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

[Covenanter]

Are there ANY Scriptures in the NT that even suggest the restoration of Israel as a nation.
And
Are there any Scriptures in the NT that teach a division of the redeemed people of God into Israel & Church after Jesus' return?
And
What happens in the NH&NE to Israel & the Church?

 

[agedman]

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

Certainly, this is agreeable, however, God’s relationship was also with the political/social order of the Jews.

Does not covenant theology maintain the aspect that God no longer has a plan for them as a political/social body?

That in effect whatever promises made to them have been replaced by promised to the believers, be it past or future?

 

[agedman]

Are there ANY Scriptures in the NT that even suggest the restoration of Israel as a nation.
And
Are there any Scriptures in the NT that teach a division of the redeemed people of God into Israel & Church after Jesus' return?
And
What happens in the NH&NE to Israel & the Church?

These are all great questions that are resolved in Premillennialism, but such resolve is not normally found in others.
Premillennialism allows for:
The nation of Israel restored
The opening of those eyes and hearts purposely blinded for a time and for the benefit of the Gentiles,
And that glorious NH&NE as depicted after the final judgment of God.

These are all literal in the premillennial thinking, but historically not part of any other.

 

[agedman]

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

You make me hungry!

Where some seem to view one covenant needing to be discarded that another take its place, I do not. But see the whole as multilayered building upon each other as the promises of God are both revealed and fulfilled.

For example, the covenant promises to Israel are just as valid, though for a period of time that Gentile believers be “grafted into” the Israeli believers, God has established a certain blindness, that (imo) the church not be conformed to the traditions and statutes of the Jews, but that they as God promised will be conformed to the church.

 

[Reformed]

You make me hungry!

Where some seem to view one covenant needing to be discarded that another take its place, I do not. But see the whole as multilayered building upon each other as the promises of God are both revealed and fulfilled.

For example, the covenant promises to Israel are just as valid, though for a period of time that Gentile believers be “grafted into” the Israeli believers, God has established a certain blindness, that (imo) the church not be conformed to the traditions and statutes of the Jews, but that they as God promised will be conformed to the church.

We'll, what you are describing is not Covenant Theology. It seems more like Progressive Dispensationalism.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Reformed]

Where some seem to view one covenant needing to be discarded that another take its place, I do not. But see the whole as multilayered building upon each other as the promises of God are both revealed and fulfilled.

In covenant theology, one does not typically look at a covenant needing to be discarded. The Covenant of Works served a purpose until Adam broke it. The Covenant of Redemption (a.k.a. the New Covenant) obviously serves another purpose. In between, there was the Abrahamic Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant (Old Covenant), and the Davidic Covenant. All of these have a purpose to serve(d).

Another point I forgot to bring up is that most Covenant Theologians believe the promises to Israel were fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus is not only the perfect law-giver, He is the perfect law-keeper, and thus the promises of the Law are rightfully His. This is part of Jesus being the second Adam. Jesus kept the Covenant of Works through His perfect obedience to the Father.

I know this is getting a bit into the weeds and I do not expect my dispensational friends to know all the intricacies of Covenant Theology.

 

[agedman]

We'll, what you are describing is not Covenant Theology. It seems more like Progressive Dispensationalism.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

I have been labeled as such, especially as I do carry premillennial view, just not “Darby” style.

 

[agedman]

In covenant theology, one does not typically look at a covenant needing to be discarded. The Covenant of Works served a purpose until Adam broke it. The Covenant of Redemption (a.k.a. the New Covenant) obviously serves another purpose. In between, there was the Abrahamic Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant (Old Covenant), and the Davidic Covenant. All of these have a purpose to serve(d).

Another point I forgot to bring up is that most Covenant Theologians believe the promises to Israel were fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus is not only the perfect law-giver, He is the perfect law-keeper, and thus the promises of the Law are rightfully His. This is part of Jesus being the second Adam. Jesus kept the Covenant of Works through His perfect obedience to the Father.

I know this is getting a bit into the weeds and I do not expect my dispensational friends to know all the intricacies of Covenant Theology.

This is typical thinking of the covenant holders, and some of it I would also agree.

Where we part is generally in the framework all “the promises to Israel were fulfilled in the person of Christ” in the first advent.

There were two great aspects of the physical messiah. As such, it follows that the premillennialism view of fulfillment in that second set of promises will occur.

As you stated, one can get “a bit into the weds” and as in the saw grass in Florida one can play a good game of hide and seek, one must also be rather carefull not to become so entangled as to be damaged.

What I truly desire is that the covenant and the hyper dispensationalism, unite in the Scripture acknowledgement of a physical millennium in which all prophecies are realized as literally fulfilled in Him.

Each side relinquishing what is not literal, and taking the validity and veracity of the prophetic statements to a point of agreement.

Well, one can hope.

 

[Reformed]

I have been labeled as such, especially as I do carry premillennial view, just not “Darby” style.

Just drawing conclusions. No charge for the first time. I do accept Visa, MasterCard, and Amex.

 

[Reformed]

This is typical thinking of the covenant holders, and some of it I would also agree.

Where we part is generally in the framework all “the promises to Israel were fulfilled in the person of Christ” in the first advent.

There were two great aspects of the physical messiah. As such, it follows that the premillennialism view of fulfillment in that second set of promises will occur.

As you stated, one can get “a bit into the weds” and as in the saw grass in Florida one can play a good game of hide and seek, one must also be rather carefull not to become so entangled as to be damaged.

What I truly desire is that the covenant and the hyper dispensationalism, unite in the Scripture acknowledgement of a physical millennium in which all prophecies are realized as literally fulfilled in Him.

Each side relinquishing what is not literal, and taking the validity and veracity of the prophetic statements to a point of agreement.

Well, one can hope.

Most CT's are either amil or postmil. If I am not mistaken, James Montgomery Boice (Presbyterian) was a chiliast (historic premil) and CT. Historic premil is the only futuristic eschatology that can work within CT as it has to be divorced from a pre-wrath view of scripture. Any premil view that includes a pre-wrath rapture is dispensational whether the adherent accepts it or not.

 

[Iconoclast]

In a failed thread back in 2011 I offered some thoughts from Findley Edge from his book...The Greening of The Church;it was written in 1973....
This might promote more healthy discussion

[Speaking of national Israel;]

4Ye -- ye have seen that which I have done to the Egyptians, and I bear you on eagles' wings, and bring you in unto Myself.

5`And now, if ye really hearken to My voice, then ye have kept My covenant, and been to Me a peculiar treasure more than all the peoples, for all the earth [is] Mine;
6and ye -- ye are to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation: these [are] the words which thou dost speak unto the sons of Israel.'

God's basic call was to a mission,to a task...
What was he calling them for,and what was he calling them to?

God was engaged in a redemptive task in the world,and he was calling a people who would give their lives to join Him in His redemptive mission.
Thus God's basic call was to mission, not a call to receive something or to accept something.
Do you agree with this?


They misunderstood why they were called and the nature of their call.They thought God had called them primarily to bless them, to give them something.

Thus they failed to carry out the purpose of their call;
In mt.21- the parable of the two sons.....the second son symbolizes Israel.
Go work in my vineyard.....he said he would , but did not
God said to the people of Israel go work in my vineyard,but they would not.
they said they would do it, but they did not, they failed.

43Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof
God calls a new Israel,you and I make the audacious claim that we are a part of this "new" Israel of God.
But the thing we must understand with clarity is....
The New Israel is called for precisely the same purpose as was the original Israel.
While belief was involved....the emphasis was on the results, the fruits, the expression of valid belief. the people involved were not rejected because they did not believe, but they failed to fulfill the purpose for which they were called.

 

[prophecy70]

Another point I forgot to bring up is that most Covenant Theologians believe the promises to Israel were fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ.

Correct

Luke 1:32-33
He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever (not 1000 years in the millennium), and of His kingdom there will be no end.

Acts 2
Fellow Israelites, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. 30But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. 31Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay. 32God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it. 33Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.

John 18:36
My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.”

Matthew 28:18
All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth

 

[Iconoclast]

These are all great questions that are resolved in Premillennialism, but such resolve is not normally found in others.
Premillennialism allows for:
The nation of Israel restored
The opening of those eyes and hearts purposely blinded for a time and for the benefit of the Gentiles,
And that glorious NH&NE as depicted after the final judgment of God.

These are all literal in the premillennial thinking, but historically not part of any other.

You have no teaching on Jesus as the True Israel and so...it is not possible that the result will be the same. The puzzle is solved and all pieces fit quite well with Jesus as the Chief Corner stone.

 

[agedman]

Just drawing conclusions. No charge for the first time. I do accept Visa, MasterCard, and Amex.

Cash with no receipt offered. No reason for Caesar to be involved.

 

[agedman]

You have no teaching on Jesus as the True Israel and so...it is not possible that the result will be the same. The puzzle is solved and all pieces fit quite well with Jesus as the Chief Corner stone.

I was addressing with broad spectrum and not attending to the obvious.

So to very briefly respond, Hosea presented the theme of the “true Israel” in which Matthew as presenting Christ as King shows the prophetic statement fulfilled.

However, that statement in Matthew does not make any of the prophecy statements concerning the political/social national Israel any less valid and truthful.

 

[Iconoclast]

I was addressing with broad spectrum and not attending to the obvious.

So to very briefly respond, Hosea presented the theme of the “true Israel” in which Matthew as presenting Christ as King shows the prophetic statement fulfilled.

However, that statement in Matthew does not make any of the prophecy statements concerning the political/social national Israel any less valid and truthful.

I am speaking of isa49.1-8....ex4:22.....hos11.....mt 2:15 mt21:43

 

[Covenanter]

Are there ANY Scriptures in the NT that even suggest the restoration of Israel as a nation.
And
Are there any Scriptures in the NT that teach a division of the redeemed people of God into Israel & Church after Jesus' return?
And
What happens in the NH&NE to Israel & the Church?

These are all great questions that are resolved in Premillennialism, but such resolve is not normally found in others.
Premillennialism allows for:
The nation of Israel restored
The opening of those eyes and hearts purposely blinded for a time and for the benefit of the Gentiles,
And that glorious NH&NE as depicted after the final judgment of God.

These are all literal in the premillennial thinking, but historically not part of any other.

I think your answer to the NC Scriptures question is NO.

Relying on OT prophecy to reject the fulfilment of prophecy in Christ and the church amounts to a denial of the teaching of our glorious Saviour. It is natural, carnal thinking that is opposed to the spiritual.

It is why the Jews rejected Christ and the Apostolic Gospel. They wanted the sort of king who would lead them in battle. A physical, carnal, earthly king. NOT a king of righteousness, ruling hearts and lives, saving sinners.

They wanted the sort of king who would restore the kingdom to Israel....

 

[Covenanter]

To what extent is the dispensationalism being taught now serious replacement theology -

replacement of Christ & his heavenly, spiritual reign by Israel & a millennial earthly reign;
replacement of the everlasting covenant in the blood of Christ by an OC millennial temple complete with animal sacrifices for sin;
replacement of the teaching of NC Scriptures by OT prophecy;
replacement of personal faith by national religion;
replacement of a kingdom spiritually populated by repentant, redeemed sinners by a carnal, physical kingdom;
replacement of our glorious ascended heavenly reigning Christ by a Christ on a physical throne;
postponement of the righteous NH&NE for a millennium populated by believers & increasingly unbelievers?

And to what extent is dispensationalism antisemitic by teaching that in this Gospel disp of grace, the Jews as a nation are exiled until a future millennium, rather than welcomed as Jews into Christ's kingdom by repentance & faith in Christ?

 

[John of Japan]

To what extent is the dispensationalism being taught now serious replacement theology -

Zero extent. You can't change the meaning of the theological term "replacement" theology by wishing it were so. If you don't think the term is fair, call yourself supersessionist.

And to what extent is dispensationalism antisemitic by teaching that in this Gospel disp of grace, the Jews as a nation are exiled until a future millennium, rather than welcomed as Jews into Christ's kingdom by repentance & faith in Christ?

This is a false dichotomy and a failed understanding of dispensationalism. I have witnessed to Jews myself, and would welcome them into Christ's kingdom. My wife and I have supported a ministry to the Jews in the past, and I have a dispensationalist friend who runs a ministry to feed poor Israeli children (and there is much poverty in modern Israel).

Please stop the unwarranted and ignorant attacks on dispensationalism. The truth is, dispensationalists are far more likely than covenant theologians to actively support the nation of Israel.

 

[John of Japan]

John 18:36
My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.”

Surely you understand the concept of the present tense, used in this statement. Christ never said that His kingdom would not in the future be of this earth.