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

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?

 

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That in effect whatever promises made to them have been replaced by promised to the believers, be it past or future?

 

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 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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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 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....

 

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?

 

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.

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.

 

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.