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

RandyPNW · Wednesday at 1:26 PM

Clare73 said:
I see NT apostolic teaching (1 Th 4:14-17) of Christ (Lk 10:16), which presents no actual "millennium," as the authority for the truth of the matter.

I think Amillennialists would normally recognize the "Millennium" and the Book of Revelation as "apostolic teaching?" As I said before, John was an apostle. And the fact it is of the apocalyptic genre does not discount its authority or its "teaching" value. It is just somewhat difficult to decipher.

The Millennium is accepted by all sides. The main issue involves whether it is to be interpreted as allegorical or literal. Its apostolic authority is not normally in question, as I understand it. The notion that it lacks "teaching" value is not normally in question either, as I understand it.

Clare73 · Wednesday at 2:18 PM

RandyPNW said:
I think Amillennialists would normally recognize the "Millennium" and the Book of Revelation as "apostolic teaching?" As I said before, John was an apostle. And the fact it is of the apocalyptic genre does not discount its authority or its "teaching" value. It is just somewhat difficult to decipher.

The Millennium is accepted by all sides. The main issue involves whether it is to be interpreted as allegorical or literal.

That goes for all of Revelation, which is allegorical prophecy.

RandyPNW said:
Its apostolic authority is not normally in question, as I understand it. The notion that it lacks "teaching" value is not normally in question either, as I understand it.

Prophecy (subject to several meanings) is not didactic (having a specific meaning), which specific meaning is in agreement with the rest of NT doctrine, therefore, prophecy (subject to several meanings) cannot be used for doctrine.

Prophecy is subject to more than one interpretation.
One prohecy interpretation (consistent with itself) can be completely different from another interpretation (consistent with itself) of the same prophecy.
Only time will tell which, if either, is correct.

RandyPNW · Wednesday at 3:28 PM

Clare73 said:
That goes for all of Revelation, which is allegorical prophecy.

Prophecy (subject to several meanings) is not didactic (having a specific meaning), which specific meaning is in agreement with the rest of NT doctrine, therefore, prophecy (subject to several meanings) cannot be used for doctrine.

Prophecy is subject to more than one interpretation.
One prohecy interpretation (consistent with itself) can be completely different from another interpretation (consistent with itself) of the same prophecy.
Only time will tell which, if either, is correct.

"Didactic" indicates there is systematic teaching which often has moral persuasion to it. The poetry and wisdom books of the OT Bible are considered "didactic."

None of this means the poetry and wisdom books of the Bible are the exclusive source of systematic teaching in the OT Scriptures. The Prophetic books, the History books, and the Law also have teaching value and are based on the authority of the Law.

So, the Prophetic books do not lack cohesion or a systematic basis for understanding them. They do not offer "several interpretations."

The Millennium in the Apocalypse is accepted by Pre, A, and Post-millennialists. They just view the Millennium differently.

The idea of a future age of the Kingdom that is earthly is something the heretic Cerinthus held to, but early Church Fathers also thought the Apostle John intended to convey a literal future earthly Kingdom, as well. And there is Jewish thought to that effect before Jesus and the NT--Jesus never appeared to have denied it.

Clare73 · Thursday at 10:57 AM

RandyPNW said:
"Didactic" indicates there is systematic teaching which often has moral persuasion to it. The poetry and wisdom books of the OT Bible are considered "didactic."

None of this means the poetry and wisdom books of the Bible are the exclusive source of systematic teaching in the OT Scriptures. The Prophetic books, the History books, and the Law also have teaching value and are based on the authority of the Law.

So, the Prophetic books do not lack cohesion or a systematic basis for understanding them. They do not offer "several interpretations."

Depends on your point of view as to the meanings of the "riddles" (dark sayings) of those prophecies (Nu 12:6-8).
There is more than one interpretation of these prophecies accepted among Christians.

RandyPNW · Thursday at 11:54 AM

Clare73 said:
Depends on your point of view as to the meanings of the "riddles" (dark sayings) of those prophecies (Nu 12:6-8).
There is more than one interpretation of these prophecies accepted among Christians.

Seems like a senseless discussion to me.

Clare73 · Thursday at 12:12 PM

RandyPNW said:
Seems like a senseless discussion to me.

Because you regard prophecy as literal.

RandyPNW · Thursday at 3:20 PM

Clare73 said:
Because you regard prophecy as literal.

No, the discussion is senseless because you seem to be arbitrarily assigning certain Scriptures to "literal" or "allegorical." These things are not determined by categories like Prophecy, History, Poetry, etc. Rather, you will find in any of the biblical categories of literature use of both allegorical and literal material. They are determined not by category of the type of literature, but rather, by the context in which they are used.

The book of Revelation utilizes both literal and allegorical material. You cannot just assign the entire book to "allegory." You cannot just say that because it is a prophetic book that uses the apocalyptic genre that it is entirely allegorical, and none of it literal.

Your claim that certain kinds of Scripture writing invites several interpretations goes against every believer in Scriptural authority that I have ever known. It is senseless to claim a certain genre of material in Scriptures invites anything other than what the Holy Spirit meant it to mean, whether we understand it fully or not.

Finally, it is senseless to continue to claim that the "dark sayings" and "riddles" God gave the Prophets were to be relegated to "indeterminate" revelations when the passage specifically said it was the norm for most prophets other than Moses. If that was God's choice of material for the Prophets it should be respected as much as the material given to Moses, though Moses was able to put things in a better light.

What that means is that if you're not Moses, and I'm not Moses, we cannot see things or articulate things as well as Moses did. As Paul said, "we see thru a glass darkly." Saying that you're reading didactic material does not mean you can perceive it any better than anybody else. You're still seeing through a fog.

Dan Perez · Thursday at 6:53 PM

RandyPNW said:
No, the discussion is senseless because you seem to be arbitrarily assigning certain Scriptures to "literal" or "allegorical." These things are not determined by categories like Prophecy, History, Poetry, etc. Rather, you will find in any of the biblical categories of literature use of both allegorical and literal material. They are determined not by category of the type of literature, but rather, by the context in which they are used.

The book of Revelation utilizes both literal and allegorical material. You cannot just assign the entire book to "allegory." You cannot just say that because it is a prophetic book that uses the apocalyptic genre that it is entirely allegorical, and none of it literal.

Your claim that certain kinds of Scripture writing invites several interpretations goes against every believer in Scriptural authority that I have ever known. It is senseless to claim a certain genre of material in Scriptures invites anything other than what the Holy Spirit meant it to mean, whether we understand it fully or not.j

Finally, it is senseless to continue to claim that the "dark sayings" and "riddles" God gave the Prophets were to be relegated to "indeterminate" revelations when the passage specifically said it was the norm for most prophets other than Moses. If that was God's choice of material for the Prophets it should be respected as much as the material given to Moses, though Moses was able to put things in a better light.

What that means is that if you're not Moses, and I'm not Moses, we cannot see things or articulate things as well as Moses did. As Paul said, "we see thru a glass darkly." Saying that you're reading didactic material does not mean you can perceive it any better than anybody else. You're still seeing through a fog.

And Revelation 20:4 says that they lived and reigned with Christ a 1000 years .

dan p

Dan Perez · Thursday at 7:25 PM

Michie said:
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

And Christ will NEVER give on. Israel or His Body .

I say the Eze 36 : 24-38

Then in. EZE 37 : 1-28 Chist will raise Israel from their graves and Israel will be BORN AGAIN

and it says how Israel and JUDAH. will become ONE STICK. and one Nation once again ,

And youn will to be disappointed , ifnnnyou read Chapers 36 , 37 and 38 !!

dan p

RandyPNW · Thursday at 9:16 PM

Dan Perez said:
And Revelation 20:4 says that they lived and reigned with Christ a 1000 years .

dan p

Yes, one should seriously consider if the prophecy is to be taken literally, before assigning it to "allegory." While it's true you don't see the number "1000" given for a future Kingdom, you do see a lot of references to a final state of Israel in God's good standing. The number "1000" may be less significant than the fact God said He would restore Israel "never more to be oppressed," along with the many nations promised to Abraham. I believe the Scriptures indicate that this will take place when Jesus returns. And the fact he is said to be returning to Israel indicates that Israel will be restored.

Clare73 · 2025-08-08T10:34:59-0500

RandyPNW said:
No, the discussion is senseless because you seem to be arbitrarily assigning certain Scriptures to "literal" or "allegorical."

So the Bible is allegorical in spots, and your're inspirted to spot the spots.

Dan Perez · 2025-08-08T13:10:23-0500

RandyPNW said:
Yes, one should seriously consider if the prophecy is to be taken literally, before assigning it to "allegory." While it's true you don't see the number "1000" given for a future Kingdom, you do see a lot of references to a final state of Israel in God's good standing. The number "1000" may be less significant than the fact God said He would restore Israel "never more to be oppressed," along with the many nations promised to Abraham. I believe the Scriptures indicate that this will take place when Jesus returns. And the fact he is said to be returning to Israel indicates that Israel will be restored.

And yo u believe that what John wrote is allegory ??

dan p

RandyPNW · 2025-08-08T16:21:47-0500

Dan Perez said:
And yo u believe that what John wrote is allegory ??

dan p

No, it was the person who I was talking to that indicated all of Revelation is "allegorical." I agreed with Clare that the book overall is "Prophetic" in genre, and "Apocalyptic" in form. The book is literally filled with symbolism.

But she uses that to claim that the Millennium is to be taken in an "allegorical" fashion. I don't agree. I think it is to be taken quite literally because each prophetic section must be viewed in context. And nothing in the context indicates the Millennium must be viewed as an "allegory."

I'm a Premillennialist. I find the thousand years to be a literal time after Christ's Coming when Israel, as a nation, is fully restored in the political and spiritual sense. Mortal humanity continues on a thousand years past Christ's Coming before the final battle of Gog.

During the Millennium I believe current Christian nations will be restored spiritually along with Israel, who becomes a Christian nation for the 1st time. "The 1st (Israel) shall be last, ie during the Millennium, and the last (Christian nations) will be 1st, ie in the current NT era.

At that time, in the Millennium, Israel and many Christian nations will enjoy unimpeded Christian practice and freedom from international oppression. This is what God promised Abraham: the nation Israel and the nations of faith. They will achieve full expression in a literal Millennial period.

That's why the Prophets promised this time when Israel will finally achieve what she has failed at for so long. But we know now, in the NT era, that the rest of the nations will join Israel in this final glorious international Christianity. My view only....

RandyPNW · 2025-08-08T16:31:27-0500

Clare73 said:
So the Bible is allegorical in spots, and your're inspirted to spot the spots.

We see thru a glass darkly. We need to pray and study, and to recognize when something seems revealed and consistent with the totality of the Scriptures and Christian experience.

It is *context* that determines if something is to be taken "allegorically" or "symbolically." If that doesn't appear to be the case, we should take things literally. Sometimes it's just a matter of common sense.

In the case of Israel and the Millennium I've had many arguments with good Christians who think other than the way I do. With them I've argued that the thousand years is not the essential element. The essential element for me is that the Prophets and the Abrahamic Promise seem to require a future era beyond the present era in which both Israel and the Christians nations can finally get their act together.

The fact that this period is given a time period of a thousand years is tangential to the main point of a future era of ultimate mortal fulfillment for the nations. If the end of mortality took place at Christ's Coming, then I don't think nations would exist as such any longer?

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

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads