Does "Israel" mean "the church"?

[Biblewriter]

Yes, it hasn't been stated by any dispensationalist because it precisely describes what dispensationalism attempts to conceal.

With the Church being raptured as dispensationalism claims, and with Israel being saved thereafter as dispensationalism claims, then Israel is saved outside of the Church, as dispensationalism believes but refuses to claim.

There is a word which accurately describes such subterfuge.

Fraud.

AND, as was CLEARLY taught in the very oldest surviving Christian commentary on Bible prophecy of any significant length. You can't have it both ways. FIRST, you PRETENDED that this was NOT taught, because t was never STATED by ancient writers, by Medieval writers, or by writers of the sixteenth through the eighteenth centuries. NOW, you are claiming it is NOW being taught, even though it is NEVER so STATED, because THAT, according to YOU, is the RESULT of what we are teaching.

But if WE are teaching this, because it is the RESULT of what WE say, then THEY were ALSO teaching it, because THEY said the same things WE are saying.

I repeat, that YOUR re-statement of OUR doctrine, in a way WE have NEVER taught it, is a WILLFUL attempt to DECEIVE, because it is an ATTEMPT to make it SEEM that we are teaching things WE have NEVER taught, and that YOU KNOW we have NEVER taught.

 

[Biblewriter]

Relying on the commentators and the 'wise and learned' people for the truth of Bible prophecy, is a bad mistake. Jesus said that understanding of the Prophetic Word is withheld from them. Matthew 11:25, 1 Cor 1:19-20

Nowhere in the Bible is it said there will be a general conversion of anyone, after going to live in the holy Land.

The Bible never says there will be a general removal of people to heaven. Only AFTER the Millennium, will humans experience heaven, in their new Spiritual state, Revelation 21:1-7

Absolutely all of the ancient Israelites are dead.
Their genetics are completely diluted worldwide.
NOW; the way to be a true Israelite of God, is to accept Jesus and to keep the Commandments.

I do not quote what these historical figures have said with any thought that their age lends ANY credibility WHATSOEVER to what we are saying. I quote them SOLELY as HARD PROOF that out doctrine was not "INVENTED" in the 1830s, as they FALSELY claim.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Many people insist that in Bible prophecy, the many promises made to “Israel,” actually meant “the church.” This doctrine is defended by a wide spectrum of ideas. One end of this spectrum is a claim that all the promises of God are conditional, and that “Israel,” having failed to meet the conditions of the promises made to her, lost them, and they were transferred to “the church.” At the opposite end of ths spectrum is a claim that there has only been one single “people of God” throughout all the ages. So this one “people of God,” which were called “Israel” in the Old Testament, are the same people that are now called “the church.” But however this doctrine is reached, the people who teach it insist that it is clearly taught in the New Testament. This claim, however, is factually incorrect. There are, indeed, a few places in the New Testament that can rationally be INTERPRETED to mean that “the church” is “Israel.” But there is NOT EVEN ONE passage, anywhere in the entire Bible, that actually SAYS that. So this doctrine is UNQUESTIONABLY based on INTERPRETATION, rather than on EVEN ONE actual statement of scripture.

But while they INTERPRET the name “Israel” to mean “the church,” this INTERPRETATION falls down when we come to the many other names used by God in making the many promises found in the Old Testament. For God did not JUST promise end time blessings to the NATION of Israel. (And, yes, He actually did specifically use the word “NATION.”) He also made similar promises to each of the ancient sub-nations of Ephraim and Judah, and to each of the twelve tribes of Israel by name. And no scripture even HINTS at an idea that ANY of these fourteen other names means “the church.”

This INTERPRETATION also breaks down when we come to God’s EXPLICITLY STATED promises concerning a PLOT OF REAL ESTATE in the Middle East. Ezekiel 36:1-10 promises the “mountains of Israel,” along with “the hills, the rivers, the valleys, the desolate wastes, and the cities that have been forsaken,” that they will again be “inhabited” by “all the house of Israel, all of it.” Further, Ezekiel 47:13-20 SPECIFICALLY defines the borders of this PLOT OF REAL ESTATE, and the following chapter, Ezekiel 48, specifies how this PLOT OF REAL ESTATE will be divided among the twelve tribes of Israel, naming each tribe, and specifying the location of its individual PLOT OF REAL ESTATE. There is no rational way to even PRETEND that all this refers to “the church.”

The end result of this doctrine is that these people are using THEIR INTERPRETATIONS of the MEANINGS of some scriptures that NEVER, EVEN ONCE, actually SAY what they INTERPRET them to MEAN, as an excuse to DENY that other scriptures MEAN what they EXPLICITLY SAY.

This refers to the parables, the real estate is plot of the human heart.

It is written that we are the royal priesthood and the holy nation spoken of in the prophecies.

So we are "the Israel," the nation in whom God prevails.

Jesus when asked if Israel would be restored at this time by the apostles, told them to go preach the gospel. Thus them becoming the answer to their question.

 

[Biblewriter]

This refers to the parables, the real estate is plot of the human heart.

It is written that we are the royal priesthood and the holy nation spoken of in the prophecies.

So we are "the Israel"

Jesus when asked if Israel would be restored at this time by the apostles, told them to go preach the gospel. Thus them becoming the answer to their question.

You INTERPRET these scriptures to MEAN what they DO NOT say. And then you use that INTERPRETATION as imagined proof that other scriptures do not MEAN what they EXPLICITLY say.

 

[jgr]

AND, as was CLEARLY taught in the very oldest surviving Christian commentary on Bible prophecy of any significant length. You can't have it both ways. FIRST, you PRETENDED that this was NOT taught, because t was never STATED by ancient writers, by Medieval writers, or by writers of the sixteenth through the eighteenth centuries. NOW, you are claiming it is NOW being taught, even though it is NEVER so STATED, because THAT, according to YOU, is the RESULT of what we are teaching.

But if WE are teaching this, because it is the RESULT of what WE say, then THEY were ALSO teaching it, because THEY said the same things WE are saying.

I repeat, that YOUR re-statement of OUR doctrine, in a way WE have NEVER taught it, is a WILLFUL attempt to DECEIVE, because it is an ATTEMPT to make it SEEM that we are teaching things WE have NEVER taught, and that YOU KNOW we have NEVER taught.

I have no idea what you're talking about, nor does anyone else, nor do you.

Let's test your claims.

Provide a link to an online copy of any pre-1800 book in which is found a rapture, and AFTER which is found the salvation of Israel.

Provide the page number or other reference point in the book which refers to the rapture.

I will then search the content AFTER the rapture for any reference to the Church being associated with the salvation of Israel, which would invalidate your claims.

Awaiting.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

You INTERPRET these scriptures to MEAN what they DO NOT say. And then you use that INTERPRETATION as imagined proof that other scriptures do not MEAN what they EXPLICITLY say.

The kingdom does not come by observation, this means what it explicitly says.

 

[jgr]

You INTERPRET these scriptures to MEAN what they DO NOT say. And then you use that INTERPRETATION as imagined proof that other scriptures do not MEAN what they EXPLICITLY say.

Here is Scripture's first prophecy.
What does it say?
What does it mean?

Genesis 3
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Here is Scripture's first prophecy.
What does it say?
What does it mean?

Genesis 3
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

You can read what it says. It's right there.

And, it obviously means that God made that serpent in the garden of Eden an enemy of the woman, whose name was Eve. The verse doesn't say that God is speaking or that the woman's name is Eve, so I suppose I'm violating the rule that says a verse means what it says there. Sorry about that.

And it means that God also made it so that all the offspring of that serpent would be enemies of all the offspring of Eve. So, that means all of the serpents who that serpent fathered didn't get along with Cain and Abel and the rest of Eve's offspring. I imagine they had some nasty fights.

And the second half of the verse means that he would bruise the serpent's head while the serpent would only bruise his heel, whoever he is. It doesn't say who he is that would have his heel bruised by the serpent, so we can't know that since we can only go by what it says. I hope this was helpful.

 

[jgr]

You can read what it says. It's right there.

And, it obviously means that God made that serpent in the garden of Eden an enemy of the woman, whose name was Eve. The verse doesn't say that God is speaking or that the woman's name is Eve, so I suppose I'm violating the rule that says a verse means what it says there. Sorry about that.

And it means that God also made it so that all the offspring of that serpent would be enemies of all the offspring of Eve. So, that means all of the serpents who that serpent fathered didn't get along with Cain and Abel and the rest of Eve's offspring. I imagine they had some nasty fights.

And the second half of the verse means that he would bruise the serpent's head while the serpent would only bruise his heel, whoever he is. It doesn't say who he is that would have his heel bruised by the serpent, so we can't know that since we can only go by what it says. I hope this was helpful.

Thanks for doing the eisegesis, brother.

I always have to restrain myself.

 

[Biblewriter]

The kingdom does not come by observation, this means what it explicitly says.

Yes, it does. And that has nothing to do with the question at hand.

 

[Biblewriter]

Here is Scripture's first prophecy.
What does it say?
What does it mean?

Genesis 3
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Actually, it MEANS exactly what it SAYS.

 

[jgr]

Actually, it MEANS exactly what it SAYS.

So you agree that it SAYS and MEANS exactly as described by SJ in post #68.

How do we identify the specific serpents which are the seed of the serpent in Genesis 3:15?
We need to ensure that any enmity involves only those specific serpents, as the verse SAYS and MEANS.

 

[Biblewriter]

So you agree that it SAYS and MEANS exactly as described by SJ in post #68.

I said no such thing.

 

[jgr]

I said no such thing.

So enlighten us.

 

[Bob_1000]

Rom 9:6 (KJV) Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Case closed, the Jews never were and never will be Gods chosen nation.

 

[Acts29]

Matthew 26
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

2 Corinthians 3
6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Hebrews 8
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Hebrews 8
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Hebrews 9
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Hebrews 10
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

I agree completely. The new covenant in Christ is better in every way. That still doesn't negate or nullify the older covenant made with Israel.

 

[Acts29]

Where do you get this from? Colossians 2:14 plainly and unambiguously declares, that Christ's atonement resulted in the “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.”

The Greek word for “Blotting out” here is exaleiphō (eks-ä-lā'-fō) meaning: ‘to wipe off, wipe away, to obliterate, erase, wipe out, blot out’

These old covenant ordinances (rites and rituals) pertaining to the ceremonial law were obliterated at the cross.

For those that still anticipate the renaissance of the old abolished ordinances we need to ask: When did (or will) the “blotting out the handwriting of ordinances” occur? From this passage it is clear, Christ “took it out of the way” by “nailing it to his cross.” These ordinances embraced the old covenant civil, ceremonial or ecclesiastical law. They were finished at the cross.

Colossians 2:16-17 tells us: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”

The Greek word translated “holyday” here is heorte meaning feast or festival. Of 27 mentions of this word in the normally precise KJV, it is interpreted “feast” in all of them apart from here.

New American Standard interprets: “Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day -- things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.”

The Living Bible says, “So don't let anyone criticize you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating Jewish holidays and feasts or new moon ceremonies or Sabbaths. For these were only temporary rules that ended when Christ came. They were only shadows of the real thing-of Christ himself.”

Paul is saying here that the old covenant feasts and festivals simply served as types and shadows of things that were to come. They looked forward to the new covenant arrangement and the reality and substance in Christ. The Jews of Ezekiel’s day and Zechariah’s day would never have understood this.

Colossians 2:20-22 finally sums up the sums up the biblical position today: “Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using) after the commandments and doctrines of men?”

This is not talking about the moral law, it is talking about the ceremonial law. It is a redundant system. Christ took the whole old system away. The old Mosaic ceremonial law is completely gone. It is useless.

Christianity took us away from the old Mosaic ceremonial law completely. Those who argue for a return to the old system fail to see that it has been rendered obsolete through the new covenant.

Hebrews 7:18-19 makes clear: “For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.”

This word “disannulling” is taken from the Greek word athetesis meaning cancellation.

The phrase “weakness and unprofitableness” used here to describe the old abolished system actually reads asthenes kai anopheles literally meaning: feeble and impotent useless and unprofitable.

It is hard to believe that you would promote the return, on the new earth of all places, of such a hopeless discarded arrangement.

You missed the point completely. The new covenant is better in every way, but it does not erase the old one given to a people in whom there is no faith. God's mercy is far greater than yours apparently.

 

[sovereigngrace]

You missed the point completely. The new covenant is better in every way, but it does not erase the old one given to a people in whom there is no faith. God's mercy is far greater than yours apparently.

Not so. You did. Read and embrace the biblical evidence presented instead of voicing your mistaken opinions.

 

[jgr]

I agree completely. The new covenant in Christ is better in every way. That still doesn't negate or nullify the older covenant made with Israel.

It certainly does nullify it. Read Hebrews 8:13 and Hebrews 10:9 again. There can only be one will/testament in effect at any time, both in Scripture, and in temporal jurisprudence. If you revise or rewrite your own will/testament, the revised/rewritten will/testament replaces the previous one in its entirety.

That is why the first clause in a temporal will/testament declares the following or its equivalent:

"I HEREBY REVOKE all former wills, codicils, and other testamentary dispositions made by me."

The New Testament completely replaces the old, and is completely and perfectly fulfilled in Christ and His Sacrifice at Calvary. (Luke 24:25-27; Luke 24:44-45; 2 Corinthians 1:20; Hebrews 1:1-2)

 

[Biblewriter]

It certainly does nullify it. Read Hebrews 8:13 and Hebrews 10:9 again. There can only be one will/testament in effect at any time, both in Scripture, and in temporal jurisprudence. If you revise or rewrite your own will/testament, the revised/rewritten will/testament replaces the previous one in its entirety.

That is why the first clause in a temporal will/testament declares the following or its equivalent:

"I HEREBY REVOKE all former wills, codicils, and other testamentary dispositions made by me."

The New Testament completely replaces the old, and is completely and perfectly fulfilled in Christ and His Sacrifice at Calvary. (Luke 24:25-27; Luke 24:44-45; 2 Corinthians 1:20; Hebrews 1:1-2)

Even a true and accurate analysis of modern legal rules and practice has ZERO relationship to Scripture.

In particular, even though the Old Covenant is indeed replaced by he New Covenant, that does not even IMPLY that the promises made DURING THE TIME of the Old Covenant were even a PART of the Old Covenant, and does not even IMPLY that EVEN ONE of these EXPLICITLY STATED and UNCONDITIONAL promises either has been, or even CAN BE revoked. The concept that these promises have been revoked is a DIRECT contradiction of Romans 11:28-29.