is there ANY Difference between isreal was renamed as Church, or Church replaced isre

I just ran across this here (someone agrees with me! ):

"43. Despite the dispensationalists’ fundamental theological commitment to the radical distinction between “Israel and the Church” (Ryrie), the New Testament sees two “Israels” (Rom. 9:6-8)—one of the flesh, and one of the spirit—with the only true Israel being the spiritual one, which has come to mature fulfillment in the Church. (The Christian Church has not replaced Israel; rather, it is the New Testament expansion.) This is why the New Testament calls members of the Church “Abraham’s seed” (Gal 3:26-29) and the Church itself “the Israel of God” (Gal 6:16)."

 

No, the church has not replaced Israel or even expanded Israel. Gentile elect are in perfect keeping with God's promise to Abrahm in regard to the Gentile "nations" in contradistinction to God's promise to the PLURAL "father's" in regard to national Israel.

In Galatians Paul makes a clear grammatical distinction between the uncirucmcised "seed" of Abraham from among the nations by the words "upon them" and the circumcised seed of Abraham "and on the Israel of God."

I challenge you to exegetically prove that "Israel" in Romans 11:25-28 can be anything other than the fulfillment of God's covenant with the PLURAL "father's (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) in regard to the salvation of ETHNIC NATIONAL ISRAEL of which they are the founding fathers. If you cannot prove your theory in this text it collapses every other place.

 

Challenge accepted! (hope you know Grk)

I acknowledge that "israel" in the context by and large refers to an ethnic group of people. I would also argue that it is possible for a theological meaning to be applied to "israel" when it is prefaced by a theological term ("israel of God" or "all Israel" as in v. 26) or the context indicates so. In Rom. 11:26, you have both.

Paul has been talking about Israel, saved and unsaved Jews. That is the context beginning in chpt. 9. In v. 25, he is still referring to the Jews in a generality (obviously not all of the Jews rejected Jesus). But v. 25 ends w/ the statement about this hardening that it will continue "until the fulness of the Gentiles comes in."

2 Things, we immediately assume that "fulness" means all the Gentiles that will be saved. Rather, it likely is OT language referring to the ingathering of the Gentiles (the purpose of Israel). So Israel will be put aside until they are fulfilling their mission to be a light to the nations.

Secondly, the concept of the fulness of the Gentiles is EQUATED w/ the "all Israel" in v. 26. This is seen through the word ουτως in v. 26. Thus it is translated, "until the ingathering of the Gentiles enters/begins, and in this way all Israel will be saved." So the way "all Israel" is saved is that the fulness of the Gentiles enters ("comes in" is a poor translation of εισελθη here).

Thus the concept of the ingathering of the Gentiles signifies that Israel is being restored today (cf. Acts 15:16-17) and that the phrase "all Israel" includes the fulness of the Gentiles. In conclusion, the only NT passage that the dispo has to argue for God still having a plan for ethnic Jews is debunked by the grammar of the passage they claim.

 

You just rejected the entire contextual development when you said "likely"! There is no "likely" here at all - zip, nada, zilch! You entered into eisgesis when you said "likely" - you have no contextual basis for "likely." Indeed, the context denies your "likely."

Romans 11:1 and 11:11 ask the same question about the same people and in context those same people are described as in a "stumbled" and "blinded" condition (vv. 7, 10, 11). Paul immediately denies there stumbled condition will continue to a fallen condition (v. 11). This is ETHNIC NATIONAL ISRAEL. This alone is sufficient to destroy your eisgetical conclusions. However, it is NOT ALONE. Paul continues to define God's purpose in allowing ETHNIC NATIONAL ISRAEL to enter into this "blinded" and "stumbled" condition and that is for the "salvation" of the Gentiles (v. 12) which Paul reaffrims after verse 25 again in verse 28. No other purpose is contextually provided other than this stated purpose.

Next, what has been blinded and presently in a "stumbled" but UNFALLEN condition is ETHNIC NATIONAL ISRAEL and Paul argues that they have been presently BROKEN OFF but not PERMENANTLY broken off as he continues to argue that what has been broken off can be grafted back in "AGAIN." Neither the "remnant" or gentile elect have been broken off in this passage.

In connection with grafting them back in "AGAIN" he argues this in the context of God breaking off the gentiles in the future and this is what brings us to verse 25.

1. They are PRESENTLY blinded and in a "stumbled" condition but not UTTERLY FALLEN out of God's redemptive program.

2. They are PRESENTLY so because of God's intent to bring salvation to the Gentiles.

3. Their PRESENT blinded and "stumbled" condition is not necessarily PERMENANT as God can graft them back in "again" and break off the Gentiles when they develop into the same condition that brought about the breaking off of Israel as a nation.

4. The complete and absolute denial that God is through with NATIONAL Israel in Rom. 11:1 with Rom. 11:11 is the theme dealt with in verses 25-28.

5. The Israel that is presently blinded cannot be the remnant which is presently being saved (v. 5) or the gentile elect who are presently being saved while Israel is presently "enemies of the gospel FOR YOUR SAKES."

This is so clear and so easy to see in the contextual development that only someone with a theological agenda armed with an eisgetical "likely" fails to see it. BTW I have five years classroom Greek, two years Hebrew and one year Latin.

 

W/ all your language training, how are you unable to follow my arguments. You clearly missed what I was saying was "likely." I was talking about the meaning of "fulness" which was LIKElY OT lingo refering to the ingathering of the nations, a major OT motif.

Also, I acknowledged the vast majority of context for "israel" meant ethnic people.

But notice, you did not even mention the 2 paramaters I gave for using "Israel" theologically. And what is worse, you avoided my main point completely: the grammar of v. 26 equates "all Israel" w/ the "fulness of the Gentiles" in v. 25. The way "all Israel" will be saved is when the fulness of the Gentiles are saved. Ουτως is not a term of chronology but logic. It means "in this way." There is your contextual proof. Deal w/ that specifically rather than your general proofs.

 

I never missed that point at all. It is that very point I am denying and claiming there is no exegetical basis for in this context as it is an attempt to overturn the obvious and clear development of the context.

The Greek "archi" is translated "until" and is a term of chronology in verse 25 and heads up the phrase that introduces and qualifies verse 26. "Otws" simply carries out the logically conclusion introduced by the chronoloigcal "archi."

Secondly, the "Israel" of verse 25 is the same "Israel" from verse 7 that was placed in "blindness" and that Israel is CONTRASTED to both the "remnant" and "gentile" elecct and it is this same "Israel" in verse 25 that is the "Israel" in verse 26 which again is the same Israel in verse 28 that is presently "enemies of the gospel" as this is the same "Israel" of the PLURAL "father's" (not merely Abraham) but the "father's" refer to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in regard to NATIONAL ISRAEL.

You have no exegetical basis whatsoever. You have only presented eisgetical blunders.


Until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in (αχρι ου το πληρωμα των εθνων εισελθη). Temporal clause with αχρι ου (until which time) and the second aorist active subjunctive of εισερχομαι, to come in. -A.T. Robertson

 

Let me apologize for being too abrupt and harsh in my responses to you. I reread my posts and I did not have to respond in that manner. My training was nearly 35 years ago. Drs. Roy O. Beaman, Richard Henderson, Rosco Brong and Edward Overbey were my Greek teachers. They were indeed Greek scholars. I wish I was a reflection of them but I am no Greek scholar. I am a student, but I do have sufficient training to know when I am addressing a real Greek scholar and when I am addressing another Greek student.

I don't need to argue the Greek grammar to demonstrate the clear contextual teaching in Romans 11. One has to come to this context with an agenda in order to miss the obvious contextual argument and development in Romans 11.

 

But the thing is, I'm not saying (and I hope you don't either) that the ουτως refers to the chronology of the previous phrase, but rather simply explains what "until the fulness of the Gentiles enters" means. In this case, it explains that the fulness means "all Israel will be saved." That is the grammar and you have not really provided any exegetical basis to disprove my claim. Instead of refutation, you just throw a different argument back at me.

That is unless you are wrong as I have mentioned above. "Israel" has not been the consistent use but rather v. 26 is "all Israel." You've not even addressed my point that the word "israel" can have a theological meaning when context allows and it is coupled with a loaded theological word, both appears in v. 26.

You are just as guilty b/c you are dogmatically asserting your interpretation on the word "israel" in v. 26 when in fact you could be wrong. At least I am leaving the room for possibility.

First, don't just cite the author but cite the source as well. Since I checked and found out that it was his Word Studies commentary, you should keep reading what he says (especially since v. 25 and the temporal clause was not my point, I admitted it was a statement of chronology). He said about v. 26, "All Israel (pās Israēl). What does Paul mean? The immediate context (use of pās in contrast with apo merous, plērōma here in contrast with plērōma in Rom_11:12) argues for the Jewish people “as a whole.” But the spiritual Israel (both Jews and Gentiles) may be his idea in accord with Rom_9:6 (Gal_6:16) as the climax of the argument." So even the source you provided sided w/ me rather than you. What say you now?

 

Your theory defies the whole development argument since verse 7. The fact that Paul utterly denies that National Israel has completely fallen (v. 11), but merely stumbled for the purpose that salvation should come to the Gentiles (v.12) is declarative that there is a restoration of national Israel some point in the future to its "fullness" (v. 12) and if that point is not the meaning of verse 25 then the context provides no point at all and Paul's denial in verse 11 is perposterous and irrational. The Greek "archi" has this precise culmination in view and as Robertson rightly concludes according to the IMMEDIATE context that "all" Israel refers back to verse 12 and the term "fullness". This is so common sense and natural that one must forefully close their mind to ignore it.

"All" simply refers to verse 12 and the Greek word "pleroma." Verse 11 demands this as Paul admits that Israel has indeed "stumbled" but not that she is fallen completely from God's redemptive purposes. The stumbling is only temporary for a specific stated goal. Her restoration from stumbling to "fullness" is implied in verse 12 and declared in verses 25-26. The "all Israel" in verse 26 cannot be reidentified as something less than NATIONAL Israel because this is the Israel of the "fathers" - v. 28. Abraham is the father of all who believe, but Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are the "fathers" of NATIONAL ISRAEL. It is what these men are "father's" of that is PRESENTLY "enemies of the gospel FOR YOUR SAKES (just as in verse 11-12) but as touching election beloved for the "father's sake." Paul could not make it any clearer that national Israel is in view.

No, he does not. Like a true exegete he gives the most natural and immediate fit to be verse 12 and then only suggest that it "MAY" refer to Romans 9:6 which rests upon an unnatural interpretation contrary to the immediate context of Romans 9.

You have to have an agenda to miss this natural and easy to see developmental argument by Paul. The "Israel" that has been blinded in part refers to verses 7-10. It is not the "remnant" part in verse 5 or the Gentile elect which is consistently contrasted with Israel from verses 11-24. Neither would Paul in verse 25 do a complete reverse definition of "Israel" to include gentiles in verse 25. The term "until" has no rational meaning in verse 25 if it is not to define chronologically the termination point of that part of Israel that has been in blindness since verse 7. The "remnant" part has not been in such blindness and neither has the Gentiles as that is their time of salvation. Your interpetation makes a complete mess of the developmental argument between verse 7-24.