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

Clare73 said:

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.

Click to expand...

This seems like the default position for those who do not wish to face how Paul used the word "Israel." I do not wish to be rude--this is just how I've observed these kinds of arguments.

Paul positively did *not* use the word for anything other than the literal nation. That was my point. He did not use the word "Israel" metaphorically to apply to the international Church. That would be utterly confusing, which is why we're even having this conversation.

But to bring up a metaphorical "tree" just shows once again how this argument can get all mixed up in the use of metaphors. Paul did not say the "tree" was Israel.

The "tree," assumably, is the natural constitution of faith in people, whether individuals like Abraham, or a nation like Israel. Those "grafted on" were not originally part of this natural constitution.

Again, we're talking about how Paul used the word "Israel," whether "True Israel" or "Faithless Israel." It was always the same literal nation of Israel that he referred to. To admit the term can be "True" or "Faithless" just describes how Hosea saw literal Israel, as either True to God or Faithless under their Covenant with God.

RandyPNW said:

This seems like the default position for those who do not wish to face how Paul used the word "Israel." I do not wish to be rude--this is just how I've observed these kinds of arguments.

Paul positively did *not* use the word for anything other than the literal nation. That was my point. He did not use the word "Israel" metaphorically to apply to the international Church. That would be utterly confusing, which is why we're even having this conversation.

But to bring up a metaphorical "tree" just shows once again how this argument can get all mixed up in the use of metaphors. Paul did not say the "tree" was Israel.

The "tree," assumably, is the natural constitution of faith in people, whether individuals like Abraham, or a nation like Israel. Those "grafted on" were not originally part of this natural constitution.

Again, we're talking about how Paul used the word "Israel," whether "True Israel" or "Faithless Israel." It was always the same literal nation of Israel that he referred to. To admit the term can be "True" or "Faithless" just describes how Hosea saw literal Israel, as either True to God or Faithless under their Covenant with God.

Click to expand...

Yes, "Israel" refers to Abraham's descendants, whether believing or not.
However, unbelieving Israelites are not God's people, having been cut off the one tree of God's people (Ro 11:17-23).

"Israel" likewise refers to all those of the faith of Abraham (Gal 3:6-9) in the promise (Ge 15:5-6, Seed, Jesus Christ, Gal 3:16); i.e.,
"international Christianity."

Unbelieving Israel is not God's people, havig been cut off the tree of God's people and replaced with believing Gentiles.
Israel's destiny is to be grafted back into the one people of God IF (not "when") they do not persist in unbelief (Ro 11:16-23), which they have for 2,000 years now.

Clare73 said:

Yes, "Israel" refers to Abraham's descendants, whether believing or not.
However, unbelieving Israelites are not God's people, having been cut off the one tree of God's people (Ro 11:17-23).

Click to expand...

With all due respect, you've been shown that unbelieving Israelites are, in fact, referred to, biblically, as "unbelieving Israelites." That is, they are referred to as God's People, even when they are in danger of being scrubbed off of that group.

When Paul refers to unbelieving Israel as "enemies of God" he does not say they've stopped being God's People. On the contrary, it is because they are identified as God's People that Paul assumes they will be restored as such.

Reference to Israel no longer being God's People is a prophetic nuance, indicating that Israel can be cast aside for a time. It is based on the blessings and curses of obedience and disobedience under the Law.

And though many of the Israeli tribes have gone away forever, they have representatives in the Jewish People as a whole. And they must be brought back into a place of fidelity with God as a nation. God is able and willing to bring back the descendants of those who have gone astray.

Furthermore, going from being "God's People" to a shameful denial that they are God's People is a process. There is a gradual absorption of leaven until the whole lump is leavened. That is, the whole nation in unundated with sin by the proliferation of temptation, and the nation ultimately becomes apostate.

This is where God denies they are His People any longer. But we are told, by the Prophets, that this is just a temporary situation for the nation as a whole. Certainly, many individuals will be permanently cut off. But the nation as a promised entity must return to what they were called to be. Or, God would not have said it will be.

Clare73 said:

"Israel" likewise refers to all those of the faith of Abraham (Gal 3:6-9) in the promise (Ge 15:5-6, Seed, Jesus Christ, Gal 3:16); i.e.,
"international Christianity."

Unbelieving Israel is not God's people, havig been cut off the tree of God's people and replaced with believing Gentiles.

Click to expand...

The "tree" is not natural Israel. Rather, it is the community of faith, which of course began with Abraham and the nation Israel. When Gentiles convert to Christ and join this "tree of faith," they do not join the nation Israel of necessity. Rather, they become part of the "tree of faith" wherever they choose to live, in whatever nation they are citizens.

So Jews are "branches" of the "tree of faith" and can be both cut off and grafted back on. Israel does not stop being Israel, and then become Israel again. Rather, they depart from their faith and return to it again, all without stopping being Jews or part of literal Israel.

Clare73 said:

Israel's destiny is to be grafted back into the one people of God IF (not "when") they do not persist in unbelief (Ro 11:16-23), which they have for 2,000 years now.

Click to expand...

False, Israel is told *when* they will become a faithful, or true nation, again. It will be when Messiah returns. That is when the wicked influencers will be cut off.

RandyPNW said:

With all due respect, you've been shown that unbelieving Israelites are, in fact, referred to, biblically, as "unbelieving Israelites."
That is, they are referred to as God's People, even when they are in danger of being scrubbed off of that group.

Click to expand...

The NT makes clear that those who reject Jesus Christ are cut off the tree of God's people, including Israel (Ro 11:6-23).

RandyPNW said:

When Paul refers to unbelieving Israel as "enemies of God" he does not say they've stopped being God's People. On the contrary, it is because they are identified as God's People that Paul assumes they will be restored as such.

Reference to Israel no longer being God's People is a prophetic nuance, indicating that Israel can be cast aside for a time. It is based on the blessings and curses of obedience and disobedience under the Law.

And though many of the Israeli tribes have gone away forever, they have representatives in the Jewish People as a whole. And they must be brought back into a place of fidelity with God as a nation. God is able and willing to bring back the descendants of those who have gone astray.

Furthermore, going from being "God's People" to a shameful denial that they are God's People is a process. There is a gradual absorption of leaven until the whole lump is leavened. That is, the whole nation in unundated with sin by the proliferation of temptation, and the nation ultimately becomes apostate.

This is where God denies they are His People any longer. But we are told, by the Prophets, that this is just a temporary situation for the nation as a whole. Certainly, many individuals will be permanently cut off. But the nation as a promised entity must return to what they were called to be. Or, God would not have said it will be.

The "tree" is not natural Israel. Rather, it is the community of faith, which of course began with Abraham and the nation Israel. When Gentiles convert to Christ and join this "tree of faith," they do not join the nation Israel of necessity. Rather, they become part of the "tree of faith" wherever they choose to live, in whatever nation they are citizens.

So Jews are "branches" of the "tree of faith" and can be both cut off and grafted back on. Israel does not stop being Israel, and then become Israel again.

Click to expand...

Right, they don't stop being Israel, they stop being the people of God because they do not believe in the promise (Ge 15:5, Seed, Jesus Christ, Gal 3:16).
They are no longer true Israel.

RandyPNW said:

Rather, they depart from their faith and return to it again, all without stopping being Jews or part of literal Israel.
False, Israel is told *when* they will become a faithful, or true nation, again. It will be when Messiah returns. That is when the wicked influencers will be cut off.

Click to expand...

The Messiah returns at the resurrection of all the dead (1 Th 4:16-17) at the end of time.
There is no salvation by faith at that time. That is the time of Judgment.

Where do we find yours above in apostolic teaching of Christ (Lk 10:16), as distinct from prophetic riddles not clearly spoken and subject to more than one interpretation (Nu 12:6-8)?

Clare73 said:

The NT makes clear that those who reject Jesus Christ are cut off the tree of God's people, including Israel (Ro 11:6-23).

Click to expand...

1) Israel did not stop being "Israel" when they were cut off and prophetically described as not being, or behaving like, "God's People."
2) Israel was promised to be restored to being "God's People" at the time of restoration.

Clare73 said:

Right, they don't stop being Israel, they stop being the people of God because they do not believe in the promise (Ge 15:5, Seed, Jesus Christ, Gal 3:16).
THey are no longer true Israel.

Click to expand...

False. You are using the term "true Israel" as if the literal nation is being re-defined as a multiplicity of nations. Again, it is a reference to the idea that Israel could choose to follow a course not consistent with their calling. But it did not mean they lost their calling or the accompanying fulfillment.

Clare73 said:

The Messiah returns at the resurrection of all the dead (1 Th 4:16-17) at the end of time.
There is no salvation by faith at that time. That is the time of Judgment.

Click to expand...

That is the Amillennial perspective which I reject because Israel's national salvation is repeatedly promised in the OT Prophets.

Clare73 said:

Where do we find yours above in apostolic teaching of Christ (Lk 10:16), as distinct from prophetic riddles not clearly spoken and subject to more than one interpretation (Nu 12:6-8)?

Click to expand...

Acts 1.6 Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”
Acts 3.19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,

RandyPNW said:

1) Israel did not stop being "Israel" when they were cut off and prophetically described as not being, or behaving like, "God's People."
2) Israel was promised to be restored to being "God's People" at the time of restoration.

Click to expand...

False. You are using the term "true Israel" as if the literal nation is being re-defined as a multiplicity of nations. Again, it is a reference to the idea that Israel could choose to follow a course not consistent with their calling. But it did not mean they lost their calling or the accompanying fulfillment.
That is the Amillennial perspective which I reject because Israel's national salvation is repeatedly promised in the OT Prophets.

Click to expand...

The amillennial persective is the NT didactical perspective.
Yours is the millennial perspective, from personal interpretation of prophetic riddles not spoken clearly and subject to more than one interpretation (Nu 12:6-8), and which personal interpretation is in disagreement with NT didactics.

You have formed your doctrine from prophecy (Rev), which is given in riddles, and not clearly (Nu 12:6-8).
Your interpretation of prohectic riddles is in disagreement with NT apostolic teaching (Ro 11:16-23, Gal 3:29, 6:16) of Christ (Lk 10:16).

RandyPNW said:

Acts 1.6 Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”
Acts 3.19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,

Click to expand...

Clare73 said:

The amillennial persective is the NT didactical perspective.
Yours is the millennial perspective, from personal interpretation of prophetic riddles not spoken clearly and subject to more than one interpretation (Nu 12:6-8), and which personal interpretation is in disagreement with NT didactics.

You have formed your doctrine from prophecy (Rev), which is given in riddles, and not clearly (Nu 12:6-8).
Your interpretation of prohectic riddles is in disagreement with NT apostolic teaching (Ro 11:16-23, Gal 3:29, 6:16) of Christ (Lk 10:16).

Click to expand...

Yes, we have associated ourselves with different prophetic schools, both dignified with lots of history. Take care...

RandyPNW said:

Yes, we have associated ourselves with different prophetic schools, both dignified with lots of history. Take care...

Click to expand...

No, its not about "different prophetic schools," it's about apostolic teaching vs. personal interpretation of prophetic riddles.

My presentation was not from prophetic riddles, but from NT authoritative apostolic teaching (Ro 11:16-23, Gal 3:29, 6:16) of Christ (Lk 10:16), while
your presenttion is from personal interpretation of prophetic riddles not spoken clearly (Nu 12:6-8) and subject to more than one interpretation, and where I interpret them differently.

Clare73 said:

No, its not about "different prophetic schools," it's about apostolic teaching vs. personal interpretation of prophetic riddles.

My presentation was not from prophetic riddles, but from NT authoritative apostolic teaching (Ro 11:16-23, Gal 3:29, 6:16) of Christ (Lk 10:16), while
your presenttion is from personal interpretation of prophetic riddles not spoken clearly (Nu 12:6-8) and subject to more than one interpretation, and where I interpret them differently.

Click to expand...

So, if you don't have a "prophetic school" you must be your own headmaster? How convenient--you're free of all influence and bias?

Surely you don't mean that you have a special means of seeing all things clearly and with absolute certainty? I was trying to be gracious, but you apparently wish to extend the struggle? I'm okay with that.

I do not see that I've presented "prophetic riddles" in the way you mean it. The book of Revelation does provide a few riddles, if only because John was imprisoned by Rome and could not speak openly against Rome.

But Christians are given to understand quite clearly what John meant when he gave riddles suggesting that he was speaking of Rome, the 4th Kingdom of Daniel and the 6th in line from Egypt. It was quite plainly the city of 7 hills and the city that rules the kings of the earth, namely Rome.

If you read the early Church Fathers, at the time when they shifted from the Premillennial to the Amillennial viewpoint it may seem apparent that this shift was caused by a lack of faith in the literal salvation of national Israel. They didn't seem to be converting in any real numbers.

And so, it didn't seem likely that the promise of a restored nation at the return of Christ was likely. The notion of a future Kingdom Age was therefore tossed back to the category of Cerinthian heresy, who foresaw the Kingdom Age as materialistic and sensual.

In reality, it was the Amillennial school that shifted to allegorization as a system of interpretation. In other words, you're choosing the side that has "riddles." The promise of a future Kingdom Age for Israel and for the nations in Christ is quite literally spelled out, and not in riddles. I gave you Acts 1.6 and 3.21.

On the other hand, you allegorize the thousand years literally mentioned in Rev 20. Who is relying on "ridddles?"