RT's illegitimate language use

[RandyPNW]

"Replacement Theology" turns the word "Israel" into a dual-purpose word, retaining its literal meaning "Israel" as a natural people, but simultaneously turning it into an allegorized term denoting a "spiritual people." There is no basis for inserting this process of allegorization, which began at some point in the Early Church and was adopted by leading figures, including the Church Fathers, who thought it might be on a par with "revelation."

Though Paul does use allegory, he does not allegorize "Israel" by redefining it as the International Church. He only defines the nation as an ideal which is an ages-long process that requires a long time to arrive at. Many are delegitimized not because they have ceased to be Israelis, but only because they have ceased to belong to a nation from which they have religiously departed. They are "cut off" like any apostate would be cut off from a doctrinally-orthodox congregation.

Israelis never cease to be Israelis even when the entire majority have apostacized. That's because there is no nation left to be cut off from--they've all been exiled. But even in exile they remain members of Israel potentially, inasmuch as those Jews in exile have been given a hope of return when they repent of their sins. And even those who remain ignorant in their sins can be restored, since God has indeed promised to restore Israel at a time when they don't deserve it. Ezekiel 36.

 

[Dan Perez]

"Replacement Theology" turns the word "Israel" into a dual-purpose word, retaining its literal meaning "Israel" as a natural people, but simultaneously turning it into an allegorized term denoting a "spiritual people." There is no basis for inserting this process of allegorization, which began at some point in the Early Church and was adopted by leading figures, including the Church Fathers, who thought it might be on a par with "revelation."

Though Paul does use allegory, he does not allegorize "Israel" by redefining it as the International Church. He only defines the nation as an ideal which is an ages-long process that requires a long time to arrive at. Many are delegitimized not because they have ceased to be Israelis, but only because they have ceased to belong to a nation from which they have religiously departed. They are "cut off" like any apostate would be cut off from a doctrinally-orthodox congregation.

Israelis never cease to be Israelis even when the entire majority have apostacized. That's because there is no nation left to be cut off from--they've all been exiled. But even in exile they remain members of Israel potentially, inasmuch as those Jews in exile have been given a hope of return when they repent of their sins. And even those who remain ignorant in their sins can be restored, since God has indeed promised to restore Israel at a time when they don't deserve it. Ezekiel 36.

I say that Eze 36:25-38 only speaking about scattered Jews , and speaks as it is the NEW COVENANT .

Eze 37:1 speaks to the RESURRECTION of Israel .

dan p

 

[RandyPNW]

I say that Eze 36:25-38 only speaking about scattered Jews , and speaks as it is the NEW COVENANT .

Eze 37:1 speaks to the RESURRECTION of Israel .

dan p

Yes, so what's the point? I just quoted this to a fellow believer on another forum who thinks "Israel" is not the people of the land in Israel called by that name...

If Israel is not "their State in a small part of the holy land" then who are they? While it's true that God called the nation to be a "nation of faith," and while it's true that they've failed in this throughout the NT era, it is necessary that they be recognized for who they are ethnically, so that God can fulfill His promise to them and restore them.

I hear this all the time, how bad they are, as if all sinners who reject Christ can never repent. And I hear that nations cannot become "Christian nations," which is in error historically. I give up.

Reference to the need for a "new covenant" merely indicates the current covenant has failed, and has to either be "reworked" or abandoned entirely, to be replaced with a new document. In the NT Scriptures, it is recognized that Jesus made this kind of "New Covenant," to replace the Covenant of Law with a new covenant that covers Israel for their failures under the old one.

Recovery from the Babylonian Captivity constituted a complete failure under the Old Covenant, requiring that a "new covenant" be made. As such, it was a "reworking" of the old one as a kind of "2nd offering." This was in the time of Zerubbabel who supervised rebuilding of the old temple.

Of course, in the New Covenant of Christ, the temple is destroyed with finality. Christ, then, becomes a kind of "new temple."

 

[Clare73]

"Replacement Theology" turns the word "Israel" into a dual-purpose word,

It's not "replacement" theology, it's fulfillment theology.
The NT church doesn't replace the OT church, it is the continuation/fulfillment of the OT church.
It is the one olive tree of God's one people, made up of both believing OT saints and NT saints (Heb 11:16-23, 12:22-23)
It is Israel's destiny to be grafted back into this one people of God, the church. . .IF they do not persist in unbelief (Ro 11:23).
Both Jew and Gentile are now on the same footing. . .salvation is only by faith in Jesus Christ, and only those in Christ are the one people of God.
All others will be cast out and cut off the earth when Christ returns.

retaining its literal meaning "Israel" as a natural people, but simultaneously turning it into an allegorized term denoting a "spiritual people." There is no basis for inserting this process of allegorization, which began at some point in the Early Church and was adopted by leading figures, including the Church Fathers, who thought it might be on a par with "revelation."
Though Paul does use allegory, he does not allegorize "Israel" by redefining it as the International Church. He only defines the nation as an ideal which is an ages-long process that requires a long time to arrive at. Many are delegitimized not because they have ceased to be Israelis, but only because they have ceased to belong to a nation from which they have religiously departed. They are "cut off" like any apostate would be cut off from a doctrinally-orthodox congregation.

Israelis never cease to be Israelis even when the entire majority have apostacized. That's because there is no nation left to be cut off from--they've all been exiled. But even in exile they remain members of Israel potentially, inasmuch as those Jews in exile have been given a hope of return when they repent of their sins. And even those who remain ignorant in their sins can be restored, since God has indeed promised to restore Israel at a time when they don't deserve it. Ezekiel 36.

That was a promise, and it was fulfilled under Ezra and Nehemiah in a remnant, just as the irrevocable calling and promises are now being fulfilled in a remnant (Ro 11:1-5). Under Ezra and Nehemiah, the walls were rebuilt, the temple was rebuilt and the people rededicated themselves to God with great rejoicing that could be heard from afar.
Both Jew and Gentile are now on the same footing. . .salvation is only by faith in Jesus Christ, and only those in Christ are the one people of God, the one olive tree (Ro 11:16-23).

 

[ralliann]

It's not "replacement" theology, it's fulfillment theology.
The NT church doesn't replace the OT church, it is the continuation/fulfillment of the OT church.
It is the one olive tree of God's one people, made up of both believing OT saints and NT saints (Heb 11:16-23, 12:22-23)

Yep the church of the firstborn. All are heirs, but only some are firstborn. The Israel within Israel have two portions in Abraham.
The natural born of the fourth Generation Gen 15
The spiritual born like Isaac of promise (kings) Genesis 17
No replacement about it.

 

[One Son]

Yep the church of the firstborn. All are heirs, but only some are firstborn. The Israel within Israel have two portions in Abraham.
The natural born of the fourth Generation Gen 15
The spiritual born like Isaac of promise (kings) Genesis 17
No replacement about it.

Gen.32:28(ASV) And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for
thou hast striven with God and with men, and hast prevailed.


Ex.4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith Jehovah, Israel is my son, my first-born:

Jer.31:9 They shall come with weeping; and with supplications will I lead them: I
will cause them to walk by rivers of waters, in a straight way wherein
they shall not stumble; for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my first-born.


Jn.1-14 And the Word became flesh, and did tabernacle among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of an only begotten of a father, full of grace and truth.


Rev.1:5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loveth us, and loosed us from our sins by his blood


Rom.8:29(NRSV) For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn within a large family.



Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.(2Cor.5:17).

 

[ralliann]

Gen.32:28(ASV) And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for
thou hast striven with God and with men, and hast prevailed.


Ex.4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith Jehovah, Israel is my son, my first-born:

Jer.31:9 They shall come with weeping; and with supplications will I lead them: I
will cause them to walk by rivers of waters, in a straight way wherein
they shall not stumble; for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my first-born.

The very early church fathers spoke in a manner that it was obvious the the church Existed way back. Notice the name named on them. My name (Israel), and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac. One name for them all?

Gen 48:
14 And Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid it upon Ephraim’s head, who was the younger, and his left hand upon Manasseh’s head, guiding his hands wittingly; for Manasseh was the firstborn.
15 And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day,
16 The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.

18 And Joseph said unto his father, Not so, my father: for this is the firstborn; put thy right hand upon his head.
19 And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.

 

[claninja]

"Replacement Theology" turns the word "Israel" into a dual-purpose word, retaining its literal meaning "Israel" as a natural people, but simultaneously turning it into an allegorized term denoting a "spiritual people." There is no basis for inserting this process of allegorization, which began at some point in the Early Church and was adopted by leading figures, including the Church Fathers, who thought it might be on a par with "revelation."

Though Paul does use allegory, he does not allegorize "Israel" by redefining it as the International Church. He only defines the nation as an ideal which is an ages-long process that requires a long time to arrive at. Many are delegitimized not because they have ceased to be Israelis, but only because they have ceased to belong to a nation from which they have religiously departed. They are "cut off" like any apostate would be cut off from a doctrinally-orthodox congregation.

Israelis never cease to be Israelis even when the entire majority have apostacized. That's because there is no nation left to be cut off from--they've all been exiled. But even in exile they remain members of Israel potentially, inasmuch as those Jews in exile have been given a hope of return when they repent of their sins. And even those who remain ignorant in their sins can be restored, since God has indeed promised to restore Israel at a time when they don't deserve it. Ezekiel 36.

Wouldn’t it just be the new covenant replaces or supersedes the old covenant?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Firstly, the term "Replacement Theology" is a pejorative that ignores what actual Christians have taught, believed, and confessed from the Scriptures for two thousand years.

Secondly, Scripture itself uses Israel in two ways to speak both of the Jewish people generally, and God's covenant Faithful specifically.

"What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written, 'God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that could not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.'" - Romans 11:7-8

That is an example of talking about Israel as the Jewish people more collectively; Paul makes a distinction between those who believed in the Messiah (the Remnant) and those who did not, whom he will later describe as natural branches which were pruned. Both are "Israel", the remnant faithful and the unbelieving; and yet Paul also talks about Israel as more than just being the people of Israel (Jewish people) generally.

"But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but 'Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.' This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring." - Romans 9:6-8

"Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called 'the uncircumcision' by what is called 'the circumcision', which is made in the flesh by hands--remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants and promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in His flesh the dividing wall of hostility. By abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that He might create in Himself one new human in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And He came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through Him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone, in Whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In Him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit." - Ephesians 2:11-22

So Gentiles are members of what? Israel. What is Israel? It is the Body of Christ. It's the Church.

Israel is the Church. Both believing Jews (the remnant, the natural branches which remain on the tree) and also Gentiles (wild branches grafted onto the tree).

So "Israel" is used two ways in Scripture.

So when Paul says "and all Israel will be saved", not to mention all the ways Paul speaks of the hope of His unbelieving kinsmen to eventually come to faith, he speaks of something glorious that will happen. Paul doesn't quite tell us, but speaks of a hope but seemingly what that ultimately looks like in any concrete way is open-ended and God alone knows.

Israel is both the Jewish people generally (whether believing or unbelieving) and is also the children of promise who have faith, whether Jew or Gentile, aka the Church.

That's totally, utterly, and completely biblical. This isn't "Replacement Theology", this is simply what Scripture says, it's Biblical Theology, it's Christian Theology, it's historically orthodox theology.

"Replacement Theology" is a term used by some to dismiss what Scripture teaches, and used by Dispensationalists to ultimately deny the Gospel entirely.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RandyPNW]

Wouldn’t it just be the new covenant replaces or supersedes the old covenant?

I agree that the New Covenant superseded the Old Covenant of Law. However, Paul distinguished God's *Promises* to Abraham from the Covenant He made through Law to Israel. The "Promises" require that Israel remain a literal nation, and that other believing nations remain literal, as well. The "Covenant" part under Law of course is gone away. We have a new covenant through Christ.

Rom 4.13 It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.

Gal 3.17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.

 

[Clare73]

I agree that the New Covenant superseded the Old Covenant of Law. However, Paul distinguished God's *Promises* to Abraham from the Covenant He made through Law to Israel.

God's promises to Abraham (Ge 17:4-8) were covenant promises (Ge 17:4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 19, 21).

The "Promises" require that Israel remain a literal nation, and that other believing nations remain literal, as well. The "Covenant" part under Law of course is gone away. We have a new covenant through Christ.

Rom 4.13 It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.

Gal 3.17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.

 

[ralliann]

God's promises to Abraham (Ge 17:4-8) were covenant promises (Ge 17:4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 19, 21).

Hmm. Gen 15, the earthly worldly inheritance to the 4th generation. The law of Moses is the law of that land
Gen 17, the heavenly inheritance to those born of promise, the law of Christ is the law of the land above.

 

[Guojing]

"But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but 'Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.' This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring." - Romans 9:6-8

-CryptoLutheran

Paul is using this passage to explain that just because you are a Jew who has Abraham as your father, it does not automatically qualify you as a child of the promise.

Abraham had 2 sons, Ishmael and Isaac. But God only consider Isaac as Abraham's child of promise. Ishmael is of the flesh.

Thus, "They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God"

You are trying to insert gentiles into this passage, which is the wrong insertion here.

 

[Clare73]

Hmm. Gen 15, the earthly worldly inheritance to the 4th generation. The law of Moses is the law of that land
Gen 17, the heavenly inheritance to those born of promise, the law of Christ is the law of the land above.

Was Canaan not an earthly inheritance for the seed of Abraham coming out of Egypt, in fulfillment of the promise of the covenant land promise (Ge 15:7-21), while the covenant of Ge 17:5-6 was a fulfillment of the covenant promise of seed (Ge 15:5)?

 

[claninja]

I agree that the New Covenant superseded the Old Covenant of Law. However, Paul distinguished God's *Promises* to Abraham from the Covenant He made through Law to Israel. The "Promises" require that Israel remain a literal nation, and that other believing nations remain literal, as well. The "Covenant" part under Law of course is gone away. We have a new covenant through Christ.

Rom 4.13 It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.

Gal 3.17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.

According to Paul, the abrahamic promises were ultimately to the singular seed - Christ. Anyone who is in Christ, whether Jew or gentile, is then then of Abraham’s seed seed and heir according to the promise. so I really don’t see this as a valid argument against the replacement theology of the new covenant replacing the old covenant.

Galatians 3:16 16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say, “and to seeds,” meaning many, but “and to your seed,”h meaning One, who is Christ.

Galatians 3:28-29 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise.

 

[RandyPNW]

According to Paul, the abrahamic promises were ultimately to the singular seed - Christ. Anyone who is in Christ, whether Jew or gentile, is then then of Abraham’s seed seed and heir according to the promise. so I really don’t see this as a valid argument against the replacement theology of the new covenant replacing the old covenant.

My standard answer to this, from my point of view, is that the singular "seed" is reference to a corporate seed, which is a composite singularity consisting of a group--not just a single entity. Christ, by definition, can be viewed in conjunction with his Body, the Church. In the same way, "seed" in the reference refers to the composite whole of Jewish descendants who formed a nation of faith.

It is for this reason that Paul summed them up as "Christ the seed." He is the object of faith for this group of people. He is the *only* object of faith, and as such, is viewed as a singular identity.

The reason I see it this way is because it is standard interpretation that the promise of a "seed" to Abraham referred to his descendants, and not just Christ. Therefore, in calling it a "single seed" Paul was identifying it as a group limited to the single Christ, which defined the whole group. If it is not understood this way, God's promise to Abraham with respect to a nation and with respect to many nations makes no sense.

 

[ViaCrucis]

My standard answer to this, from my point of view, is that the singular "seed" is reference to a corporate seed, which is a composite singularity consisting of a group--not just a single entity. Christ, by definition, can be viewed in conjunction with his Body, the Church. In the same way, "seed" in the reference refers to the composite whole of Jewish descendants who formed a nation of faith.

It is for this reason that Paul summed them up as "Christ the seed." He is the object of faith for this group of people. He is the *only* object of faith, and as such, is viewed as a singular identity.

The reason I see it this way is because it is standard interpretation that the promise of a "seed" to Abraham referred to his descendants, and not just Christ. Therefore, in calling it a "single seed" Paul was identifying it as a group limited to the single Christ, which defined the whole group. If it is not understood this way, God's promise to Abraham with respect to a nation and with respect to many nations makes no sense.

Paul goes out of his way to say it is offspring, not offsprings. Christ is the seed, the offspring.

"Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, 'And to your offspring,' who is Christ." - Galatians 3:16

All, then, who are in Christ are heirs of the promise and Abraham's children, by faith in the Messiah.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise." - Galatians 3:28-29

It is not Moses who gives Israel her identity, but Christ. And in Christ there is Jew and Gentile together as one new man; and since out of two there is now one--there is neither Jew nor Gentile, "for you are all one in Christ Jesus". What was formerly divided is now united; what was formerly two is now one. The Gentiles, therefore, have become members of Israel through the Messiah.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Clare73]

According to Paul, the abrahamic promises were ultimately to the singular seed - Christ. Anyone who is in Christ, whether Jew or gentile, is then then of Abraham’s seed seed and heir according to the promise. so I really don’t see this as a valid argument against the replacement theology of the new covenant replacing the old covenant.
Galatians 3:16 16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say, “and to seeds,” meaning many, but “and to your seed,”h meaning One, who is Christ.
Galatians 3:28-29 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise.

The above demonstrates that the NT is Fulfillment Theology, not replacement theology.

 

[RandyPNW]

Paul goes out of his way to say it is offspring, not offsprings. Christ is the seed, the offspring.

I'll not belabor the point, though your statement does not delegitimize anything I've said. The singular "seed" is a singular group of people--a composite whole, defined by faith in a single object, namely Christ.

Christ is the "seed," and believing descendants of Abraham are his "seed," as well. The descendants of Abraham are thus tied to the one Christ, determining the legitimate composition of Abraham's "seed."

"Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, 'And to your offspring,' who is Christ." - Galatians 3:16

The point is not that "seed" is a single person, but rather, that it excludes anybody outside of those who have faith in Christ. God has no other only-begotten Son than Christ.

There are no other "offspring" that God has thus begotten. All true descendants of Abraham are united, by faith, in him, and in him alone. That is Paul's point, that God's singular identification of "offspring" comes by our identification with God's only-begotten offspring, namely Christ.

Both Christ, and us, through him, are God's "seed." And Israel's natural "seed," believing Israel, were similarly determined God's "seed" by their faith in his word. Believing Jews are Abraham's natural "seed" by faith in Christ, and believing Gentiles are Abraham's spiritual "seed" through faith in Christ, as well. This fact does not exterminate Jews as God's promised natural "seed" of Abraham.

All, then, who are in Christ are heirs of the promise and Abraham's children, by faith in the Messiah.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise." - Galatians 3:28-29

We are all united spiritually as heirs together with Christ, by virtue of our faith in him. But the promise of many nations, and of the single nation Israel, has not therefore been exterminated. For Abraham to inherit many nations of faith there had to be no discrimination between Jews under the Law and Gentiles without the Law. Christ brought a way apart from the Law to unite us and still preserve the promises God gave to Abraham.

 

[Guojing]

The Gentiles, therefore, have become members of Israel through the Messiah.

-CryptoLutheran

Are there still 12 tribes of Israel now? Which tribe do we belong to?