The New Covenant Constitution of the Church

[ReformedBaptist]

RB, thank you.

Now the creation of the church in no way means that Israel has been displayed.

Those text simply mean that both Jews and Gentiles who are being saved now as a result of the New Covenant are on equal standing with the covenant, just like males and females, slaves and free.

Are we willing to say that the distinction between males and females disappeared? Not at all!

In all those texts we speaking of equal standing in the church.

Now regarding Romans 11:20-21, I noticed you didn't go on to vv.25-29, which clearly sees a distinction between God's plan for the church age and Israel.

Even Paul makes a distinction between Israel and the church in 1 Cor 10:32, "Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God."

Regarding Hebrews 8, blessings of the New Covenant coming to the church does not nullify God's original plan to Israel, or does it?

TC,

A few things. I think your observations are missing the heart of the matter. God now constitutes His people by the New Covenant and therefore the New Covenant signs, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, are enjoined to them. God constituted His people by natural seed, but now Spirit. He before constituted His people as physical, and circumcision which is in the flesh, but not spiritual where circumcision is of the heart. There is now no disctinction between Jew and Gentile but all are one in Christ Jesus.

Concerning Romans and Israel, and their not being cast off, I think if you will look you will see that the Apostle speaks of a remnant as proof of this, which is futher grounding of what I have been saying, and of a covenant whereby God has promised what I would characterize as a massive revival for the people of Israel. It is prophesied of in Scripture and NOT Jeremiah 31.

To say that what is written is Hebrews does not nullify God's plan for Israel is to move around the force of those Scriptures brother. One of the main reasons I reject the dispensational scheme is because the Scripture itself declares it fullfilled in the present age and the Church as its fulfillment.

We must from here then, having established our understanding on the interpretation of Jeremiah 31 on Scripture's own interpretation, move to answer the question: Has God cast away His people whom He foreknew? And we know the answer: May it never be! As the Apostle speaks of himself, "For I am myself also an Israelite."

The Scripture makes a distinction between between Israel and the Church but a mere recognition between the fleshly seed and the spiritual. The flesh does not inherit the promises my brother, but the spiritual.

RB

 

[TCGreek]

TC,

A few things. I think your observations are missing the heart of the matter. God now constitutes His people by the New Covenant and therefore the New Covenant signs, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, are enjoined to them. God constituted His people by natural seed, but now Spirit. He before constituted His people as physical, and circumcision which is in the flesh, but not spiritual where circumcision is of the heart. There is now no disctinction between Jew and Gentile but all are one in Christ Jesus.

There is now no distinction between male and female, but all are one in Christ Jesus. I noticed you haven't addressed that issue.

Concerning Romans and Israel, and their not being cast off, I think if you will look you will see that the Apostle speaks of a remnant as proof of this, which is futher grounding of what I have been saying, and of a covenant whereby God has promised what I would characterize as a massive revival for the people of Israel. It is prophesied of in Scripture and NOT Jeremiah 31.

There is now a partial hardening to Israel, but God is going to return to her.

And when is that massive revival?

To say that what is written is Hebrews does not nullify God's plan for Israel is to move around the force of those Scriptures brother. One of the main reasons I reject the dispensational scheme is because the Scripture itself declares it fullfilled in the present age and the Church as its fulfillment.

Yet the Scripture doesn't say "fulfilled." Where have you read that word?

We must from here then, having established our understanding on the interpretation of Jeremiah 31 on Scripture's own interpretation, move to answer the question: Has God cast away His people whom He foreknew? And we know the answer: May it never be! As the Apostle speaks of himself, "For I am myself also an Israelite."

Where did we establish that understanding of Jer 31? I can't recall that ever happening.

The Scripture makes a distinction between between Israel and the Church but a mere recognition between the fleshly seed and the spiritual. The flesh does not inherit the promises my brother, but the spiritual.

RB

Yet, that is not what Paul is addressing.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

There is now no distinction between male and female, but all are one in Christ Jesus. I noticed you haven't addressed that issue.



There is now a partial hardening to Israel, but God is going to return to her.

And when is that massive revival?



Yet the Scripture doesn't say "fulfilled." Where have you read that word?



Where did we establish that understanding of Jer 31? I can't recall that ever happening.



Yet, that is not what Paul is addressing.

And if there is no distinction between male and female, then there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, in Christ Jesus. The Scripture recognizes Israel according to the flesh, and Israel according to the Spirit, just as common sense recognizes there are men and women. Like I said, I believe you missed the heart of the passage.

Concerning what I call a massive revival, it is here:

Romans 11
26And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

27For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

This is a reference, not to Jeremiah, but to Isaiah 59:
20And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.

21As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

Some have said that this is a statement regarding the sure salvation of all the spiritual seed. But I think the context of Romans 11 gives us the interpretation that it is referring to a future time when there will be a massive revival among the natural seed to faith in Jesus Christ.

Concerning the word fulfilled, I do not think it is any more necessary to find the exact word in the text than I need to find the word Trinity in the text. It is was Hebrews is declaring concerning Jeremiah 31.

Concerning the understanding of Jeremiah it is established by the Scriptures themselves. Dispensationalists apply the meaning of Jeremiah 31 to natural Israel only, and not the Church. Hebrews applies the meaning of Jeremiah to the Church. Therefore, the fulfillment of Jeremiah is the New Covenant which Christ established which is fulfilled in the Church.

Concerning the natural and spiritual seed, that is exactly what Paul, or rather the Holy Spirit, is addressing.

Romans 9:3-5 references Israel according to the flesh.

Romans 9:6-8 references spiritual Israel declaring that not those who are of the flesh are counted as the seed, but those who are of the promise.

Romans 9:24 plainly declares that this is not only of Jews, but also of Gentiles.

Romans 11:1 declares that God has not cast off His people, and the Apostle posits himself as evidence.

Romans 11:5 also declares this, but includes all the elect who are physical decendants of Abraham, but are beleivers in the Lord Jesus.

Romans 11 goes on to reveal a great mystery, which Isaiah calls a covenant, that the natural seed will be saved. In verse 25 the Apostle calls it a mystery. We must not suppose that unbelieving Jews will be saved. But that is a day coming when there will a massive revival among the Jews to faith in Jesus Christ, when the fulness of the Gentiles have come in. And these Jews will not be resurrecting the Old Coveant, but will be brought into the New Covenant by another covenant, which is spoken of by Isaiah. There are many covenants, but they are covenants of THE promise, which is the Covenant of Redemption in Christ.

RB

 

[TCGreek]

And if there is no distinction between male and female, then there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, in Christ Jesus. The Scripture recognizes Israel according to the flesh, and Israel according to the Spirit, just as common sense recognizes there are men and women. Like I said, I believe you missed the heart of the passage.

At the foot of the cross, there is no difference indeed. That is what I see as the context of Galatians 3.

Concerning what I call a massive revival, it is here:

Romans 11
26And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

27For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

This is a reference, not to Jeremiah, but to Isaiah 59:
20And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.

21As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

Both Jeremiah and Isaiah are pointing to the same ultimate events.

Some have said that this is a statement regarding the sure salvation of all the spiritual seed. But I think the context of Romans 11 gives us the interpretation that it is referring to a future time when there will be a massive revival among the natural seed to faith in Jesus Christ.

A future salvation is what I've been saying all along, but of course we differ as to what this looks like.

Concerning the word fulfilled, I do not think it is any more necessary to find the exact word in the text than I need to find the word Trinity in the text. It is was Hebrews is declaring concerning Jeremiah 31.

You are the one who said in reference to Jer 31 that Scripture says declares it fulfilled.

There is not doubt in our minds that each person of the Trinity displaying Divinity. That's clearly demonstrate in Scripture.

But your contention that the New Covenant has been fulfilled in its totality has not been established. You might want to reconsider your deficient analogy.

Concerning the understanding of Jeremiah it is established by the Scriptures themselves. Dispensationalists apply the meaning of Jeremiah 31 to natural Israel only, and not the Church. Hebrews applies the meaning of Jeremiah to the Church. Therefore, the fulfillment of Jeremiah is the New Covenant which Christ established which is fulfilled in the Church.

Nowhere does Scripture say that the church has fulfilled the prophecy of Jer 31. Your use of Heb 8 doesn't establish that.

You're building a case on a conclusion that you have not even proved.

Benefits of the New Covenant to the church does mean that the church has replaced Israel.

You yourself have conceded that their a mass revival coming for national Israel. If the church has replaced Israel, Why is there a mass revival in store for Israel? It seems like you're confused on this issue (take this in the spirit of debating).

Concerning the natural and spiritual seed, that is exactly what Paul, or rather the Holy Spirit, is addressing.

Romans 9:3-5 references Israel according to the flesh.

Romans 9:6-8 references spiritual Israel declaring that not those who are of the flesh are counted as the seed, but those who are of the promise.

Romans 9:24 plainly declares that this is not only of Jews, but also of Gentiles.

Romans 11:1 declares that God has not cast off His people, and the Apostle posits himself as evidence.

Romans 11:5 also declares this, but includes all the elect who are physical decendants of Abraham, but are beleivers in the Lord Jesus.

Romans 11 goes on to reveal a great mystery, which Isaiah calls a covenant, that the natural seed will be saved. In verse 25 the Apostle calls it a mystery. We must not suppose that unbelieving Jews will be saved. But that is a day coming when there will a massive revival among the Jews to faith in Jesus Christ, when the fulness of the Gentiles have come in. And these Jews will not be resurrecting the Old Coveant, but will be brought into the New Covenant by another covenant, which is spoken of by Isaiah. There are many covenants, but they are covenants of THE promise, which is the Covenant of Redemption in Christ.

RB

Paul is simply saying that God has a future yet for national Israel.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

At the foot of the cross, there is no difference indeed. That is what I see as the context of Galatians 3.



Both Jeremiah and Isaiah are pointing to the same ultimate events.



A future salvation is what I've been saying all along, but of course we differ as to what this looks like.



You are the one who said in reference to Jer 31 that Scripture says declares it fulfilled.

There is not doubt in our minds that each person of the Trinity displaying Divinity. That's clearly demonstrate in Scripture.

But your contention that the New Covenant has been fulfilled in its totality has not been established. You might want to reconsider your deficient analogy.



Nowhere does Scripture say that the church has fulfilled the prophecy of Jer 31. Your use of Heb 8 doesn't establish that.

You're building a case on a conclusion that you have not even proved.

Benefits of the New Covenant to the church does mean that the church has replaced Israel.

You yourself have conceded that their a mass revival coming for national Israel. If the church has replaced Israel, Why is there a mass revival in store for Israel? It seems like you're confused on this issue (take this in the spirit of debating).



Paul is simply saying that God has a future yet for national Israel.

Nice chatting with you.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Two things:

1. The NC is not Jeremiah 31:31-34; it is Jeremiah 31:31-40.
2. The NC is never applied to the church in the NT. The Hebrews passage in view is speaking only of the forgiveness that comes as a part of the NC. It is not speaking of the full provisions of the NC and does not apply the NC to the church.

 

[TCGreek]

Nice chatting with you.

RB,

I thought you were interested in a healthy debate on the issue.

Nice chatting with you too. :thumbs:

 

[ReformedBaptist]

RB,

I thought you were interested in a healthy debate on the issue.

Nice chatting with you too. :thumbs:

Thanks TC, but I am not really interested in debating it. I don't mind discussing it though.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Two things:

1. The NC is not Jeremiah 31:31-34; it is Jeremiah 31:31-40.
2. The NC is never applied to the church in the NT. The Hebrews passage in view is speaking only of the forgiveness that comes as a part of the NC. It is not speaking of the full provisions of the NC and does not apply the NC to the church.

I respectfully disagree. Hebrews quotes Jeremiah 31 and applies it to the Church.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I respectfully disagree. Hebrews quotes Jeremiah 31 and applies it to the Church.

1. You would have to show from the text that the actual NC is applied to the church, as opposed to a provision of the NC being provided to the church. If you read HEbrews 8, the passage is about forgiveness. That is only part of the NC.
2. You would have to explain why the whole NC is not quoted, but only a specific part of the NC.

 

[Grasshopper]

1. Are we to believe that the church has replaced ethnic Israel? Then it must be a partial fulfillment in keeping with the prophecies of Scripture.

No, the church didn't replace Israel, Israel became the Church. The Church is the fulfillment of the promises made to Old Covenant Israel.

2. What are we to do about Rom 11:25-29? Then we must conclude a partial fulfillment.

Who is "all of Israel"? Who are these people today" "All Israel" would only mean those alive at the time correct?

How does this verse make any sense considering your view of who Israel is:

Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

How could someone of Israel not be of Israel using your interpretation?

3. The original prophecy is in reference to Israel. I see nowhere in Scripture where the church has replaced Israel. Have you?

Nope, I don't believe the Church replaced Israel.

Now if the church has replaced Israel but is benefitting from the New Covenant, then we await the complete fulfillment in reference to Israel according to the premil position.

Do you believe the Church replaced Israel? This seems to be what you are saying.

4. Scripture does. 2 Sam 7:11-16 had a partial fulfillment in Solomon and will ultimately be fulfilled in Jesus (Luke 1:29-33).

You didn't really answer the question. You said propecies have more than one dimension:

"Don't forget that prophecies are not one-dimensional"

So I asked you which prophecies have more than one dimension and who determines which ones do and which ones don't? Is it only futurists who are qualified to determine such things?

Now you ask where does scripture say the New Covenant was full established. Well, it doesn't use those words but the writer of Hebrews expresses the same thing:

Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was establishedupon better promises.


Doesn't any reasonable interpretation of the text conclude that the New Covenant that was promised was established?

Does fulfillment mean something different? How anyone can read Hebrews and not see the establishment of the promised New Covenant is beyong me.


Did Jesus establish the New Covenant?


You keep asking where scripture says the New Covenant was fulfilled:

"Yet the Scripture doesn't say "fulfilled." Where have you read that word?"

So I ask you where does the Bible say it is "partially fulfilled as you maintain:

"The New Covenant has a partial fulfillment during the church age, but will be consummated in reference to Israel."

You are correct in this statement to RB:

'You yourself have conceded that their a mass revival coming for national Israel. If the church has replaced Israel, Why is there a mass revival in store for Israel? It seems like you're confused on this issue (take this in the spirit of debating)'.

 

[TCGreek]

Thanks TC, but I am not really interested in debating it. I don't mind discussing it though.

Well, then...

 

[TCGreek]

You didn't really answer the question. You said propecies have more than one dimension:

"Don't forget that prophecies are not one-dimensional"

So I asked you which prophecies have more than one dimension and who determines which ones do and which ones don't? Is it only futurists who are qualified to determine such things?

Now you ask where does scripture say the New Covenant was full established. Well, it doesn't use those words but the writer of Hebrews expresses the same thing:

Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was establishedupon better promises.


Doesn't any reasonable interpretation of the text conclude that the New Covenant that was promised was established?

Does fulfillment mean something different? How anyone can read Hebrews and not see the establishment of the promised New Covenant is beyong me.


Did Jesus establish the New Covenant?


You keep asking where scripture says the New Covenant was fulfilled:

"Yet the Scripture doesn't say "fulfilled." Where have you read that word?"

So I ask you where does the Bible say it is "partially fulfilled as you maintain:

"The New Covenant has a partial fulfillment during the church age, but will be consummated in reference to Israel."

You are correct in this statement to RB:

'You yourself have conceded that their a mass revival coming for national Israel. If the church has replaced Israel, Why is there a mass revival in store for Israel? It seems like you're confused on this issue (take this in the spirit of debating)'.

Grasshopper,

Where does Scripture say that the church has replaced Israel?

Roman 9:6 is addressing the remnant of Israel.

God still has Israel in mind (Acts 1:6, 7).

 

[Grasshopper]

Grasshopper,

Where does Scripture say that the church has replaced Israel?

Again, I don't believe the Church "replaced" Israel. I thought that was your view from your statement:

"Now if the church has replaced Israel but is benefitting from the New Covenant, then we await the complete fulfillment in reference to Israel according to the premil position."

Roman 9:6 is addressing the remnant of Israel.

Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:


Remnant? Please explain how one can be a physical Israelite yet not be of Israel.

I like Gill's comments:

for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel; that is, they which are the descendants of the patriarch Jacob, whose name was Israel; or who are of the Israelitish nation, of the stock of Israel, belonging to that people; they are not all את ישראל, "the Israel", by way of emphasis, as in Psa_25:22, or the "Israel of God", Gal_6:16, the Israel whom Jehovah the Father has chosen for a peculiar people; which Christ has redeemed from all their iniquities; which the Spirit of God calls with an holy calling, by special grace, to special privileges; the seed of Israel who are justified in Christ, whose iniquities are so pardoned and done away, that when they are sought for they shall not be found, and who are saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation

There are two Israels, one physical the other spiritual. Under the Old Covenant the spiritual Israel was contained within the physical Israel but not all physical Israel was saved. In the New Covenant spiritual Israel becomes the Church in which all Israel is saved. Just as the physical types and shadows of the Old Covenant were no longer necessary the same is true of physical Israel. She served her purpose.


Another verse that indicates this truth:

Joh 1:47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!

John Gill

behold an Israelite indeed! a son of Israel, as the Syriac and Persic versions read; a true son of Jacob's; an honest, plain hearted man, like him; one that was an Israelite at heart; inwardly so; not one after the flesh only, but after the Spirit; see Rom_2:28; and which was a rare thing at that time; and therefore a note of admiration is prefixed to it; for all were not Israel, that were of Israel; and indeed but a very few then: and so, בן ישראל, "a son of Israel", and ישראל גמור, "a perfect Israelite", are (s) said of such who have regard to the articles of the Jewish faith, though not even of the seed of Israel: it is added,


Albert Barnes

An Israelite indeed - One who is really an Israelite - not by birth only, but one worthy of the name. One who possesses the spirit, the piety, and the integrity which become a man who is really a Jew, who fears God and obeys his law. Compare Rom_9:6; Rom_2:28-29.


Adam Clarke

Behold an Israelite indeed - A worthy descendant of the patriarch Jacob, who not only professes to believe in Israel’s God, but who worships him in sincerity and truth, according to his light.


Paul makes it clear in this verse:

Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.


Two Jews, physical and spiritual. One associated with the Old Covenant (physical circumcision) one associated witht he New Covenant (spiritual circumcision).

A New Covenant was promised:

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:


A New Covenant was established:


Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

 

[TCGreek]

Again, I don't believe the Church "replaced" Israel. I thought that was your view from your statement:

"Now if the church has replaced Israel but is benefitting from the New Covenant, then we await the complete fulfillment in reference to Israel according to the premil position."






Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:


Remnant? Please explain how one can be a physical Israelite yet not be of Israel.

I like Gill's comments:

for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel; that is, they which are the descendants of the patriarch Jacob, whose name was Israel; or who are of the Israelitish nation, of the stock of Israel, belonging to that people; they are not all את ישראל, "the Israel", by way of emphasis, as in Psa_25:22, or the "Israel of God", Gal_6:16, the Israel whom Jehovah the Father has chosen for a peculiar people; which Christ has redeemed from all their iniquities; which the Spirit of God calls with an holy calling, by special grace, to special privileges; the seed of Israel who are justified in Christ, whose iniquities are so pardoned and done away, that when they are sought for they shall not be found, and who are saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation

There are two Israels, one physical the other spiritual. Under the Old Covenant the spiritual Israel was contained within the physical Israel but not all physical Israel was saved. In the New Covenant spiritual Israel becomes the Church in which all Israel is saved. Just as the physical types and shadows of the Old Covenant were no longer necessary the same is true of physical Israel. She served her purpose.


Another verse that indicates this truth:

Joh 1:47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!

John Gill

behold an Israelite indeed! a son of Israel, as the Syriac and Persic versions read; a true son of Jacob's; an honest, plain hearted man, like him; one that was an Israelite at heart; inwardly so; not one after the flesh only, but after the Spirit; see Rom_2:28; and which was a rare thing at that time; and therefore a note of admiration is prefixed to it; for all were not Israel, that were of Israel; and indeed but a very few then: and so, בן ישראל, "a son of Israel", and ישראל גמור, "a perfect Israelite", are (s) said of such who have regard to the articles of the Jewish faith, though not even of the seed of Israel: it is added,


Albert Barnes

An Israelite indeed - One who is really an Israelite - not by birth only, but one worthy of the name. One who possesses the spirit, the piety, and the integrity which become a man who is really a Jew, who fears God and obeys his law. Compare Rom_9:6; Rom_2:28-29.


Adam Clarke

Behold an Israelite indeed - A worthy descendant of the patriarch Jacob, who not only professes to believe in Israel’s God, but who worships him in sincerity and truth, according to his light.


Paul makes it clear in this verse:

Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.


Two Jews, physical and spiritual. One associated with the Old Covenant (physical circumcision) one associated witht he New Covenant (spiritual circumcision).

A New Covenant was promised:

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:


A New Covenant was established:


Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Spiritual Israel is distinct from ethnic Israel because of God's electing of a Remnant. That's the point I see in Rom 9:6ff.

All through the OT there's that Remnant, so I do not accept your physical Israel=Old Covenant and Spiritual Israel=New Covenant.

For that to stand, then the New existed within the Old Covenant already. That certainly is not the witness of Scripture.

The church benefitting from the New Covenant has not nullified God's unilateral promises to national Israel.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Well, then...

Well, then...what?

 

[TCGreek]

Well, then...what?

If the church has replaced national Israel, How come Jesus says differently in Acts 1:6-7?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

1. You would have to show from the text that the actual NC is applied to the church, as opposed to a provision of the NC being provided to the church. If you read HEbrews 8, the passage is about forgiveness. That is only part of the NC.
2. You would have to explain why the whole NC is not quoted, but only a specific part of the NC.

1. I did read Hebrews 8. In fact, I have been reading, and re-reading Hebrews for some time now. My observations are stated above. Honestly, I really don't care which way the Scripture goes on the matter. But I will follow it where it does go, by God's grace. verse 7 tells me the Apostle is contrasting the old and new covenant. In verse 8 the house of Israel and the house of Judah are mentioned. Verse 9 further lays grounding that Israel is spoken of.

verse 12 of chapter 9, continuing in the argument the text is making, speaks of Christ purchasing eternal redemption by His blood. This must include the Gentiles.

What is my conclusion? That which seems in Jeremiah to speak of natural Israel is understood by the interpretation of the Holy Spirit given in Hebrews to mean both Jews and Gentiles in the present age.

2. Why would I have to explain why something wasn't written? That makes no sense to me brother. I am seeking to understand what IS written, not what isn't. Why do the Apostle's often quote OT passages in part and not in whole, such as the Psalms and other places? This seems like weird questioning to me. But looking at the rest of Jeremiah I see no problem my brother.

v. 36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

Notice is says, "seed of Israel" which by the interpretation of the NT I understand to be that which is actually counted as the seed: those who are of faith in Jesus Christ, a holy nation. The same is true in v.37

v.38 speaks of a city being built, which I take to mean that city which Abraham himself looked for, whose builder and maker is God. The tower of Hananeel, being interpreted means "God give grace" is very suitable for the building of the Church.

v.39 speaks of a measuring line, reminding me of Revelation 21:15 where the walls of New Jerusalem are measured. concerning Gareb and Goath I am not certain.

v. 40 Of the particulars in meaning of this verse I am not certain. If it is understood to mean physical Jerusalem, and not New Jerusalem, then it must be understood as of a long time, since Jerusalem was plucked up and thown down by the Romans. So I understand this verse to be figurative of the Church.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

If the church has replaced national Israel, How come Jesus says differently in Acts 1:6-7?

I think you have confused your implication you have drawn from the text, and the actual text itself.

Your question states that Jesus said different concerning the Church being the New Israel. (I am not sure that the Reformed understanding of these things is the same thing as replacement theology). Jesus did not say differently.

What the Scripture says is this:

When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

One has to presume that Jesus was thinking the same was as His disciples, namely that when Christ came, He would deliver Israel from the Roman power. Matt 20:21 gives us this impression, and this was before his death and resurrection. Their hopes were crushed on this death, but they joy and hope renewed after His resurrection, which obviously they looked again to see Israel delivered from Roman bondage.

The disiples, I don't believe, recieved an answer from the Lord. His answer was somewhat of a rebuke and re-focused them on their task to preach the Gospel to all nations begining in Jerusalem.

I can see how someone may draw an inference that since Jesus didn't correct their understanding that the kingdom would be restored to Israel, that He was in agreement that the kingdom would be restored to Israel, and by implication a future plan for national Israel.

But Jesus doesn't say that, does He? He just tells His disciples (and us) that it is not for them to know times and seasons.

RB

 

[TCGreek]

I can see how someone may draw an inference that since Jesus didn't correct their understanding that the kingdom would be restored to Israel, that He was in agreement that the kingdom would be restored to Israel, and by implication a future plan for national Israel.

But Jesus doesn't say that, does He? He just tells His disciples (and us) that it is not for them to know times and seasons.

RB

So in effect, the kingdom is going to be restored but they are not privy to the time. This seems to be the natural conclusion of the verse.