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

[Reformed]

The truth is, dispensationalists are far more likely than covenant theologians to actively support the nation of Israel.

John,

I want to avoid casting aspersions on the goodwill of CT's or Dispensationalists as to their willingness to help those in need (unless you meant something different by your assertion), but you cannot deny that Dispensationalists have an eschatological dog in the hunt when it comes to Israel. John Hagee may be a few dispensations short of a Happy Meal, but he still represents a certain segment of Dispensationalism with his desire to help Jews return to the Holy Land in order to speed up the prophetic clock. That is one reason for Dispensationalists to actively support the nation of Israel.

 

[agedman]

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

Ultimately, the replacement of the church in place of the social/political Israel is what covenant theology does.

It is also done in Darby dispensation.

The difference is that in covenant, it is a permanent replacement, in Darby it is a temporary time of Grace extended to the gentiles.

What I hold as a premillennial thinker is neither is a valid view. Christ did not "replace" but extended.

Isaiah 49 is a wonderful passage that shows the Father, the Son, the Nation of Israel, the Gentiles, and states:

6He says, “It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant
To raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel;
I will also make You a light of the nations
So that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”

7Thus says the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel and its Holy One,
To the despised One,
To the One abhorred by the nation,
To the Servant of rulers,
“Kings will see and arise,
Princes will also bow down,
Because of the LORD who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel who has chosen You.”
​

The next section of verses discuss what is to be done with the social/political nation of Israel by that "the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel and its Holy One."

The following verses are not to the Church, nor to the Christ, but to that nation now being gathered, who will yet continue to be in darkness until the Lord returns and the millennial reign begins.

 

[Reformed]

Ultimately, the replacement of the church in place of the social/political Israel is what covenant theology does.

It is also done in Darby dispensation.

The difference is that in covenant, it is a permanent replacement, in Darby it is a temporary time of Grace extended to the gentiles.

What I hold as a premillennial thinker is neither is a valid view. Christ did not "replace" but extended.

Isaiah 49 is a wonderful passage that shows the Father, the Son, the Nation of Israel, the Gentiles, and states:

6He says, “It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant
To raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel;
I will also make You a light of the nations
So that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”

7Thus says the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel and its Holy One,
To the despised One,
To the One abhorred by the nation,
To the Servant of rulers,
“Kings will see and arise,
Princes will also bow down,
Because of the LORD who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel who has chosen You.”
​

The next section of verses discuss what is to be done with the social/political nation of Israel by that "the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel and its Holy One."

The following verses are not to the Church, nor to the Christ, but to that nation now being gathered, who will yet continue to be in darkness until the Lord returns and the millennial reign begins.

What type of premillennialist are you?


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[agedman]

Exodus 4:

21The LORD said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.22“Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD, “Israel is My son, My firstborn. 23“So I said to you, ‘Let My son go that he may serve Me’; but you have refused to let him go. Behold, I will kill your son, your firstborn.”’”
​

Without considering that both the deities of the Pharaohs and the Pharaohs (as deity) were considered to have sons it may occur that some would take this statement to be concerning the Lord Jesus Christ as the son being discussed. It is not.

Indeed the four "sons" of the Egyptian deity Horus, was typified in the four jars of the mummification, and the pharaohs were considered deity that had sons who were also deity. This was ingrained into the whole culture and understanding of the Egyptians, so a threat to the son of the deity (be a son of the pharaoh or the pharaoh himself) was as significant a threat as could be found. It was as one might attempt to kill God.

Therefore, the aspect of the son of the pharaoh was of such importance that when the Lord refers to the pharaoh's son in Exodus 4 as being sacrificed because the pharaoh would not let Israel, God's first born, leave, it is not referring to Christ, but to the level of significant relationship the nation of Israel had to the God of Israel.

The deity, God, was giving to pharaoh the exact emphasis needed for pharaoh to realize how important Israel was to Him.

When the death angle came, it was not merely showing power over life and death, but over the very systematic scheme of deity(ies) of the Egyptians.

 

[agedman]

What type of premillennialist are you?


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Not certain what you mean.

I am a premillennialist who will return with the Lord for the millennial reign.

 

[Reformed]

Not certain what you mean.

I am a premillennialist who will return with the Lord for the millennial reign.

Sorry. I should have been more specific. Are you a pre-wrath premillennialist, as in the rapture.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[agedman]

Matthew 2, and Matthew 21.


Matthew 2
One must keep in mind that when Matthew gives his account of the life of Christ with the main audience being the Jews and he is presenting the Lord Jesus as the Christ, the promised anointed one.

Israel (the nation) was (is) stubborn and "stiff necked" yet even in the course of rebellion, God demonstrated His love by actively redemption. Matthew also brings this aspect into his account.

The use by Matthew of the prophecy of the Lord being called out of Egypt has (to the Jews) the elements of God's faithfulness, their own rebellion, and that promise of a changed heart and restoration.

Throughout the prophecies there is that consistent thread that God's redemption never fails, be it in the time when they were called out of Egypt, out of Babylon, or in the future being called out of the nations of the world.

By declaring the Lord Jesus was "called out of Egypt" is a sign of both God's authority, and the Son's appointment as a special relationship to God. Just as those in Egyptian days placed high authority on the deity having a son, so too did the Jews recognize that being "called out of Egypt" was a sign of deity authority.

Matthew 23

This is a statement of fact given that shows God will bring rebuke and deliver service to others rather then the leaders of the religious righteous.

It even states that in saying:

45When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them.​

The statement cannot be taken as applied to a rejection of the whole nation, but to that in which the nation relied upon as a religious institution. No longer were there to be a small group (In comparison to the whole population) which served daily sacrifices and terms of service. But all believers would be priests serving a single high priest.

The nations will (and have been) turning loose of the people of Israel as the prophets stated, and sometime in the future God will do such a work of redemption in their hearts that they will embrace the anointed one of God - the Christ, the Lord Jesus.

 

[agedman]

Sorry. I should have been more specific. Are you a pre-wrath premillennialist, as in the rapture.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

It would be wonderful if my Father gave His approval for the Son to return before the great tribulation.

At one time I did have such a perspective because from a youth that was the teaching.

However, I have come to understand that such a pre-wrath rapture is up to the Father, for He alone (not even the Son) knows when the last will be redeemed and the great waiting time is no longer necessary. (I think such is an account that Peter gives, if I recall correctly, as to the purpose of why the Lord tarries).

Therefore, it matters little when my Savior might "rapture," but that I will return with Him.

I do trust that the Scriptures are certain about a terrible time prior to the millennium, a time in which great deception is used that even the believers embrace the lie(s). That the time will culminate in a terrible world rebellion in which at the appearance of the King of Kings, every rebellious soul is slathered like soft butter on a hot day of eating corn on the cob.

Until then, I long for home going. Until then, I strive to spread the gospel. Until then, I will look up and watch for my redemption certainly is nearer today, then yesterday.

A sorry state it would be should I be found not in that group that returns with Christ, for as Paul said in using the resurrection of the dead, that if there is none, how miserable I would be.

 

[John of Japan]

John,

I want to avoid casting aspersions on the goodwill of CT's or Dispensationalists as to their willingness to help those in need (unless you meant something different by your assertion), but you cannot deny that Dispensationalists have an eschatological dog in the hunt when it comes to Israel. John Hagee may be a few dispensations short of a Happy Meal, but he still represents a certain segment of Dispensationalism with his desire to help Jews return to the Holy Land in order to speed up the prophetic clock. That is one reason for Dispensationalists to actively support the nation of Israel.

I like how you describe Hagee. Believe me, he is not representative. None of the books I have on dispensationalism (both scholarly and for the common man--I have a bunch) put forth the idea that we need to help God out and get the Jews back into their land.

 

[agedman]

Long ago, I found it puzzling why the Scriptures present God as putting a hook into the Israeli to compel them back to the land.

Historically, the Jews could have return at any century, and in fact a remnant has always been in the land living rather peacefully until WWI.

So why the hook?

It is a part of human nature to remain where physical territory is familiar, even in the course of a rise in threat and safety until such discomfort overrides the nature of remaining.

God has set the hook, He is making life most uncomfortable for Jews in many areas of the world and more do desire to resettle in the land.

At the same time, by believers being supportive and somewhat involved, there is occurring opportunities for the gospel to again be disseminated in the land.

 

[Iconoclast]

Ultimately, the replacement of the church in place of the social/political Israel is what covenant theology does.

It is also done in Darby dispensation.

The difference is that in covenant, it is a permanent replacement, in Darby it is a temporary time of Grace extended to the gentiles.

What I hold as a premillennial thinker is neither is a valid view. Christ did not "replace" but extended.

Isaiah 49 is a wonderful passage that shows the Father, the Son, the Nation of Israel, the Gentiles, and states:

6He says, “It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant
To raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel;
I will also make You a light of the nations
So that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”

7Thus says the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel and its Holy One,
To the despised One,
To the One abhorred by the nation,
To the Servant of rulers,
“Kings will see and arise,
Princes will also bow down,
Because of the LORD who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel who has chosen You.”
​

The next section of verses discuss what is to be done with the social/political nation of Israel by that "the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel and its Holy One."

The following verses are not to the Church, nor to the Christ, but to that nation now being gathered, who will yet continue to be in darkness until the Lord returns and the millennial reign begins.

AG.....
Who do you identify here As The Servant?
National Israel, or Jesus?
Who is the Servant of The Lord?

 

[agedman]

​

AG.....
Who do you identify here As The Servant?
National Israel, or Jesus?
Who is the Servant of The Lord?

The most evident answer is the Lord Jesus Christ.

Taking out the not in quotation, the conversation statement reads:

“It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also make You a light of the nation so that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth. ...
Kings will see and arise, Princes will also bow down, because of the LORD who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel who has chosen You.”
​

​

 

[prophecy70]

The truth is, dispensationalists are far more likely than covenant theologians to actively support the nation of Israel.

Why is the nation of Israel any different than any other nation?

Do you think if we are Covenant theologians, and Amillennialists we just sit around and do nothing?

 

[agedman]

Why is the nation of Israel any different than any other nation?

Do you think if we are Covenant theologians, and Amillennialists we just sit around and do nothing?

The statement was not concerning all nations, but which group was more likely to support Israel.

Just what do Covenant theologians and Amillennialists do?

 

[prophecy70]

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.

Well show me where it is, In Jerusalem on the throne of David.
How do you know he isn't sitting on a throne in say London?

 

[agedman]

sorry not available.

 

[prophecy70]

The statement was not concerning all nations, but which group was more likely to support Israel.

Just what do Covenant theologians and Amillennialists do?

Probably nothing, Im sure everyone in the ministry is a Dispensational premillennialist

Sarcasm alert.

 

[Reformed]

I like how you describe Hagee. Believe me, he is not representative. None of the books I have on dispensationalism (both scholarly and for the common man--I have a bunch) put forth the idea that we need to help God out and get the Jews back into their land.

John, in the brief interaction I have had with you in the BB I know you do not share Hagee's views. Unfortunately, both sides have these types in our midsts and we have to do deal with their extreme views, if for no other reason than to correct them. Covenant Theology has full Preterists among its claimants, a theological position I vehemently disagree with. I believe in a literal second coming and a final judgment at the end of the age. That does not mean I am looking for some contrived détente between either system. Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism have pronounced differences between them and deserve an honest debate.

Blessings!

 

[John of Japan]

Well show me where it is, In Jerusalem on the throne of David.
How do you know he isn't sitting on a throne in say London?

I don't think you understand the meaning of the term "throne of...." It is a figure of speech in this case.

 

[John of Japan]

John, in the brief interaction I have had with you in the BB I know you do not share Hagee's views. Unfortunately, both sides have these types in our midsts and we have to do deal with their extreme views, if for no other reason than to correct them. Covenant Theology has full Preterists among its claimants, a theological position I vehemently disagree with. I believe in a literal second coming and a final judgment at the end of the age. That does not mean I am looking for some contrived détente between either system. Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism have pronounced differences between them and deserve an honest debate.

Blessings!

This is an encouraging and perceptive post. Thank you and God bless.