from Israel.

Click to expand...

So only part of Natural Israel belongs to true Israel (Romans 9:6)

That is what Paul meant in Romans 9:6.

Click to expand...

As regarding your usage of Galatians 3:26-29, you are again trying to make the Body of Christ, where it is indeed true that Jews or gentile doesn't matter, and squeezing that term into Romans 9:6, which as I said to you, is incorrect usage.

Click to expand...

Guojing said:

I actually tried doing that here in other threads, asking all kinds of questions about someone's beliefs before making conclusions, to make sure I understand them correctly.

Click to expand...

It also irritated them because they will claim "Why do you keep asking all these questions, can you make your point directly to me?".

Click to expand...

You can never win either way. =) Some people will get offended no matter what you do. The principle I follow is this "Offense is never given, only taken".

Click to expand...

Spiritual Jew said:

So, it looks like you are saying here that True Israel and Natural Israel are two different entities (nations) rather than two groups within one entity (nation). Is that correct? If so, then that's different than what he has been saying.
I agree, but that is NOT what Randy has been saying. He sees one Israel being mentioned (Natural Israel + True Israel = 2 Israels) that is divided into two groups (unbelievers in one group and believers in the other).

Why would Abraham's seed/the children of God/children of the promise in one passage be different than Abraham's seed/the children of God/children of promise in the other passage? That doesn't make any sense. You're not interpreting scripture with scripture when you don't see any connection between those two passages.

Click to expand...

Guojing said:

You are committing the fallacy of false dilemma here.

The Body of Christ is a NEW creation, as what Paul states in 2 Corinthians 5:17.

He speaks of it as a mystery, meaning its hidden until it was revealed to him by the ascended Christ himself (Galatians 1:11-12, Ephesians 3:1-9)

My definition of the term "new creation" is that it is completely separate from Israel, ethnicity or otherwise.

So, no, they don't have "to be one or the other"

Click to expand...

jeffweedaman said:

It was to the house of Israel that he promised a new heart and new Spirit . This is found in THEIR Messiah lol = body of Christ.

Click to expand...

Spiritual Jew said:

Why would Abraham's seed/the children of God/children of the promise in one passage be different than Abraham's seed/the children of God/children of promise in the other passage? That doesn't make any sense. You're not interpreting scripture with scripture when you don't see any connection between those two passages.

Click to expand...

• Stars in the heaven
• Sand in the shore

eclipsenow said:

Except your artificial split between 'heaven and earth' is a false dichotomy, because the Body of Christ, Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Light, People of God, church, ecclesia, whatever you want to call us - WE inherit both heaven and earth.

The 'stars in the heaven' and 'sand in the shore' are a great example of Hebrew repetition. They do it all the time, and very often. (See what I did there?) Just in case you don't hear it the first time, they emphasise it again.

PS: If you REALLY mean it, say it 3 times. EG: "Holy, Holy, Holy!"

But back to repetition. It's just 2 examples of really big uncountable numbers from the natural world, stars and sand. Not 2 different people. There's only one people of God - us. That's it. The secular nation of Israel has absolutely ZERO to do with God's plans now - except that they are a nation of people Christ died for - just like us Australians downunder or Americans or anyone really.

Repeat: Christians inherit and new heavens and a new earth. Indeed, in Acts 1:8 Jesus instructs the disciples to take the gospel (and with it the kingdom of God / Body of Christ) to the ends of the earth. The whole world is already ours. It's this way that the gospel of Jesus fulfils God's promise that Abrahams descendants would bless the whole earth. Us. The church. That's it, full stop, end of story, the end.

Click to expand...

1. scripture written to Israel
2. scripture written to the body of Christ

Guojing said:

The house of Israel was promised a New Covenant, I agree.

That New Covenant is based on Christ, I agree.

But again, why do you see the need to call that the "Body of Christ"?

Click to expand...

sovereigngrace said:

Gal 4:28: "Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise."

Click to expand...

RandyPNW said:

Right, but he did not say that these two different groups were two different *nations.* He didn't say there were two "Israels." And that is the point.

So Paul is using language suggesting there is just one Israel with two groups contained in it, one group being "true Israel," the ones who will be faithful, and the other group to be discarded as not adequately representative of the faith that belongs to that nation.

Think of a large field with a lot of good wheat in it, as well as a lot of tares in it. The tares are removed into piles and burned, and the wheat is gathered into barns to keep.

The field is Israel, and the wheat are the true membership who ultimately demonstrate faith. The tares are members of Israel who are then disposed of because of their predilection towards rejecting faith and opting for independence from God. They are cast off from the congregation of Israel, and become "rejected Israel."

You may class this as two groups of Israelis, but not as two "Israels." The rejected Israelis never form a nation--they are outcasts. They are burned in a fire, not to torture them but to remove them from the nation, just as tares are burned and removed from the field.

Presently, Israel appears to be a discarded nation, because the vast majority of them are unfaithful. And that certainly is what Jesus said would happen to them in this age, that the Kingdom would be "taken" from them.

But there is nothing indicating the same nation cannot be brought to repentance as a majority. That certainly happened in the Wilderness when Israel after the generation that died obeyed God and conquered Canaan. They didn't obey perfectly, but they did repent of what the previous generation failed to do.

I realize you can't understand what I'm saying. I think that's because you're not quite willing to entertain my pov. Oh well, we have to follow our own conscience, right?

Click to expand...

Timtofly said:

Matthew 13 and the parable about the tares and wheat is not about Israel.

"The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;"

This takes place after the Second Coming. Jesus is on earth with His angels for a second earthly harvest. Just like the first century ministry, but the world will witness Jesus in person along with Satan. The angels are literally removing souls from living humans in all nations.

This is the final harvest and time of great tribulation. The church and Israel have already been harvested. This is the time of the 7 Thunders in Revelation 10.

"The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;"

Click to expand...

eclipsenow said:

Unless you have profound reasons for over-riding the plain teaching of the New Testament with your incorrect and obscure interpretation of the promise to Abraham - which ignores all hermeneutical principles and the correct understanding of Hebrew literature - then I'm confused why you're sorry for me? I'm sorry you can't understand what you've done to the bible.


Covenant theology makes perfect sense.
Your false dichotomy trying to split the kingdom of God into two is completely artificial, unwarranted, and almost strikes me as heresy.




It's all written to "Israel" which is us, the kingdom of God, the body of Christ. There is no other.


Don't Bulverise me. You have to prove THAT I'm wrong - not try and psychoanalyse WHY I'm wrong!

It IS written to us and about us, just as it is written to ancient Israel and is about ancient Israel finally meeting her purpose as the people of God called by grace in the new kingdom of God. There is no evidence for a second kingdom of God or promises to old Israel under the old covenant in the New Testament. None. Zero. It's all fulfilled in Jesus and translated into a spiritual kingdom that also inherits this earth. Anything else practically breaks the gospel and could be classified as heresy.

Try reading this article today, then sleep on it.
Then reread it tomorrow.
This is important.
This is about the heart of the Covenant God made with his ONE people, Israel who are now the church.

NOT REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY
Recently I had a question asking whether “covenant theology” is so-called “replacement theology.” Those dispensational critics of Reformed covenant theology who accuse it of teaching that the New Covenant church has “replaced” Israel do not understand historic Reformed covenant theology. They are imputing to Reformed theology a way of thinking about redemptive history that has more in common with dispensationalism than it does with Reformed theology.

First, the very category of “replacement” is foreign to Reformed theology because it assumes a dispensational, Israeleo-centric way of thinking. It assumes that the temporary, national people was, in fact, intended to be the permanent arrangement. Such a way of thinking is contrary to the promise in Gen. 3:15. The promise was that there would be a Savior. The national people was only a means to that end, not an end in itself. According to Paul in Ephesians 2:11-22, in Christ the dividing wall has been destroyed. It cannot be rebuilt. The two peoples (Jews and Gentiles) have been made one in Christ. Among those who are united to Christ by grace alone, through faith alone, there is no Jew nor Gentile (Rom. 10:12; Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11).

At least some forms of dispensationalism have suggested that God intended the national covenant with Israel to be permanent. According to Reformed theology, the Mosaic covenant was never intended to be permanent. According to Galatians 3 (and chapter 4), the Mosaic covenant was a codicil to the Abrahamic covenant. A codicil is added to an existing document. It doesn’t replace the existing document. Dispensationalism reverses things. It makes the Abrahamic covenant a codicil to the Mosaic. Hebrews 3 says that Moses was a worker in Jesus’ house. Dispensationalism makes Jesus a worker in Moses’ house.

Second, with respect to salvation, Reformed covenant theology does not juxtapose Israel and the church. For Reformed theology, the church has always been the Israel of God and the Israel of God has always been the church. Reformed covenant theology distinguishes the old and new covenants (2 Cor. 3; Heb. 7-10). It recognizes that the church was temporarily administered through a typological, national people, but the church has existed since Adam, Noah, and Abraham; and it existed under Moses and David; and it exists under Christ.

Third, the church has always been one, under various administrations, under types, shadows, and now under the reality in Christ, because the object of faith has always been one. Jesus the Messiah was the object of faith of the typological church (Heb. 11; Luke 24; 2 Cor. 3), and he remains the object of faith.

Fourth, despite the abrogation of the national covenant by the obedience, death, and resurrection of Christ (Col. 2:14), the NT church has not “replaced” the Jews. Paul says that God “grafted” the Gentiles into the people of God. Grafting is not replacement, it is addition.

It has been widely held by Reformed theologians that there will be a great conversion of Jews. Some call this “anti-Semitism.” This isn’t anti-Semitism, it is Christianity. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). The alternative to Jesus’ exclusivist claim is universalism, which is nothing less than an assault on the person and finished work of Christ. Other Reformed writers understand the promises in Rom. 11 to refer only to the salvation of all the elect (Rom. 2:28) rather than to a future conversion of Jews. In any event, Reformed theology is not anti-semitic. We have always hoped and prayed for the salvation, in Christ, sola gratia et sola fide, of all of God’s elect, Jew and Gentile alike. Covenant Theology Is Not Replacement Theology

Click to expand...