Replacement Theology

[Revelations 2]

We should remember that Abraham is the father of many nations. Further the covenant was to pass via a certain lineage. We should remember that Israel is not just the Jews, but in fact includes all twelve tribes of the House of Israel.

How many millions or billions of us today are perhaps in fact descendants of any one of these tribes of Israel?

 

[Jack Terrence]

We should remember that Abraham is the father of many nations. Further the covenant was to pass via a certain lineage. We should remember that Israel is not just the Jews, but in fact includes all twelve tribes of the House of Israel.

How many millions or billions of us today are perhaps in fact descendants of any one of these tribes of Israel?

Amen! Israel was the "priest" of God to pass on the covenant of salvation to the world. They failed and so Christ gave gave the stewardship of the covenant to the Church.

The unfaithful steward = Israel
The faithful steward = the Church

 

[Clare73]

Can you explain the difference between the "Abrahamic covenant" and the "new covenant"?

If the old covenant is an everlasting covenant, then is the new covenant in addition to the old?

Is this addressed to me?

There were four covenants:
Abrahamic (2)
Old
New

The old (Siniatic) covenant is everlasting on the part of God, that he will never break it himself by withdrawing his promise. However, if they break the covenant, which they did (Heb 8:7-8), then it is no longer in force.
They have terminated it, not God.

The promise to Abram to be a blessing to all peoples on earth (Ge 12:3) through his seed (Ge 18:18, 22:18, 26:4) was not a covenant, but a promised blessing.
It was a promise of Christ.
That promise has been fulfilled.

The Abrahamic covenant of Ge 15:18-19 was a unilateral unconditional covenant of land.
That covenant was fulfilled under Joshua (Josh 21:43-45), where the land was possessed,
and under Solomon, where the land was fully occupied (1Kgs 4:21-25).

The Abrahamic covenant of Ge 17:4-14 was a bilateral conditional covenant to be their God.
Conditions: "As for me (v.4), and "As for you" (v.9).

That conditional covenant was broken and terminated by the people (Heb 8:7-8),
so God promised a new covenant (Jer 31:31-34).

The new covenant was a promise of the Holy Spirit (Jer31:33-34; Heb 8:10-11) who would put the law in their hearts, giving them internal personal knowledge of God, rather than external knowledge from the law.
It was fulfilled on Pentecost.

So two of the covenants, Abrahamic conditional and Mosaic temporary, have been terminated
And two of the covenants, Abrahamic unconditional (land) and new, have been fulfilled.

Only one covenant remains in force, the new.

 

[annier]

The covenant given to Abraham and the new covenant are essentially the same thing. Most don't realize that the covenant of promise and the covenant of law (given to Moses) are both found in the Torah. This is why Paul used Hagar and Isaac as types of the two.

I agree, the new covenant however is not in the letter of a carnal command (ie circumcision). It is in the spirit, a circumcision in the heart.
I think it is unfortunate that today when it comes to the nation of Israel, there is so much focus upon the Sinai covenant. It is to the point that, the Abrahamic covenant ( a covenant which God keeps for them), because of HIS FAITHFULNESS, is not even thought of as the source of the feasts which Christ fulfilled. They are Abrahamic feasts.....
Passover, a sacrifice dispensed from the Abrahamic Covenant. The feast of unleavened bread, a celebration of Memorial to the fulfillment of the Promised redemption, dispensed from the Abrahamic covenant. Redempion of the firstborn, by the same covenant.
Today, these are all assigned as dispensations of Sinai. This is SAD, as a testimony to the Jews. We which are in Christ should display, that we have these things in Christ, just as did they. By the promises made in Covenant to Abraham.
Spurring the Jew's to jealousy, was in the truth, that those of us in Christ were sharing in the promises made in covenant to Abraham.

 

[JLB777]

I agree, the new covenant however is not in the letter of a carnal command (ie circumcision). It is in the spirit, a circumcision in the heart.
I think it is unfortunate that today when it comes to the nation of Israel, there is so much focus upon the Sinai covenant. It is to the point that, the Abrahamic covenant ( a covenant which God keeps for them), because of HIS FAITHFULNESS, is not even thought of as the source of the feasts which Christ fulfilled. They are Abrahamic feasts.....
Passover, a sacrifice dispensed from the Abrahamic Covenant. The feast of unleavened bread, a celebration of Memorial to the fulfillment of the Promised redemption, dispensed from the Abrahamic covenant. Redempion of the firstborn, by the same covenant.
Today, these are all assigned as dispensations of Sinai. This is SAD, as a testimony to the Jews. We which are in Christ should display, that we have these things in Christ, just as did they. By the promises made in Covenant to Abraham.
Spurring the Jew's to jealousy, was in the truth, that those of us in Christ were sharing in the promises made in covenant to Abraham.

Nor do people understand WHO Abraham made covenant with.

Rather, Who made covenant with Abraham.

Christ Jesus.

With actually makes Abraham the first member of the Church, which was called the assembly back then.

The Lord had to become flesh to partake of His part of the blood letting of the covenant.


JLB

 

[annier]

Let me be clear. I believe, as you, that faith alone saves. But, you said that Abraham had no law (ie. rule) given to him when he clearly did.

Ro 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Ga 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

It is interesting to note that the septuagint does not use Nomos in Genesis 26:5. Rather it uses prostagmata.

 

[annier]

However, her arguments are not based upon actual facts.

God was quite specific concerning his land grant to Abraham and his descendants. Even under Solomon the entirety of the land was not possessed. The Philistines remained entrenched enemies and a source of problems.

Could you please provide the verses for what you say here?
Thus, it is premature to believe that God fulfilled His promise to Abraham and that Romans 11 is to only be applied spiritually to the church rather than to Israel.

There were other nations which had land surrounding Israel which was not given to Israel , but to others. They were told not to meddle with them or bother with them, for God had given them that land already for a possession. So I am not sure what context you have of the land grant. As well as the Philistines were not a nation spoken of to Abraham.

God, in fact, has not rejected His people, Israel. Otherwise, Paul, at best, would have been mistaken when he wrote Romans 11 or a liar, this impolicating God as either mistaken or a liar. Of all the usages of "Israel" in the NT all but one clearly refer to the Jewish people and not to the church. The one exception does not clearly indicate either possibility.

But they were subject to the judgement of the law all the same.
Here is an interesting verse. It sounds as if God says here he will keep the covenant "IF" They obey?
De 7:12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the LORD thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers:

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I guess you could say I've been doing some research and am amazed by the number of different things I've heard people say they believe or don't.

What are your thoughts on replacement theology, also called supersessionism?

Supersessionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If I may say,

I think the issue of replacement theology is one where there's often misunderstanding because there's not a real understanding of how complicated Israel is - and how the Church (Jew and Gentile united together) are His Bride reaching out to Israel. The Church is not a replacement for Israel of old, but an unbroken continuation of Israel under the promised King and Messiah of Israel, and His Church is His Kingdom of Israel, expanded to include all the Gentile peoples of the earth. The Bible says:

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. (Romans 2:28, 29)
​

Counter to Replacement Theology, it is Biblical to note that there is still something particularly special about the modern day Jewish people, although the characteristics of that "specialness" are still under discussion among theologians. I do believe there's much merit for saying that the true Israel is not Israel "in the flesh" (i.e., ethnic Judaism) or even the Israeli State of today (as many Jews in Israel have noted for some time)...but rather Israel in the spirit. There is a constant theme in the Bible that the elder son will be replaced by the younger son as the true heir of God's promises. When Cain (the eldest) killed Abel, the legitimate descent from Adam was transferred to the descendents of the younger son. The same was true of Ishmael and Isaac, and Esau and Jacob. We also see it with the first kings of Israel where Saul and his son Jonathan were replaced by David and his descendents. And so it is not surprising that Jesus gave the keys of the Kingdom to Peter and the apostles (Mat 16:18), thereby giving the keys of the Old Covenant to the people who follow Yeshua (Israel of the New Covenant).

The New Israel are those who follow Jesus - and Jesus is God and He had the authority to do this. After the crucifixion, the curtain of the Jewish sanctuary was torn in two (Mk 15:37-39, Lk 23:44-46, Mt 27:51). At that point a transfer of authority happened and I believe that the fledgling Church became the New Israel. In that respect one could say that there are beliefs similar to Replacement Theology. However, there is a distinction between "Israel" and the "New Israel". Israel includes BOTH Christianity (New Israel), and it's older brother in the faith of Abraham (Jewish people yet to accept Christ). That is why we can say there is still something special and relevant about Judaism, our older brother in the faith. ...and note the fact that the Jewish people have not been forsaken.

People who espouse Replacement Theology in the full sense would not include Jewish people in the definition of Israel...and they'd say it's only those under the new Covenant, but it would be a mistake to not include the people of the promise (Jews) in our definition of Israel. The Church of Jesus Christ is not something separate from Israel, but is the true Israel --the true manifestation of the Chosen People (see Gal 6:16, 1 Peter 2:9-10, etc.). It is because of this that the Eastern Church is correct to refer to the saints of the Old Testament as "St. Abraham" and "St. Moses," etc. For, we are not a replacement for Israel of old, but an unbroken continuation of Israel under the promised King and Messiah of Israel, and His Church is His Kingdom of Israel, expanded to include all the Gentile peoples of the earth. And so, in Acts of the Apostles, when you have Jewish Christians addressing their fellow Jews who are not yet full Christians, you will see them refer to it as "the Way" -- that is, the true manifestation of Israel -- the "sect" that truly represents Israel, as opposed to the other Jewish sects (the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, etc.) who did not recognize the true King of Israel, Who is the only "Way" -- the "Way, the Truth, and the Life."

But, when Gentile Christians spoke of the Church, they stressed its truth and its universality; and this is why and how the terms "Orthodox" and "Catholic" were applied to the Church. And those two terms exist today.

Christ was present within the early Jewish community (alongside Gentile Churches where the Gospel was contexualized in their frameworks , Romans 16:3-5 ), as it pertains to the ecclesia/local bodies (Acts 8:1-3 , Acts 9:30-32, Acts 15:40-41, Acts 16:4-6, Romans 16:15-17, 1 Corinthians 7:16-18, 1 Corinthians 11:15-17 , 1 Corinthians 14:32-34 , 1 Corinthians 16:18-20, 2 Corinthians 8:17-19 , Galatians 1:1-3, 1 Thessalonians 2:13-15, Revelation 1:3-5 , Revelation 22:15-17, etc ) and the issue of where the Lord proclaimed how He would establish His Church upon the apostles ( Matthew 16:17-19, Matthew 18:16-18 )...and as it concerns Ethnic Israel (those who are unsaved), somehow it's gonna be the case that all of Israel will be saved by the Lord. It is perhaps the case that Romans 11 - when speaking of all Israel being saved - is meant to convey that something will happen with the generation of Jews prior to the MESIAH'S return where they all universally see the need to call on Yeshua - and thus, all become a part of the Remnant Israel/see salvation.

That is different, of course, than saying all in Israel are going to be saved all throughout history since many denied the Lord even as a part of Israel and the Lord made plain they were not of HIM...just as Paul noted in Romans 11 that not all in Israel are of Israel...but rather those who place their faith and trust in Him.

As another wisely said best[/url]:

The olive tree represents remnant Israel, but does it also represent the Church? The olive tree is a group of Jews and Gentiles made holy by the Messiah. That is also an accurate description of the Church (Ephesians 3:6). With the olive tree metaphor, Paul was writing to Gentile believers (Romans 11:13), members of the Church. And yet, the context of the olive tree metaphor was not the Church per se. In Romans, Paul's first use of ekklesia comes in Chapter 16 (vv. 1, 5, 23), where it refers to local assemblies, not the entire body of believers. The context of the olive tree metaphor is remnant Israel (Romans 11:5, 7)--"their [Jewish people's] own olive tree" (11:24).​

​

​

............Because the Church is remnant Israel, Paul--certainly a member of the Church--could say that since he was a believer in Jesus, he was part of remnant Israel (Romans 11:1-5). Because the Church is remnant Israel, Paul could say that Gentile believers in Jesus have been grafted into remnant Israel (Romans 11:17). Because the Church is remnant Israel, both Paul and Peter could say that Jews who didn't accept Jesus would be cut off from Israel (Romans 11:17; Acts 3:23). Because the Church is remnant Israel, Paul could say that Gentile believers are no longer "excluded from citizenship in Israel" and no longer "foreigners to the covenants of the promise" (Ephesians 2:12). Because the Church is remnant Israel, Paul could say that Gentile believers "are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household" (Ephesians 2:19).
​

For more, one of the brightest minds on the issue are individuals such as Roy H. Schoeman - author of the work "Salvation is from the Jews (John 4:22): The Role of Judaism in Salvation"and one of the best apologists on the issue of bringing Jewish people (physical descendants of Jacob/Israel) into the Church (New Israel)..as he was a former follower of Judaism and later converted and works extensively in the Church. Schoeman claims with justification that the end of history will be characterized by the conversion of the Jews. "St. Paul," he writes, "suggested in his Letter to the Romans that the last days will see the widespread conversion of the Jews. This has led many to consider the current wave of Jewish conversion and ask whether it might be the beginning of the fulfillment of that prophecy." Schoeman cites Romans 11:25 "until the full number of Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved"

 

[Clare73]

I guess you could say I've been doing some research and am amazed by the number of different things I've heard people say they believe or don't.

What are your thoughts on replacement theology

Replacement theology is

Mt 21:43 - "Therefore, I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken from you (unbelieving Israel) and given to a people who will produce its fruit (through faith in Jesus). He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed."

 

[annier]

I guess you could say I've been doing some research and am amazed by the number of different things I've heard people say they believe or don't.

What are your thoughts on replacement theology, also called supersessionism?

Supersessionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wonder if replacement theology is not different for different groups. I think one group may understand that the kingdom of Heaven is distinct from the earthly kingdom. I do not consider the Church to replace the earthly worldly kingdom of priests. Which Israel as a nation on this earth and in this world is. I wonder alot about the way we all look at things. I think we may have lost sight of the afterlife, and our hope in the resurrection. We are still strangers and sojourners in this world and this life. Our citizenship is in heaven. Replacement theology has been too closely knit with replacing the earthly, worldly kingdom of Priests IMO. If Christ were on this earth, He would not be a priest.

 

[Barraco]

I wonder if replacement theology is not different for different groups. I think one group may understand that the kingdom of Heaven is distinct from the earthly kingdom. I do not consider the Church to replace the earthly worldly kingdom of priests.

I would disagree with replacement theology as well. I would suggest inclusion theology; that the Gentiles were included into the Abrahamic Covenant, as suggested in Romans 11 and Galatians 3. We as Gentile nations enjoy the blessings of Abraham because of faith in Jesus, the circumcision of the heart.

I do think, however, that the new covenant called for a new priesthood, as shown in Hebrews 7:12. And that new priesthood was Jesus as High Priest and those with Him as fellow priests and kings.

Which Israel as a nation on this earth and in this world is. I wonder alot about the way we all look at things. I think we may have lost sight of the afterlife, and our hope in the resurrection.

I think that we as Christians have typically overinflated the issue of the afterlife and forgot about the resurrection. We are more worried about going to heaven than remembering why the resurrection is so important. God made promises to Abraham that He keeps. The resurrection enables those who never saw those promises fulfilled but believed in them to finally partake in them. Hence the resurrection of the faithful and the millennial earthly reign of Jesus in Revelation 20:1-6.

We are still strangers and sojourners in this world and this life. Our citizenship is in heaven. Replacement theology has been too closely knit with replacing the earthly, worldly kingdom of Priests IMO. If Christ were on this earth, He would not be a priest.

I dunno. That kind of theology relegates the importance of being resurrected. If we are to go to heaven anyway, where there is only Spirit, why resurrect on earth into any kind of body? It seems fruitless. And why create man on earth in the first place?

I think your theology originally found its roots in Greek philosophy, which was barely even touched on by the Apostles and disciples of the first century. It came a century or two later when Clement of Alexandria and Origen developed the Alexandrian school of Christian thought that would later contribute to many facets of orthodoxy. Yet these principals were not primary teachings of the Church. It would seem like we have made too much of a deal out of going to heaven and have hyperspiritualized everything God's people had believed about the kingdom of God prior to that.

I am of the camp that believe that Abraham's promises are still alive and well, Jesus rules from heaven over His kingdom on earth, and that Jesus will return to earth and rule so that the Promises of Abraham would be thoroughly fulfilled. It is a grace that we as Gentiles, whether Greek, Latin, Germanic, African, Native, Oriental, Slavic, or what-have-you; can participate in those promises.

"Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Galatians 3:7-9, 13, 14, 29 KJV)

 

[annier]

I would disagree with replacement theology as well. I would suggest inclusion theology; that the Gentiles were included into the Abrahamic Covenant, as suggested in Romans 11 and Galatians 3. We as Gentile nations enjoy the blessings of Abraham because of faith in Jesus, the circumcision of the heart.

I do think, however, that the new covenant called for a new priesthood, as shown in Hebrews 7:12. And that new priesthood was Jesus as High Priest and those with Him as fellow priests and kings.



I think that we as Christians have typically overinflated the issue of the afterlife and forgot about the resurrection. We are more worried about going to heaven than remembering why the resurrection is so important. God made promises to Abraham that He keeps. The resurrection enables those who never saw those promises fulfilled but believed in them to finally partake in them. Hence the resurrection of the faithful and the millennial earthly reign of Jesus in Revelation 20:1-6.



I dunno. That kind of theology relegates the importance of being resurrected. If we are to go to heaven anyway, where there is only Spirit, why resurrect on earth into any kind of body? It seems fruitless. And why create man on earth in the first place?

I think your theology originally found its roots in Greek philosophy, which was barely even touched on by the Apostles and disciples of the first century. It came a century or two later when Clement of Alexandria and Origen developed the Alexandrian school of Christian thought that would later contribute to many facets of orthodoxy. Yet these principals were not primary teachings of the Church. It would seem like we have made too much of a deal out of going to heaven and have hyperspiritualized everything God's people had believed about the kingdom of God prior to that.

I am of the camp that believe that Abraham's promises are still alive and well, Jesus rules from heaven over His kingdom on earth, and that Jesus will return to earth and rule so that the Promises of Abraham would be thoroughly fulfilled. It is a grace that we as Gentiles, whether Greek, Latin, Germanic, African, Native, Oriental, Slavic, or what-have-you; can participate in those promises.

"Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Galatians 3:7-9, 13, 14, 29 KJV)

I dunno why you think looking forward to the heavenly kingdom is Greek philosophy. But what I am talking about is what is taught in the book of Hebrews concerning Abraham.
Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

and is touched upon here, speaking concerning Abraham.

Ac 7:5 And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child.

I think we have some differing views on the covenants in Genesis 15 vs 17. And differing views perhaps on "heaven".

Of course I as well believe the covenant promises are alive and well, but I also see two covenants made with Abraham. The first covenant gave him no personal inheritance. Actually it gave no inheritance until the fourth Generation.

Mt 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

 

[annier]

If I may say,

I think the issue of replacement theology is one where there's often misunderstanding because there's not a real understanding of how complicated Israel is - and how the Church (Jew and Gentile united together) are His Bride reaching out to Israel. The Church is not a replacement for Israel of old, but an unbroken continuation of Israel under the promised King and Messiah of Israel, and His Church is His Kingdom of Israel, expanded to include all the Gentile peoples of the earth. The Bible says:

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. (Romans 2:28, 29)
​

Counter to Replacement Theology, it is Biblical to note that there is still something particularly special about the modern day Jewish people, although the characteristics of that "specialness" are still under discussion among theologians. I do believe there's much merit for saying that the true Israel is not Israel "in the flesh" (i.e., ethnic Judaism) or even the Israeli State of today (as many Jews in Israel have noted for some time)...but rather Israel in the spirit. There is a constant theme in the Bible that the elder son will be replaced by the younger son as the true heir of God's promises. When Cain (the eldest) killed Abel, the legitimate descent from Adam was transferred to the descendents of the younger son. The same was true of Ishmael and Isaac, and Esau and Jacob. We also see it with the first kings of Israel where Saul and his son Jonathan were replaced by David and his descendents. And so it is not surprising that Jesus gave the keys of the Kingdom to Peter and the apostles (Mat 16:18), thereby giving the keys of the Old Covenant to the people who follow Yeshua (Israel of the New Covenant).

The New Israel are those who follow Jesus - and Jesus is God and He had the authority to do this. After the crucifixion, the curtain of the Jewish sanctuary was torn in two (Mk 15:37-39, Lk 23:44-46, Mt 27:51). At that point a transfer of authority happened and I believe that the fledgling Church became the New Israel. In that respect one could say that there are beliefs similar to Replacement Theology. However, there is a distinction between "Israel" and the "New Israel". Israel includes BOTH Christianity (New Israel), and it's older brother in the faith of Abraham (Jewish people yet to accept Christ). That is why we can say there is still something special and relevant about Judaism, our older brother in the faith. ...and note the fact that the Jewish people have not been forsaken.

People who espouse Replacement Theology in the full sense would not include Jewish people in the definition of Israel...and they'd say it's only those under the new Covenant, but it would be a mistake to not include the people of the promise (Jews) in our definition of Israel. The Church of Jesus Christ is not something separate from Israel, but is the true Israel --the true manifestation of the Chosen People (see Gal 6:16, 1 Peter 2:9-10, etc.). It is because of this that the Eastern Church is correct to refer to the saints of the Old Testament as "St. Abraham" and "St. Moses," etc. For, we are not a replacement for Israel of old, but an unbroken continuation of Israel under the promised King and Messiah of Israel, and His Church is His Kingdom of Israel, expanded to include all the Gentile peoples of the earth. And so, in Acts of the Apostles, when you have Jewish Christians addressing their fellow Jews who are not yet full Christians, you will see them refer to it as "the Way" -- that is, the true manifestation of Israel -- the "sect" that truly represents Israel, as opposed to the other Jewish sects (the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, etc.) who did not recognize the true King of Israel, Who is the only "Way" -- the "Way, the Truth, and the Life."

But, when Gentile Christians spoke of the Church, they stressed its truth and its universality; and this is why and how the terms "Orthodox" and "Catholic" were applied to the Church. And those two terms exist today.

Christ was present within the early Jewish community (alongside Gentile Churches where the Gospel was contexualized in their frameworks , Romans 16:3-5 ), as it pertains to the ecclesia/local bodies (Acts 8:1-3 , Acts 9:30-32, Acts 15:40-41, Acts 16:4-6, Romans 16:15-17, 1 Corinthians 7:16-18, 1 Corinthians 11:15-17 , 1 Corinthians 14:32-34 , 1 Corinthians 16:18-20, 2 Corinthians 8:17-19 , Galatians 1:1-3, 1 Thessalonians 2:13-15, Revelation 1:3-5 , Revelation 22:15-17, etc ) and the issue of where the Lord proclaimed how He would establish His Church upon the apostles ( Matthew 16:17-19, Matthew 18:16-18 )...and as it concerns Ethnic Israel (those who are unsaved), somehow it's gonna be the case that all of Israel will be saved by the Lord. It is perhaps the case that Romans 11 - when speaking of all Israel being saved - is meant to convey that something will happen with the generation of Jews prior to the MESIAH'S return where they all universally see the need to call on Yeshua - and thus, all become a part of the Remnant Israel/see salvation.

That is different, of course, than saying all in Israel are going to be saved all throughout history since many denied the Lord even as a part of Israel and the Lord made plain they were not of HIM...just as Paul noted in Romans 11 that not all in Israel are of Israel...but rather those who place their faith and trust in Him.

As another wisely said best[/url]:

The olive tree represents remnant Israel, but does it also represent the Church? The olive tree is a group of Jews and Gentiles made holy by the Messiah. That is also an accurate description of the Church (Ephesians 3:6). With the olive tree metaphor, Paul was writing to Gentile believers (Romans 11:13), members of the Church. And yet, the context of the olive tree metaphor was not the Church per se. In Romans, Paul's first use of ekklesia comes in Chapter 16 (vv. 1, 5, 23), where it refers to local assemblies, not the entire body of believers. The context of the olive tree metaphor is remnant Israel (Romans 11:5, 7)--"their [Jewish people's] own olive tree" (11:24).
​

​

............Because the Church is remnant Israel, Paul--certainly a member of the Church--could say that since he was a believer in Jesus, he was part of remnant Israel (Romans 11:1-5). Because the Church is remnant Israel, Paul could say that Gentile believers in Jesus have been grafted into remnant Israel (Romans 11:17). Because the Church is remnant Israel, both Paul and Peter could say that Jews who didn't accept Jesus would be cut off from Israel (Romans 11:17; Acts 3:23). Because the Church is remnant Israel, Paul could say that Gentile believers are no longer "excluded from citizenship in Israel" and no longer "foreigners to the covenants of the promise" (Ephesians 2:12). Because the Church is remnant Israel, Paul could say that Gentile believers "are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household" (Ephesians 2:19).
​

For more, one of the brightest minds on the issue are individuals such as Roy H. Schoeman - author of the work "Salvation is from the Jews (John 4:22): The Role of Judaism in Salvation"and one of the best apologists on the issue of bringing Jewish people (physical descendants of Jacob/Israel) into the Church (New Israel)..as he was a former follower of Judaism and later converted and works extensively in the Church. Schoeman claims with justification that the end of history will be characterized by the conversion of the Jews. "St. Paul," he writes, "suggested in his Letter to the Romans that the last days will see the widespread conversion of the Jews. This has led many to consider the current wave of Jewish conversion and ask whether it might be the beginning of the fulfillment of that prophecy." Schoeman cites Romans 11:25 "until the full number of Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved"

I agree with some of your above comments, but not all. I think we may be viewing Ephesians from two different perspectives.
I really believe our views of the witings of Moses, determine how we view these things. When Ephesians speaks of Gentiles, and Israel in times past, He is speaking of those which are members of the covenant of Sinai, though circumcision, which covenant contains promises (which were not abolished at Sinai). Sinai is the covenant in which the twelve tribes are a kingdom of priests under the order of Aaron. Which priests were the annointed one. This is what I think Ephesians is speaking about in saying that in times past, Gentiles were without CHRIST (the annointed one), and without God in the world. The commonwelath or citizenship in the worldly kingdom, speaks to the relationship of the twelve tribes, with the Priesthood in the house of God. The annointed priests of God made up the household of God, in representative agency for household of Israel (the twelve tribes). The twelve tribes were strangers themselves in Gods to Gods household drew near unto God by the priest through the blood of bulls and Goats.
But now we also draw near unto God by the blood of Christ, as our high priest.

Not only that, in times past Jews being strangers to God's household, now have access as well as do the circumcision into the very presence of Gods throne. We are fellow citizens of his household by the same spirit. Circumcision of the heart, by the holy spirit.
I just see Ephesians speaking of the commonwelath of Israel, in the context of a kingdom of priests in times past. And the blood of Christ and circumcision of the spirit, a royal priesthood in Christ

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I wonder if replacement theology is not different for different groups. I think one group may understand that the kingdom of Heaven is distinct from the earthly kingdom. I do not consider the Church to replace the earthly worldly kingdom of priests. Which Israel as a nation on this earth and in this world is. I wonder alot about the way we all look at things. I think we may have lost sight of the afterlife, and our hope in the resurrection. We are still strangers and sojourners in this world and this life. Our citizenship is in heaven. Replacement theology has been too closely knit with replacing the earthly, worldly kingdom of Priests IMO.

If Christ were on this earth, He would not be a priest.

Do you believe the view of Dispensationalists and SDAs view of Jesus reigning on earth during the 1000 yr period?
Not sure if He is supposed to be the Jews' new high priest or not



http://www.christianforums.com/t7730010-12/
A Literal 1000 Year Kingodom on Earth, "Fairy Tale"!

Dispensationalism, False Teachings!

No Literal Thousand Years, No Millenial Kingdom, NO Pre-Trib Rapture, No Multiple Resurrections

There will be one resurrection of the believer, old and new testament, this was taught by Jesus Christ, as seen in Daniel 12:1-2, Matthew 24:29-31, 1 Cor 15:52-55, John 6:40, John 11:23-24, and John 5:28-29 KJV, this resurrection and catching up will take place "Immediately after the tribulation" at the "Last Trumph" or voice of the "7th angel", on the "Last Day" of physical earths history.


Jesus Christ Is the Lord!

Truth7t7

 

[annier]

Do you believe the view of Dispensationalists and SDAs view of Jesus reigning on earth during the 1000 yr period?
Not sure if He is supposed to be the Jews' new high priest or not



http://www.christianforums.com/t7730010-12/
A Literal 1000 Year Kingodom on Earth, "Fairy Tale"!

I do not think there will be literal thousand year reign. I have come to believe this only in the last year or so. Christ is already ruling and reigning in our hearts. But, I am not adamant about the one view over another.

 

[Jack Terrence]

I do not think there will be literal thousand year reign. I have come to believe this only in the last year or so. Christ is already ruling and reigning in our hearts. But, I am not adamant about the one view over another.

Amen! Premillennialists pit the book of Revelation against the CLEAR teaching of Paul who said that Christ's reign would END when He returns to raise the dead and change the living; and that He ALSO will become SUBJECT to God (1 Cor. 15:25-28).

There are only three eschatological options which agree with Paul's teaching that Christ's reign will END at His coming. They are Amillennialism, Post-millennialism, and Preterism. Premillennialism's theory that Christ's reign begins at His coming is not even in the ballpark.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Amen! Premillennialists pit the book of Revelation against the CLEAR teaching of Paul who said that Christ's reign would END when He returns to raise the dead and change the living; and that He ALSO will become SUBJECT to God (1 Cor. 15:25-28).

There are only three eschatological options which agree with Paul's teaching that Christ's reign will END at His coming.
They are Amillennialism, Post-millennialism, and Preterism.

Premillennialism's theory that Christ's reign begins at His coming is not even in the ballpark.

.

 

[Hentenza]

Amen! Premillennialists pit the book of Revelation against the CLEAR teaching of Paul who said that Christ's reign would END when He returns to raise the dead and change the living; and that He ALSO will become SUBJECT to God (1 Cor. 15:25-28).

There are only three eschatological options which agree with Paul's teaching that Christ's reign will END at His coming. They are Amillennialism, Post-millennialism, and Preterism. Premillennialism's theory that Christ's reign begins at His coming is not even in the ballpark.

And yet the predominant eschatalogical view for the first three centuries of the church was chiliasm. Go figure.

 

[janxharris]

Does he address:

"Therefore, I tell you that the kingdom of heaven will be taken from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. . .When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus' parables, they knew he was talking about them." (Mt 21:43-45)

In the faith,
Clare

Romans 11:25
I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in,

 

[jdbear]

...the kingdom of heaven will be taken from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.

The Kingdom is taken from those who refuse to give God what rightfully belongs to Him. Ethnicity isn't a factor.