It was said during the message this last Sunday morning (a Calvary Chapel fellowship) in teaching through Romans 11 that some promises made to Israel cannot be "stolen" for the church. These promises are for Israel only. However, no mention was made which promises and no scriptures supplied to support that notion.
Does anyone know which promises are being referred to and in what scriptures they are stated?[/quote]
Promises only for Israel
Promises only for Israel
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Christopher
- Posts: 437
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 5:35 pm
- Location: Gladstone, Oregon
Hello again Schoel,
I also attend a CC (presently) and I've often heard the same arguments you're pastor is suggesting. CC is adamantly dispensational and therefore have a number of proof texts they use to demonstrate that God is not through with Israel yet.
The main two passages I always hear used are Romans 11:25-26 and Daniel 9:24-27.
The promises they are talking about are usually about the actual land of Israel that God promised Abraham and his descendants in Gen 12,13, and 15. It is often argued that Israel has never posessed all the land described in these passages and therefore God has not yet fulfilled them. Since God does not default on His promises, then there must be future fulfillment. This claim is in spite of the fact that there is scripture that emphatically states the opposite (Joshua 21:43-45, 23:14-15, 2 Sam 8:3-4, 1 Kings 4:21).
Also, they beleive that the nation of Israel would always be His special chosen people (Ex 19; Deut 28 ) and therefore God has postponed dealing with them until He's done dealing with the "Gentile church".
These things are necessary for the dispensational system because they are central in their interpetation of the book of Revelation and the Olivet discourse, and therefore the pretribulational rapture of the church.
The objection to the "stealing" the promises of Israel and giving them to the church is a reference to those of us that say that the promises given to Abraham were fulfilled in Christ and are of a spiritual nature which the apostles applied to all believers, Jew and Gentile, i.e. the church which Paul called the "Israel of God" - (see Galatians 3 and 6).
Anyway, that's my readers digest explanation of it. That's all I have time for at the moment. If you would like a more thorough treatment on the topic, I strongly recommend Steve's series on "What shall we make of Israel" on his tape download page.
There is also numerous threads on this forum that give a more complete refutation to this system as well, if you're interested.
Good to hear from you again.
God bless.
I also attend a CC (presently) and I've often heard the same arguments you're pastor is suggesting. CC is adamantly dispensational and therefore have a number of proof texts they use to demonstrate that God is not through with Israel yet.
The main two passages I always hear used are Romans 11:25-26 and Daniel 9:24-27.
The promises they are talking about are usually about the actual land of Israel that God promised Abraham and his descendants in Gen 12,13, and 15. It is often argued that Israel has never posessed all the land described in these passages and therefore God has not yet fulfilled them. Since God does not default on His promises, then there must be future fulfillment. This claim is in spite of the fact that there is scripture that emphatically states the opposite (Joshua 21:43-45, 23:14-15, 2 Sam 8:3-4, 1 Kings 4:21).
Also, they beleive that the nation of Israel would always be His special chosen people (Ex 19; Deut 28 ) and therefore God has postponed dealing with them until He's done dealing with the "Gentile church".
These things are necessary for the dispensational system because they are central in their interpetation of the book of Revelation and the Olivet discourse, and therefore the pretribulational rapture of the church.
The objection to the "stealing" the promises of Israel and giving them to the church is a reference to those of us that say that the promises given to Abraham were fulfilled in Christ and are of a spiritual nature which the apostles applied to all believers, Jew and Gentile, i.e. the church which Paul called the "Israel of God" - (see Galatians 3 and 6).
Anyway, that's my readers digest explanation of it. That's all I have time for at the moment. If you would like a more thorough treatment on the topic, I strongly recommend Steve's series on "What shall we make of Israel" on his tape download page.
There is also numerous threads on this forum that give a more complete refutation to this system as well, if you're interested.
Good to hear from you again.
God bless.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32
Christopher,
Galatians 3 seems to adamantly equate "those of faith" with the "sons of Abraham".
However, just to cause trouble
, couldn't Galatians 6:16 (ESV):
(i.e. the Church and Israel)
Dave
Galatians 3 seems to adamantly equate "those of faith" with the "sons of Abraham".
However, just to cause trouble
, couldn't Galatians 6:16 (ESV):
...also be referring to the red and blue parts of this verse as separate categories since the and could read "and also"?And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.
(i.e. the Church and Israel)
Dave
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
The meaning of the second "and" in Galatians 6:16 has been much debated. It can mean "also" or "additionally," of course, but the same word sometimes means "even." Historically, this is how many scholars have understood it here: "as many as walk according to this rule...even...the Israel of God." This would equate the Israel of God with all Christians (since the "rule" by which they walk is that of boasting in nothing but the cross (v.14) and not in circumcision or uncircumcision (v.15).
The other possibilty is that Paul is making separate mention of the believing remnant of Jews who are being distinguished from those who walk according to the afore-mentioned "rule." This would suggest that Paul recognized and wished a benediction upon two discreet groups of believers—one group, who boast only in the cross, and another who were the faithful remnant in Israel (who apparently boast in something other than the cross?). I wonder which category Paul, a Jewish believer himself, would have placed himself in?
The other possibilty is that Paul is making separate mention of the believing remnant of Jews who are being distinguished from those who walk according to the afore-mentioned "rule." This would suggest that Paul recognized and wished a benediction upon two discreet groups of believers—one group, who boast only in the cross, and another who were the faithful remnant in Israel (who apparently boast in something other than the cross?). I wonder which category Paul, a Jewish believer himself, would have placed himself in?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Need some help. I am the target of this blog article a friend of mine has, although he changed the name and made the article much different from the email from him. I did not mention Replacement Theology either so he is supposing I hold to it.
How would you guys answer this? Looking for some response from many, but Sean and Steve in paticular.
How would you guys answer this? Looking for some response from many, but Sean and Steve in paticular.
Thus says the LORD, Who gives the sun for a light by day, the ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night, Who disturbs the sea, and its waves roar (The LORD of hosts is His name): “If those ordinances depart from before Me, says the LORD, then the seed of Israel shall also cease from being a nation before Me forever.” Thus says the LORD: “If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, says the LORD. (Jeremiah 31:35-37)
For thus says the LORD of hosts: “He sent Me after glory, to the nations which plunder you; for he who touches you touches the apple of His eye….” (Zechariah 2:8-9)
A few weeks ago I learned from a friend I have known for some time, and who is extremely supportive of modern-day Israel, that he embraces replacement theology – the belief that the Church became the new “Chosen People” 2000 years ago because of national Israel’s rejection of Jesus as Messiah. In a state of mild shock I fired off the following response, which I have edited here for reproduction purposes:
Dear James
To put it mildly, I was somewhat taken aback when I read your email. I had no idea you held to Replacement Theology. If you do, then your support for Israel is commendable and certainly important. But it is hardly watertight. And it will need to be watertight and unchanging in the coming season if Israel is forced, for the sake of its survival, to do things that will be seen by this overwhelmingly anti-Israel world as “war crimes” and worse, and which your conscience may sorely trouble you over, challenging and undermining your ability to keep standing with the Jewish state.
I respect your right to hold your point of view, of course. Must say, though, I never could envy “replacement” folks. Having worked out how the Jews lost their special calling, these Christians can have no real assurance in the salvation they think is theirs.
Replacement Theology Christians believe that God had a cornea transplant – that the original Apple of His eye (Israel) was replaced with a new Apple of His eye (the Church).
In this thinking the Chosen People morphed from physical Israel into spiritual Israel because the former group blew it.
It may be instructive if you do a quick comparative history between the first Chosen People – physical Israel – who received a power-filled revelation at Sinai on Pentecost and were sent to be a light to the world, only to mess it up, with the Replacement Chosen People – “spiritual Israel” or the Church – which was born in the Upper Room on Pentecost, receiving a power-filled revelation and were told that they were the light of the world, only to mess it up.
From this point of view at least (there are numerous others), if God could drop the Jews for the Church then He can certainly (and to be just, fair and true to Himself, He surely should) drop the Church for another, newly chosen group.
Were that to be even remotely possible, we Christians would indeed be, of all men, the most pitiable.
If you’re set in your thinking, James, then okay. But if you are open to the possibility that you may have the wrong end of the stick, we can happily bat this back and forth a bit.
There are some other questions I think Replacement Theology people should ponder:
If God is finished with Israel as a nation, why has Satan tried non-stop since the Ascension to annihilate them?
Why did God preserve them against these overwhelming odds?
Why did He bring them back to their land to be reconstituted as a nation?
Why did He restore Jerusalem to Jewish rule?
And why on earth is He sending His Son back as the Lion of the TRIBE OF JUDAH (i.e. as a JEW) to the capital of the Jewish people?
Why is Jesus coming back to Jerusalem instead of to Washington DC, or London, or any other major and influential metropolis? Is this just happenstance?
No, the God of Israel is not some cruel deity that enjoys playing tricks on his people, trying to dupe, confuse or mislead us. He is a God Who means what He says and does what He means. He keeps His Word.
And in that Word He says that as long as the sun, moon and stars hang in the skies, and until the heavens can be measured and the foundations of the earth be searched out, Israel will REMAIN A NATION BEFORE HIM.
Why? Why should Israel serve any national purpose whatsoever if it fulfilled (or blew) its destiny 2000 years ago?
And why would God, Who sees the end of everything from the beginning, tie Himself down in this way by issuing such a guarantee to, and only to, this nation?
What do you really believe, James, about your place in God’s salvation plan? How assured are you of that place? Do you KNOW that the salvation you have is yours forever?
Huh?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
As far as Romans 11 goes, I would like to throw my two cents in on it.
I only read about one tree, not two. I guess we could call this the tree of God's people if you will. Abraham was part of it, Moses was part of it and so on. Eventually "wild branches" got to be a part of it too. (As Paul is talking about in Romans 11.) Some who may have been part of the tree didn't want to be part of the tree anymore, thus they were cut off. They have tried to grow their own tree but it isn't the same tree anymore. Can they return to the real tree? absolutly. (11:23)
My point here is that there is only one and has only been one "tree" (a family of God) Things were spoken at different stages in it's growth, so some "terminology" may be different. As far as "replacement theology" goes. I don't see that anyone has tried to "replace" this tree. It's still there and it is growing now as it always has with God's people. (Who may have been biologically Jews or Gentiles)
Did that make any sence to anyone???
I only read about one tree, not two. I guess we could call this the tree of God's people if you will. Abraham was part of it, Moses was part of it and so on. Eventually "wild branches" got to be a part of it too. (As Paul is talking about in Romans 11.) Some who may have been part of the tree didn't want to be part of the tree anymore, thus they were cut off. They have tried to grow their own tree but it isn't the same tree anymore. Can they return to the real tree? absolutly. (11:23)
My point here is that there is only one and has only been one "tree" (a family of God) Things were spoken at different stages in it's growth, so some "terminology" may be different. As far as "replacement theology" goes. I don't see that anyone has tried to "replace" this tree. It's still there and it is growing now as it always has with God's people. (Who may have been biologically Jews or Gentiles)
Did that make any sence to anyone???
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Good answer from Dolphin.
Allyn,
Your friend should do some study in the area of what people like us believe. He obviously is unaware. It is unnecessary to defend the position he is attacking, since no one that I know holds such a position. Many of the posts at this thread explain our position well enough to answer him. Here is what I would write to him:
Dear Friend,
It is clear that you have either read critiques of what you are calling "Replacement Theology" written by people who have never actually understood what it is, or that you are merely guessing at what it means yourself, and thoroughly missing the mark in the process.
What you are calling "Replacement Theology" is simply the view that God's promises to Israel are all wrapped-up in the coming of their Messiah to save their remnant. Those whom you berate through your ignorance teach only what the New Testament everywhere affirms: that God has wonderfully fulfilled these promises in sending Jesus to die, to rise from the dead, to take His throne at the right hand of God, and to rule over the remnant of those who believe in Him.
As in Old Testament Israel, that company who comprise the remnant are racially mixed, including some Jews and some Gentiles. This group is also called "the disciples" or "the Church," in scripture.
What is there about this that you find objectionable?
You asked a number of questions, to which I would like to supply answers:
Q. If God is finished with Israel as a nation, why has Satan tried non-stop since the Ascension to annihilate them?
A. Could it be, perhaps, because God promised repeatedly (in Leviticus and Deuteronomy) that this would happen to the Israelites who reject His covenant?
Q. Why did God preserve them against these overwhelming odds?
A. What evidence can you present that He has done so? Can you prove that there is a Jewish race today? What, in your opinion, qualifies someone to be called a Jew? How much Jewish blood must be in them?
Q. Why did He bring them back to their land to be reconstituted as a nation?
A. Did He do that? I thought it was the Zionist Movement and the United Nations. Do you recognize all United Nations charters as "Acts of God"? I personally do not.
Q. Why did He restore Jerusalem to Jewish rule?
A. Again, I don't know how you can be certain that He did so. Why did God take America from the Indians, or Australia from the Aboriginals? Perhaps He had a purpose in doing so. However, if He did, it is not revealed in the Bible.
Q. And why on earth is He sending His Son back as the Lion of the TRIBE OF JUDAH (i.e. as a JEW) to the capital of the Jewish people?
A. Why do you say this is so? The only reference to the Lion of the Tribe of Judah in scripture (Rev.5:5) is a reference to Christ prevailing over His enemies in His atoning work. What has that title to do with His coming again?
Q. Why is Jesus coming back to Jerusalem instead of to Washington DC, or London, or any other major and influential metropolis? Is this just happenstance?
A. Where does the scripture predict that He will return to Jerusalem? I don't believe this is predicted. However, if He does so, it may be merely that that is the place from which He departed. Sort of returning through the same door by which He exited. Is there any reason (other than assumption) to believe that the point of His touchdown will determine the focus of His activities after He has returned?
******************
Nothing is replaced in "Replacement Theology" other than that the Old Covenant's promises are replaced with the "better promises" of the New Covenant (Heb.8). Why should anyone (least of all Israel) object to such an exchange? It seems to me that Christians would think it a step-up for Israel to receive Jesus in exchange for the bulls and goats of the tabernacle system.
You were also curious about how one holding my views could have assurance of salvation, and why God has not cast away the fallen church as He cast away the fallen Israelites. Here is my answer:
The true Church (like the True Israel) can never be cast away, because it is comprised only of faithful believers. The institutional churches are indeed in danger of being cast away, if they apostasize (Rev. 2-3), as the apostate institutional Israel was cast away.
The reason I have assurance of my salvation is that I am a believer, persevering in the faith, thus making me a member of the true Israel of God (Gal.6:16), a.k.a., the Body of Christ. Christ will never cut off His own body.
Seems kind of obvious, when you think about it.
Allyn,
Your friend should do some study in the area of what people like us believe. He obviously is unaware. It is unnecessary to defend the position he is attacking, since no one that I know holds such a position. Many of the posts at this thread explain our position well enough to answer him. Here is what I would write to him:
Dear Friend,
It is clear that you have either read critiques of what you are calling "Replacement Theology" written by people who have never actually understood what it is, or that you are merely guessing at what it means yourself, and thoroughly missing the mark in the process.
What you are calling "Replacement Theology" is simply the view that God's promises to Israel are all wrapped-up in the coming of their Messiah to save their remnant. Those whom you berate through your ignorance teach only what the New Testament everywhere affirms: that God has wonderfully fulfilled these promises in sending Jesus to die, to rise from the dead, to take His throne at the right hand of God, and to rule over the remnant of those who believe in Him.
As in Old Testament Israel, that company who comprise the remnant are racially mixed, including some Jews and some Gentiles. This group is also called "the disciples" or "the Church," in scripture.
What is there about this that you find objectionable?
You asked a number of questions, to which I would like to supply answers:
Q. If God is finished with Israel as a nation, why has Satan tried non-stop since the Ascension to annihilate them?
A. Could it be, perhaps, because God promised repeatedly (in Leviticus and Deuteronomy) that this would happen to the Israelites who reject His covenant?
Q. Why did God preserve them against these overwhelming odds?
A. What evidence can you present that He has done so? Can you prove that there is a Jewish race today? What, in your opinion, qualifies someone to be called a Jew? How much Jewish blood must be in them?
Q. Why did He bring them back to their land to be reconstituted as a nation?
A. Did He do that? I thought it was the Zionist Movement and the United Nations. Do you recognize all United Nations charters as "Acts of God"? I personally do not.
Q. Why did He restore Jerusalem to Jewish rule?
A. Again, I don't know how you can be certain that He did so. Why did God take America from the Indians, or Australia from the Aboriginals? Perhaps He had a purpose in doing so. However, if He did, it is not revealed in the Bible.
Q. And why on earth is He sending His Son back as the Lion of the TRIBE OF JUDAH (i.e. as a JEW) to the capital of the Jewish people?
A. Why do you say this is so? The only reference to the Lion of the Tribe of Judah in scripture (Rev.5:5) is a reference to Christ prevailing over His enemies in His atoning work. What has that title to do with His coming again?
Q. Why is Jesus coming back to Jerusalem instead of to Washington DC, or London, or any other major and influential metropolis? Is this just happenstance?
A. Where does the scripture predict that He will return to Jerusalem? I don't believe this is predicted. However, if He does so, it may be merely that that is the place from which He departed. Sort of returning through the same door by which He exited. Is there any reason (other than assumption) to believe that the point of His touchdown will determine the focus of His activities after He has returned?
******************
Nothing is replaced in "Replacement Theology" other than that the Old Covenant's promises are replaced with the "better promises" of the New Covenant (Heb.8). Why should anyone (least of all Israel) object to such an exchange? It seems to me that Christians would think it a step-up for Israel to receive Jesus in exchange for the bulls and goats of the tabernacle system.
You were also curious about how one holding my views could have assurance of salvation, and why God has not cast away the fallen church as He cast away the fallen Israelites. Here is my answer:
The true Church (like the True Israel) can never be cast away, because it is comprised only of faithful believers. The institutional churches are indeed in danger of being cast away, if they apostasize (Rev. 2-3), as the apostate institutional Israel was cast away.
The reason I have assurance of my salvation is that I am a believer, persevering in the faith, thus making me a member of the true Israel of God (Gal.6:16), a.k.a., the Body of Christ. Christ will never cut off His own body.
Seems kind of obvious, when you think about it.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_Christopher
- Posts: 437
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 5:35 pm
- Location: Gladstone, Oregon
Hi Allyn,
If you're friend wants to press the Jeremiah and Zechariah passages he quoted (i.e. Israel always being a nation), I would just add that the "Israel of God" (the eklessia a.k.a the church) is referred to as a nation in NT and is indeed the apple of God's eye:
1 Peter 2:9-10
9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
And in case one questions whether this is non-Jews he's addressing, look at the next verse:
10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.
NKJV
This is the exact thing Jesus promised would happen to the political nation of Israel:
Matt 21:43
43 "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.
NKJV
As has already been stated, Israel was never "replaced", it's borders have simply been expanded to include those who were once blinded by deception, but have now been set free by the truth of the gospel. The borders are not physical, but spiritual. But then, they always were. Unfaithful Israelites never had claim to God's promises:
Ps 50:16-17
16 But to the wicked God says:
"What right have you to declare My statutes,
Or take My covenant in your mouth,
17 Seeing you hate instruction
And cast My words behind you?
NKJV
And they don't today either.
I don't see why people want to keep focusing on the prophetic types and shadows of the OT (i.e. nation of Israel) and ignore the fulfillment, the substance which is Christ and His body (i.e the faithful remnant, eklessia, church, Israel of God, etc.). Seems like they got it backwards to me.
If you're friend wants to press the Jeremiah and Zechariah passages he quoted (i.e. Israel always being a nation), I would just add that the "Israel of God" (the eklessia a.k.a the church) is referred to as a nation in NT and is indeed the apple of God's eye:
1 Peter 2:9-10
9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
And in case one questions whether this is non-Jews he's addressing, look at the next verse:
10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.
NKJV
This is the exact thing Jesus promised would happen to the political nation of Israel:
Matt 21:43
43 "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.
NKJV
As has already been stated, Israel was never "replaced", it's borders have simply been expanded to include those who were once blinded by deception, but have now been set free by the truth of the gospel. The borders are not physical, but spiritual. But then, they always were. Unfaithful Israelites never had claim to God's promises:
Ps 50:16-17
16 But to the wicked God says:
"What right have you to declare My statutes,
Or take My covenant in your mouth,
17 Seeing you hate instruction
And cast My words behind you?
NKJV
And they don't today either.
I don't see why people want to keep focusing on the prophetic types and shadows of the OT (i.e. nation of Israel) and ignore the fulfillment, the substance which is Christ and His body (i.e the faithful remnant, eklessia, church, Israel of God, etc.). Seems like they got it backwards to me.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32
Thanks friends, I have combined both in my response. What do ya think? Will it change some minds? I doubt it, but maybe
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Dear Allyn,
I have been asked these questions on more than a few occasions, and therefore have had time to think about what the counsel of God has to say on this topic over the last 10 years. I would like to offer some suggestions in dealing with your friend. I am sorry this post is so long, but there is a lot to discuss.
My suggestions come from my experience with the first church I fellowshipped with after becoming a believer in college. The church was heavily dispensational, and actually had an annual evening service that they called "A Night to Honor Israel". The idea behind this service is the same concept that motivates many Christians in their dealings with Jewish people. This is the idea that "God honors those who honor Israel" - a statement that is not found in this context in the Scripture. This ceremony involved inviting unbelieving Jews from surrounding synagogues in the area to an evening ceremony where traditional dancing and reading of Old Testament Scriptures was performed, though no mention of Jesus was made so as not to "offend" our unsaved guests. As my understanding of Scripture developed, I began to ask questions such as why we never bothered mentioning Jesus to our guests, since "there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). The response of the elders was that God honors those who honor Jewish people, and that God would bless our church if we were kind to the Jewish people in our area. I eventually came to see this concept not only as an erroneus doctrine, but as downright selfish and borderline blasphemous. To invite unsaved people to your place of worship under the guise that "Your okay even without Jesus because you're Jewish" is in my opinion, a tacit approval of their denial of Jesus. It is potentially confusing to Jewish people who might be wondering if belief in Jesus is important. This attitude can potentially quench a Jewish person's desire to know Christ if he or she is told it isn't really necessary "for you" because you're "special". It in essence says "You're not a believer in Jesus, but you're still in fellowship with God". It says, "Jesus is not the main point of what we do here in church" as evidenced by His being swept under the carpet for that evening. What is worse, to invite unsaved people to church and avoid discussing Christ so that the guests won't leave, and to do so in order to gain some sort of blessing which apparently comes through an avenue outside of Jesus Christ, is insulting to the sacrifice Jeus made and treats Jewish people like a lucky rabbits foot. It uses unsaved people in order to manipulate God for a blessing. It has more akin with the metaphysical than the Biblical.
Incidentally, I find it interesting how, in my experience at least, this particular issue appears to ruffle peoples feathers, especially if they have a dispensational theology. Perhaps only second to debating Calvinism, this issue gets people heated more than most others, and that is why I so dislike talking about it with people. You can see this in the tone of the blog your friend wrote. However, your friend's questions deserve Biblical answers.
To begin with, your friend must be brought to a place where he understands what exactly it means when we say the nation of Israel was "chosen" by God. What was the nation chosen for? Were all Jews in Israel chosen to be saved, or was the nation chosen for something else?
As Christians we almost subconsciously assume that the word "chosen" always refers to chosen for salvation. Yet many people in the story of Scripture were said to be chosen by God, though not necessarily in terms of salvation. For example, in Is. 45, Cyrus is said to be the Lord's "annointed", but for the purpose of effecting geopolitical events to allow the Jews to return to Jerusalem. Cyrus was not annointed in a spiritual sense, and there is no evidence that he was a worshipper of Jehovah. He was, however, used by God for a purpose in history.
The choosing of Israel as a nation involved God's choosing the unlikeliest of nations (Deut 7:7), a small band of farmers and herdsmen who were not inherently anymore righteous than any other people group, to bring forth God's dealings in the world at that time. Additionally, their lowly origin was meant to underscore God's greatness, not theirs. He did not choose them in the sense that all Jews are automatically saved or even saved by practicing some form of Judaism approved by the majority of Hebrew scholars of the day. Their being chosen at that time involved insitituing the only God ordained religion at that time, Judaism, and also involved carrying out God's justice on ungodly nations. They were also chosen to be the nation that would eventually bring forth the Messiah. However, some important points must be understood about this choosing.
The first is that the choosing of the nation of Israel was conditional. That is, Israel's status as God's chosen nation was contingent on them keeping their part of the covenant God offered them at Sinai. God said to Israel in Exodus 19:5,6 "Now, therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people....And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation...". Of course, we know from reading the Old Testament that the nation of Israel never consistently kept this covenant. In fact, later in Exodus 32:10, God was so angered by the Israelites making a golden calf that He wanted to wipe out all of the people of Israel and make a great nation out of Moses!
In fact, even their possession of the land was conditional, as God said in Leviticus 25:23, "The land shall not be sold permamently, for the land is mine; for you are strangers and sojourners with Me." In other words, you are like tenents on My property, and in order to live here you have to honor the rules of My lease. You can also read Leviticus 26 to see the penalties that God promised would come upon Israel if they turned from the Lord. The interesting thing is that the penalities were the same judgements God had brought on the Caananites. God said He would treat the Israelites like anyother ungodly nation if they acted like the heathen. They were not given special treatment when it came to sin, and in fact were held to stricter standard since God chose to reveal to them His lawas and keepings.
The second important point to be made about the choosing of Israel is that it did not mean that all Jews were righteous, faithful or saved. Korah and his followers, who were so wicked that God caused the earth to open up and swallow them, were not only Jews but were Levites! Were they a part of the geographical nation of Israel? Yes, but they hardly could be said to be godly men nor did they participate in God's plan or blessings simply because they were Jewish. I doubt very much we will be seeing them in heaven, since the last we read about them they were heading in the opposite direction! They were disqualified like any other evil group of men and God treated them no differently because He is "not a respector of persons" as much as some Christians are towards certain people groups.
There was never a time in Israel's history where all of the Jews were believers. God has always saved by faith, not by ethnicity or keeping the law. People were saved by faith even under the law, though at that time the law defined the behavior that faithful people would exhibit if they truly had faith. Yet a person's keeping the laws letter did not save nor did their genealogy engender them to God. This point is so important because it shows that God has not replaced Israel the nation with the church, since Israel the nation was never saved in toto. Just as Paul said in Romans 9:6 "For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham..".
The church, the body of people who have had faith in God throughout history, has not replaced anyone. The only people in history who have ever been saved, and therefore "chosen" in the sense that matters most, are the people of faith - whether Jewish or Gentile. It is lack of faith that caused the majority of Jews to be separated from God even to this day, as Paul said in Romans 11:20 "Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you (Gentile believers) stand by faith". It is by faith that they can be joined again to God, as in Romans 11:23, "And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted back in, for God is able to graft them in again."
In any generation, as far back as the Bible goes, there were always a minority of godly Jews, and a majority of unbelieving Jews. The same is true of Gentiles (like Ruth, who was a Moabitess but converted to Judaism because she had faith and wanted to follow the One True God. Yet most people of Moab were lost.). It is this minority, or remnant, that the promises of salvation were made to. Ungodly people, regardless of their lineage, have no more hope of salvation or participating in God's plans than Korah or any of the evil kings of Israel or any of the heathen nations that God destroyed. And thank God that the only thing keeping Jews away from relationship with the Lord is lack of faith, as opposed to awaiting the next dispensation that is not mentioned in Scripture as near as I can tell.
Therefore, you are not a replacement theologian because neither you or God have replaced anyone. Faith is ever always the one conduit by which we know and please God, and that has been true since Adam and Eve. Though I don't know if your friend is a dispensationalist, you should know that a dispensational theology teaches that God may save in different ways at different times depending on the dispensation. Yet the New Testament, especially the book of Romans, teaches us that even as far back as Abraham, faith and not works or keeping the law or being circumcised or being Jewish, is what mattered (especially for Abraham, since he predated the law). Being Jewish may offer the advantage of being taught the Scriptures that point to Jesus (like being in a pre-Christian setting of sorts) Paul said in Romans 3, but being Jewish in itself is not a "foot-in" with God.
As for the historical events that are meant to prove that God is working towards a glorious future for Israel, this is a typical maneuver for many Christians who often are dispensational. If the godly people mentioned as an example for us in Hebrews 11 offer any guidance, we should not be worried about Jews securing a land mass, since Hb 11:14-16 says "For those who say such things declare plainly that they seek a homeland. And truly if they had called to mind that country from which they had come out (Israel), they would have had opportunity to return. But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore, God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them."
God offered the land of Israel to the Jews in the Old Covenant under the stipulation that they keep the covenant. Today, the Old Covenant is not being offered by God or accepted by God. Good thing, because the God of the Old Testament is the Father of the Mediator of the New Covenant, and you cannot honor the Father and not the Son. The Jews do not have an eternal right to the land of Israel because God said that the land belongs to Him, and they have no Biblical claim to the land on the basis of the old and obsolete covenant that has been replaced with a better covenant. Today there is a New Covenant that does not offer its followers a land mass for joining up. It does not concern itself with such earthly things as washings and "do not eat, do not taste" and the geographic nation you belong to. It is a better covenant and has better promises with a better land a far off in the future. It is the only covenant being offered by God, and it welcomes all people regardless of their lineage. It was the covenant that Jesus mediated and that Paul and Peter as well as faithful Gentiles such as Luke joined. It is a spiritual nation that is transgender, transcontinental and trasncendent in its scope.
As for the "proofs" offered by your friend, all I can say is that there are many "teachings" one can find in the headlines. What if I were to wrongly assume that God does not like Jewish people because of the Holocaust? Or can I assume that they are His chosen people because they gained a national identity? Which headline do I use? The Bible does not mention Israel's future as a geopolitical entity, and though I believe God is involved in shaping international affairs to meet His overall plan, we should not assume that because something good happened to Israel that this confirms their status as chosen. Jesus' disciples made the mistake of assuming that if good things happen to you, you must be in right standing with God. Remember Jesus' comment about the difficulty of the rich entering the Kingdom in Matthew 19? When the disciples heard that, they said "Who then can be saved?" They thought "If the rich, who must be in God's favor because of their wealth, cannot enter, then who can?" Yet, earthly and worldly blessings do not necessarily mean God is pleased with you, because "He causes his rain to fall on the just and the unjust". These types of situations where good things happen to people who may not even acknowledge God's existence speak more of God's kindness and charitable demeanor than it does of any good in us. Israel becoming a nation again may speak highly of God and his mercy and generosity, but it does not speak well of anyone who denies Jesus with solidarity as a nation. It should cause us to marvel and be thankful that we serve a kind-hearted Lord such as this, who shows mercy on those who do not believe.
The Scripture gives us insight in to the man/woman/nation that God favors, and this keeps us from having to divine the newspaper.
Sorry this was so long. I hope it helps in some way.
I have been asked these questions on more than a few occasions, and therefore have had time to think about what the counsel of God has to say on this topic over the last 10 years. I would like to offer some suggestions in dealing with your friend. I am sorry this post is so long, but there is a lot to discuss.
My suggestions come from my experience with the first church I fellowshipped with after becoming a believer in college. The church was heavily dispensational, and actually had an annual evening service that they called "A Night to Honor Israel". The idea behind this service is the same concept that motivates many Christians in their dealings with Jewish people. This is the idea that "God honors those who honor Israel" - a statement that is not found in this context in the Scripture. This ceremony involved inviting unbelieving Jews from surrounding synagogues in the area to an evening ceremony where traditional dancing and reading of Old Testament Scriptures was performed, though no mention of Jesus was made so as not to "offend" our unsaved guests. As my understanding of Scripture developed, I began to ask questions such as why we never bothered mentioning Jesus to our guests, since "there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). The response of the elders was that God honors those who honor Jewish people, and that God would bless our church if we were kind to the Jewish people in our area. I eventually came to see this concept not only as an erroneus doctrine, but as downright selfish and borderline blasphemous. To invite unsaved people to your place of worship under the guise that "Your okay even without Jesus because you're Jewish" is in my opinion, a tacit approval of their denial of Jesus. It is potentially confusing to Jewish people who might be wondering if belief in Jesus is important. This attitude can potentially quench a Jewish person's desire to know Christ if he or she is told it isn't really necessary "for you" because you're "special". It in essence says "You're not a believer in Jesus, but you're still in fellowship with God". It says, "Jesus is not the main point of what we do here in church" as evidenced by His being swept under the carpet for that evening. What is worse, to invite unsaved people to church and avoid discussing Christ so that the guests won't leave, and to do so in order to gain some sort of blessing which apparently comes through an avenue outside of Jesus Christ, is insulting to the sacrifice Jeus made and treats Jewish people like a lucky rabbits foot. It uses unsaved people in order to manipulate God for a blessing. It has more akin with the metaphysical than the Biblical.
Incidentally, I find it interesting how, in my experience at least, this particular issue appears to ruffle peoples feathers, especially if they have a dispensational theology. Perhaps only second to debating Calvinism, this issue gets people heated more than most others, and that is why I so dislike talking about it with people. You can see this in the tone of the blog your friend wrote. However, your friend's questions deserve Biblical answers.
To begin with, your friend must be brought to a place where he understands what exactly it means when we say the nation of Israel was "chosen" by God. What was the nation chosen for? Were all Jews in Israel chosen to be saved, or was the nation chosen for something else?
As Christians we almost subconsciously assume that the word "chosen" always refers to chosen for salvation. Yet many people in the story of Scripture were said to be chosen by God, though not necessarily in terms of salvation. For example, in Is. 45, Cyrus is said to be the Lord's "annointed", but for the purpose of effecting geopolitical events to allow the Jews to return to Jerusalem. Cyrus was not annointed in a spiritual sense, and there is no evidence that he was a worshipper of Jehovah. He was, however, used by God for a purpose in history.
The choosing of Israel as a nation involved God's choosing the unlikeliest of nations (Deut 7:7), a small band of farmers and herdsmen who were not inherently anymore righteous than any other people group, to bring forth God's dealings in the world at that time. Additionally, their lowly origin was meant to underscore God's greatness, not theirs. He did not choose them in the sense that all Jews are automatically saved or even saved by practicing some form of Judaism approved by the majority of Hebrew scholars of the day. Their being chosen at that time involved insitituing the only God ordained religion at that time, Judaism, and also involved carrying out God's justice on ungodly nations. They were also chosen to be the nation that would eventually bring forth the Messiah. However, some important points must be understood about this choosing.
The first is that the choosing of the nation of Israel was conditional. That is, Israel's status as God's chosen nation was contingent on them keeping their part of the covenant God offered them at Sinai. God said to Israel in Exodus 19:5,6 "Now, therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people....And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation...". Of course, we know from reading the Old Testament that the nation of Israel never consistently kept this covenant. In fact, later in Exodus 32:10, God was so angered by the Israelites making a golden calf that He wanted to wipe out all of the people of Israel and make a great nation out of Moses!
In fact, even their possession of the land was conditional, as God said in Leviticus 25:23, "The land shall not be sold permamently, for the land is mine; for you are strangers and sojourners with Me." In other words, you are like tenents on My property, and in order to live here you have to honor the rules of My lease. You can also read Leviticus 26 to see the penalties that God promised would come upon Israel if they turned from the Lord. The interesting thing is that the penalities were the same judgements God had brought on the Caananites. God said He would treat the Israelites like anyother ungodly nation if they acted like the heathen. They were not given special treatment when it came to sin, and in fact were held to stricter standard since God chose to reveal to them His lawas and keepings.
The second important point to be made about the choosing of Israel is that it did not mean that all Jews were righteous, faithful or saved. Korah and his followers, who were so wicked that God caused the earth to open up and swallow them, were not only Jews but were Levites! Were they a part of the geographical nation of Israel? Yes, but they hardly could be said to be godly men nor did they participate in God's plan or blessings simply because they were Jewish. I doubt very much we will be seeing them in heaven, since the last we read about them they were heading in the opposite direction! They were disqualified like any other evil group of men and God treated them no differently because He is "not a respector of persons" as much as some Christians are towards certain people groups.
There was never a time in Israel's history where all of the Jews were believers. God has always saved by faith, not by ethnicity or keeping the law. People were saved by faith even under the law, though at that time the law defined the behavior that faithful people would exhibit if they truly had faith. Yet a person's keeping the laws letter did not save nor did their genealogy engender them to God. This point is so important because it shows that God has not replaced Israel the nation with the church, since Israel the nation was never saved in toto. Just as Paul said in Romans 9:6 "For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham..".
The church, the body of people who have had faith in God throughout history, has not replaced anyone. The only people in history who have ever been saved, and therefore "chosen" in the sense that matters most, are the people of faith - whether Jewish or Gentile. It is lack of faith that caused the majority of Jews to be separated from God even to this day, as Paul said in Romans 11:20 "Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you (Gentile believers) stand by faith". It is by faith that they can be joined again to God, as in Romans 11:23, "And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted back in, for God is able to graft them in again."
In any generation, as far back as the Bible goes, there were always a minority of godly Jews, and a majority of unbelieving Jews. The same is true of Gentiles (like Ruth, who was a Moabitess but converted to Judaism because she had faith and wanted to follow the One True God. Yet most people of Moab were lost.). It is this minority, or remnant, that the promises of salvation were made to. Ungodly people, regardless of their lineage, have no more hope of salvation or participating in God's plans than Korah or any of the evil kings of Israel or any of the heathen nations that God destroyed. And thank God that the only thing keeping Jews away from relationship with the Lord is lack of faith, as opposed to awaiting the next dispensation that is not mentioned in Scripture as near as I can tell.
Therefore, you are not a replacement theologian because neither you or God have replaced anyone. Faith is ever always the one conduit by which we know and please God, and that has been true since Adam and Eve. Though I don't know if your friend is a dispensationalist, you should know that a dispensational theology teaches that God may save in different ways at different times depending on the dispensation. Yet the New Testament, especially the book of Romans, teaches us that even as far back as Abraham, faith and not works or keeping the law or being circumcised or being Jewish, is what mattered (especially for Abraham, since he predated the law). Being Jewish may offer the advantage of being taught the Scriptures that point to Jesus (like being in a pre-Christian setting of sorts) Paul said in Romans 3, but being Jewish in itself is not a "foot-in" with God.
As for the historical events that are meant to prove that God is working towards a glorious future for Israel, this is a typical maneuver for many Christians who often are dispensational. If the godly people mentioned as an example for us in Hebrews 11 offer any guidance, we should not be worried about Jews securing a land mass, since Hb 11:14-16 says "For those who say such things declare plainly that they seek a homeland. And truly if they had called to mind that country from which they had come out (Israel), they would have had opportunity to return. But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore, God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them."
God offered the land of Israel to the Jews in the Old Covenant under the stipulation that they keep the covenant. Today, the Old Covenant is not being offered by God or accepted by God. Good thing, because the God of the Old Testament is the Father of the Mediator of the New Covenant, and you cannot honor the Father and not the Son. The Jews do not have an eternal right to the land of Israel because God said that the land belongs to Him, and they have no Biblical claim to the land on the basis of the old and obsolete covenant that has been replaced with a better covenant. Today there is a New Covenant that does not offer its followers a land mass for joining up. It does not concern itself with such earthly things as washings and "do not eat, do not taste" and the geographic nation you belong to. It is a better covenant and has better promises with a better land a far off in the future. It is the only covenant being offered by God, and it welcomes all people regardless of their lineage. It was the covenant that Jesus mediated and that Paul and Peter as well as faithful Gentiles such as Luke joined. It is a spiritual nation that is transgender, transcontinental and trasncendent in its scope.
As for the "proofs" offered by your friend, all I can say is that there are many "teachings" one can find in the headlines. What if I were to wrongly assume that God does not like Jewish people because of the Holocaust? Or can I assume that they are His chosen people because they gained a national identity? Which headline do I use? The Bible does not mention Israel's future as a geopolitical entity, and though I believe God is involved in shaping international affairs to meet His overall plan, we should not assume that because something good happened to Israel that this confirms their status as chosen. Jesus' disciples made the mistake of assuming that if good things happen to you, you must be in right standing with God. Remember Jesus' comment about the difficulty of the rich entering the Kingdom in Matthew 19? When the disciples heard that, they said "Who then can be saved?" They thought "If the rich, who must be in God's favor because of their wealth, cannot enter, then who can?" Yet, earthly and worldly blessings do not necessarily mean God is pleased with you, because "He causes his rain to fall on the just and the unjust". These types of situations where good things happen to people who may not even acknowledge God's existence speak more of God's kindness and charitable demeanor than it does of any good in us. Israel becoming a nation again may speak highly of God and his mercy and generosity, but it does not speak well of anyone who denies Jesus with solidarity as a nation. It should cause us to marvel and be thankful that we serve a kind-hearted Lord such as this, who shows mercy on those who do not believe.
The Scripture gives us insight in to the man/woman/nation that God favors, and this keeps us from having to divine the newspaper.
Sorry this was so long. I hope it helps in some way.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Christ,
David
David