Spiritual Israel, Christian Israel.....instead of Replacement Theology

[Iconoclast]

Geerhardus Vos;
9. (Biblical Theology, Old and New Testaments, by Geerhardus Vos (c)1948 Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Tenth Printing, page 79 and The Pauline Eschatology, by Geerhardus Vos, (c) 1979 Baker Book House, page 88.)

"The elective principle, abolished as to nationality, continues in force as to individuals. And even with respect to national privilege, while temporarily abolished now that its purpose has been fulfilled, there still remains reserved for the future a certain fulfillment of the national elective promise. Israel in its racial capacity will again in the future be visited by the saving grace of God [Rom. 11.2, 12, 25]....such conversions (of Jewish people) remain for the present but sporadic examples, though at bottom expressive of a divine principle intended to work itself out on the largest of scales at the predetermined point in the future. (9)"

Let us recognize with these great men of theology God's continuing love for the Jewish people, yet not center our theology on ethnic Israel. Speaking of "replacement theology", let's not replace Jesus with Israel, or even put it on an equal footing with him in the plan of God! (10)

God has not replaced the Jewish people with the church. Quite to the contrary, God has grafted Gentile branches into the tree of believing Israel, a tree made up of all true believers, both Jewish and Gentile, a tree rooted in the faith of the patriarchs (Romans 11:17-24). God has expanded Israel, not replaced it.

It precisely because of the fact that Gentile believers have been grafted into the tree of Israel, a tree foreign to their nature, that they have an obligation to the Jewish people, those natural branches which were cut off and which will be grafted in again. The doctrine of spiritual Israel should never be abused to imply God is finished with the Jewish people -- quite the contrary! It is expressly because of the truth of this doctrine we must stand by the natural branches and pray for their grafting in again!

And how foolish is any form of anti-semitism on the part of some so-called "Christian!" For a Christian to hate Jewish people is to hate his own adopted family and nation -- and even His own Jewish Lord and Savior!

 

[Iconoclast]

Edersheim's statement that through the New Covenant we have come to the glorious fulfillment of Messianic promises given to Israel by the prophets is clearly true to the scriptures. Consider these Biblical truths:

Israel was told "the meek will inherit the land" (Psalm 37:11). Jesus said the meek would inherit the whole earth (Mt. 5:5). Paul says Abraham was to inherit "the world" (Rom. 4:13).

God promised Israel a city named Jerusalem. We are told we have come to a glorious heavenly Jerusalem, the community of the redeemed, superior (when seen through spiritual eyes) to anything experienced under the Old Covenant administration (Hebrews 12:22-23).

Paul says the true Jerusalem, the one which fulfills Isaiah 54, is the heavenly (spiritual) Jerusalem. (See how Isaiah 54:1 is interpreted in Galatians 4:26-27). This heavenly city, the church, is the congregation of the faithful (Hebrews 12:22-24).

Israel was promised a Temple; the New Covenant promises to both Jews and Gentiles (and still to the Jew first) that they can actually be the Temple! (1 Peter 2:5)

According to Isaiah 56:3 and the following verses Gentiles are admitted to God's people and come into the Temple. Hebrews says the old Temple has found fulfillment in the new. (See Hebrews 7:18, 8:13 and the whole rest of the book of Hebrews!)

Israel was promised a king -- God sent the world the King of Kings!

Certainly Edersheim was right to say of the New Covenant community: "all that had been national, preparatory, symbolic, typical, would merge into the spiritual reality of fulfillment.

15. Prophecy... page 174.

 

[Iconoclast]

Expansion

Messiah, The True Israel

To expand Israel it first had to be narrowed down to one person. The scriptures teach that Jesus is the ultimate Israel. In Matthew 2:15 the Holy Spirit quotes a verse referring to national Israel "Out of Egypt I called my son" (Hosea 11:1) and says Jesus fulfills this prophecy! We are being told Jesus is the true faithful Israel of God. He alone is worthy of the covenant blessings. Messiah is the supreme seed of Abraham (Galatians 3:16). Paul explicitly says: "The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say `and to his seeds', meaning many people, but `and to his seed' meaning one person, who is Messiah". It is only through faith in Jesus that we come into the fullness of the promise to Abraham. This is to the Jew first, and also as for Gentiles.

 

[Iconoclast]

Israel's Hope Fulfilled Beyond Expectation

Through Jesus we have more than could be conceived of by the prophets or their ancient readers. Peter says: "Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Messiah in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Messiah and the glories that would follow.
It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things" (1 Peter 1:10-12). Amazing! God says the Old Testament prophets were speaking us that salvation which we have received! Our current experience of salvation was spoken of by the Hebrew prophets!

 

[Iconoclast]

Covenant Theology Is Not Replacement Theology

The Israel of God

The Church and Israel: The Issue by Cornelis Venema

 

[Reformed]

Covenant Theology Is Not Replacement Theology

The Israel of God

I am not a big fan of R. Scott Clark, but his explanation of Covenant Theology not being Replacement Theology is correct. It is hard to replace something that never has been replaced.

 

[Iconoclast]

I am not a big fan of R. Scott Clark, but his explanation of Covenant Theology not being Replacement Theology is correct. It is hard to replace something that never has been replaced.

Yes...I know what you mean. he seems to "try to hard some times".
Reformed I have seen much misunderstanding on this topic. I think it betrays a fundamental lack of understanding about some of the themes being discussed here this past month.
It is leading to some fruitful discussion. I am looking forward to JOJ giving more clarification to this modified view of dispensational thought, so I did not want to derail that thread as I have promised to only ask clarifying questions there.

 

[Reformed]

Yes...I know what you mean. he seems to "try to hard some times".
Reformed I have seen much misunderstanding on this topic. I think it betrays a fundamental lack of understanding about some of the themes being discussed here this past month.
It is leading to some fruitful discussion. I am looking forward to JOJ giving more clarification to this modified view of dispensational thought, so I did not want to derail that thread as I have promised to only ask clarifying questions there.

That is the exact reason I left his thread and will not comment further. I really have no business derailing a Dispensational thread when I do not subscribe to it.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Iconoclast]

That is the exact reason I left his thread and will not comment further. I really have no business derailing a Dispensational thread when I do not subscribe to it.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

I thought your questions were helpful...I was thinking along similar lines, but just giving JoJ a chance to develop his thoughts as he says things have been modified since I have looked at it.
What is interesting is as I slowly start to glance at some of the books I bought years ago, they do not seem as formidable.

 

[Covenanter]

Unbelieving Israel & unbelieving Gentiles & the Church are indeed separate entities. However at the preaching of the Gospel many thousands of Jews/Israelites formed the Church & the Jewish Christians were guided into opening full membership of uncircumcised Gentiles into the Church. True, believing Israel & the Church are one body without a dividing wall. Scripture makes that very clear. Both OC & NC prophecy starting with Gen. 12. In Luke 2 Gabriel & Simeon give an inclusive message.

The fact that Israel's national leaders maintained a position of opposition to their Messiah & the Apostles & the Church cannot mean that wicked men frustrate God's prophecy. They perished according to Jesus' prophecy.

This is all true, and I agree, but it is not exactly replacement theology, which teaches that all of Israel's promises and prophecies are fulfilled by the church.

 

[Covenanter]

I'm glad that you, John, agree with my understanding. The Apostles make it very clear that the OC Scriptures were fulfilled by Jesus & the formation of the Church which at first comprised only Israelites from every nation under heaven. These would have included the dispersed tribes.

Zechariah prophesies that after the Shepherd is struck, 8 And it shall come to pass in all the land,”
Says the Lord,
“That two-thirds in it shall be cut off and die,
But one–third shall be left in it:
9 I will bring the one–third through the fire,
Will refine them as silver is refined,
And test them as gold is tested.
They will call on My name,
And I will answer them.
I will say, ‘This is My people’;
And each one will say, ‘The Lord is my God.’”
One third of the Israelites will be delivered from the AD 70 tribulation - believing Israel will continue as prophesied also in Rev. 7, concerning the 144,000. These already are members of the Church, along with already dispersed believing Israelites & believing Gentiles.

Israelites & Jews are of course welcomed by the Gospel - there is NO ongoing rejection of Jews as "Christ killers." No justification for persecution. They are needy sinners who are welcomed by the Gospel of their Saviour God.

As you agree, this is not replacement theology. Nor is it antisemitism. The Church continues as one redeemed people of God practising spiritual worship with none of the trappings of OC worship. At Jesus' return, the NH&NE will be the blessed eternal home of all the redeemed. All to the glory of God.

There is just no place in Scripture prophecy for a very imperfect millennial dispensation, centred on earthly Jerusalem, with a temple & animal sacrifices for sin.

Whether there will be a Jewish revival before Jesus returns is in God's hands. I don't see it in NC prophecy, nor do I see any significance in the return to the land.

 

[John of Japan]

I'm glad that you, John, agree with my understanding. The Apostles make it very clear that the OC Scriptures were fulfilled by Jesus & the formation of the Church which at first comprised only Israelites from every nation under heaven. These would have included the dispersed tribes.

Don't do that. Do not take a previous agreement of mine with a post of yours, then elaborate on your original idea and say I agree with your further explanation. That is unethical. You are now proclaiming replacement theology and I heartily and deeply disagree with it.

 

[Reformed]

Don't do that. Do not take a previous agreement of mine with a post of yours, then elaborate on your original idea and say I agree with your further explanation. That is unethical. You are now proclaiming replacement theology and I heartily and deeply disagree with it.

John, replacement theology comments aside, I agree with you. This is not an ethical way to make a point.

 

[John of Japan]

John, replacement theology comments aside, I agree with you. This is not an ethical way to make a point.

Thank you.

On the dispensational thread, I agreed with a statement of his that was not, in and of itself, replacement theology. I'm sure he did not mean to be unethical, but he added a lot in this post that I do not agree with, and it's a shame he did that.

 

[Iconoclast]

Looks like after the initial agreement the next post should have been framed to seek clarification.

 

[Covenanter]

Don't do that. Do not take a previous agreement of mine with a post of yours, then elaborate on your original idea and say I agree with your further explanation. That is unethical. You are now proclaiming replacement theology and I heartily and deeply disagree with it.

John, replacement theology comments aside, I agree with you. This is not an ethical way to make a point.

Thank you.

On the dispensational thread, I agreed with a statement of his that was not, in and of itself, replacement theology. I'm sure he did not mean to be unethical, but he added a lot in this post that I do not agree with, and it's a shame he did that.

.
Sorry about that.

If what I wrote above is considered RT then that is certainly NOT what I understand RT to be, which is a rejection of the Jews, & replacement by a largely Gentile Church.

God's judgment of this generation that rejected their Messiah was completed in AD 70. From Pentecost on, they have been welcomed by the Gospel. They were & are free to repent, as Saul & many priests & others did, & continued to observe OC customs.

However, within a few generations converted ethnic Jews would intermarry in the Lord with fellow believers & lose the Mosaic distinctives. God knows who they are, but it is very clear that Jew & Gentile, even in the first century, were one people of God in Christ.

Believing Jews have ALL the promises of God as have all members of the Church of Jesus Christ. Whether they continue to observe Jewish customs Is for their conscience - all converts should be encouraged to be faithful family members, as far as is consistent with their faith.

 

[kyredneck]

God has expanded Israel, not replaced it.

Actually both replacement AND enlargement were involved. I really don't know what the big deal is about the 'replaced' part, there is indeed a 'replacement theme' found in the scriptures.

Remember this?

The enlargement

 

[John of Japan]

.
Sorry about that.

Apology accepted.

If what I wrote above is considered RT then that is certainly NOT what I understand RT to be, which is a rejection of the Jews, & replacement by a largely Gentile Church.

Replacement theology does not depend on whether one loves or hates the Jews. One may love the Jews and accept them as God's people and still believe that the church replaces Israel. A typical statement of replacement theology is, "It is very doubtful, however, whether Scripture warrants the expectation that Israel will finally be established as a nation, and will as a nation turn to the Lord" (Berkhov, Systematic Theology, p. 699).

God's judgment of this generation that rejected their Messiah was completed in AD 70. From Pentecost on, they have been welcomed by the Gospel. They were & are free to repent, as Saul & many priests & others did, & continued to observe OC customs.

However, within a few generations converted ethnic Jews would intermarry in the Lord with fellow believers & lose the Mosaic distinctives. God knows who they are, but it is very clear that Jew & Gentile, even in the first century, were one people of God in Christ.

This is clear both from Luke's history in Acts, and Paul's theology, which said, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). However, it is not replacement theology, which is about the nation of Israel, regardless of whether Jews believe or do not believe.

Believing Jews have ALL the promises of God as have all members of the Church of Jesus Christ. Whether they continue to observe Jewish customs Is for their conscience - all converts should be encouraged to be faithful family members, as far as is consistent with their faith.

Again, replacement theology is not about believing Jews, but about the OT prophecies concerning the Jewish nation. A literal interpretation of prophecy says that all unfulfilled prophecies concerning Israel are yet future, but replacement theology says no, the church has replaced Israel, so all of those prophecies are fulfilled in the church.

 

[agedman]

It would seem (at least to me) that BOTH covenant and dispensation theology in some manner “replaces” political/social Israel.

Dispensation would do it for a “time of the Gentiles,” and those of us who are premillennial adhered to the Gentile as grafted into the believing Israel.

Covenant has no literal return of the Jews as a nation, and therefore replaces the nation with the church.

What is the Scripture statement is both a covenant approach AND the dispensation approach.

If one disregards one or the other, more likely there is some area of Scripture that has been taken from the assigned area and made to fit another.

 

[Reformed]

Covenant has no literal return of the Jews as a nation, and therefore replaces the nation with the church

I am currently at Beef O' Brady's stuffing my face. It is build-a-burger Monday. That said, I will have to provide back up for my assertion later.

Covenant Theology begins with the Covenant of Works which Adam broke in the garden. Beginning in Genesis 3:15 we see the revealing of the Covenant of Redemption (also called the Covenant of Grace). This covenant is actually the New Covenant revealed in types and shadows in the Old Testament. While God did establish His covenant with Abraham, that covenant did not supersede the promise of Genesis 3, that the seed of the woman would crush the serpent's head. The church does not replace Israel, the church has always been. God has always had one called-out people on the basis of faith. This is not replacement, it is the continuation of God's people of faith. Yes. God established a special relationship with Abraham and his natural descendants, but that relationship was after the Genesis 3 promise.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk