A Deceptive Argument: No Gentiles Under the New Covenant

[cyberjosh]

First of all let me give a disclaimer that I do not approve the following the article or the pictures it has on its site, and I find the images of John Hagee quite disturbing and disrespectful.

The article that I am about to show you makes an interesting but misguided argument: that only Israel was given the New Covenant thus no Gentiles are under the New Covenant. They rightfully argue that the Church today is Spiritual Israel, thus they seem to be accounting Gentiles not as Gentiles, but as spiritual Israelites. And they also make an interesting argument that unbelieving Jews today are infact non-Jews/non-Israelites (by which it means not part of "Spiritual Israel"). They argue:

So what happens to those genetic Jews and men of Israel who refused to accept the sacrifice of the "Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world"--John 1:29? The Mosaic Law excommunicates them from the nation of Israel. Leviticus 17:4 says those who reject God's sacrifice were to be "cut off from the people". So, in God's eyes, those Jews who reject Jesus' sacrifice for sin, are cut off from being Jews and Israel! They may call themselves Jews and Israel but as far as God is concerned, they aren't!

The link to the page is here: Jews, Gentiles, and the Covenant.

I can't say I much disagree that unbelieving Jews are "cut off", and for that matter that the Gentiles were "grafted in", unless there is an even more subtle error that I'm not seeing. But their presentation of their point is quite scandalous, in that they are not consistent with specifying "Israel" as "Spiritual Israel", which makes pictures like this somewhat disturbing:

(click the image to see whole photo)


The message the image sends is obviously wrong. What is your view of the articles argument though and and/or the picture? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

 

[francisdesales]

First of all let me give a disclaimer that I do not approve the following the article or the pictures it has on it's site, and I find the images of John Hagee quite disturbing and disrespectful.

The article that I am about to show you makes an interesting but misguided argument: that only Israel was given the New Covenant thus no Gentiles are under the Old Covenant. They rightfully argue that the Church today is Spiritual Israel, thus they seem to be accounting Gentiles - not as Gentiles but as spiritual Israelites. And they also make an interesting argument that unbelieving Jews today are infact non-Jews/non-Israelites (by which it means not part of "Spiritual Israel"). They argue:

So what happens to those genetic Jews and men of Israel who refused to accept the sacrifice of the "Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world"--John 1:29? The Mosaic Law excommunicates them from the nation of Israel. Leviticus 17:4 says those who reject God's sacrifice were to be "cut off from the people". So, in God's eyes, those Jews who reject Jesus' sacrifice for sin, are cut off from being Jews and Israel! They may call themselves Jews and Israel but as far as God is concerned, they aren't!

The link to the page is here: Jews, Gentiles, and the Covenant.

I can't say I much disagree, unless there is an even more subtle error that I'm not seeing. But their presentation of their point is quite scandalous, in that they are not consistent with specifying "Israel" as "Spiritual Israel", which makes pictures like this somewhat disturbing:

(click the image to see whole photo)


What is your view of the articles arguement and and/or the picture? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

Perhaps the writer of the article hasn't read the last verse of Romans 2?

Regards

 

[cyberjosh]

Perhaps the writer of the article hasn't read the last verse of Romans 2?

Regards

"But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God" (Romans 2:29).

Hmmm... well that kind of sounds like what he is trying to argue, that only "Jews" (inwardly) are under the covenant. But why then be scandalous to say that "Gentiles" are not under covenant? Because obviously a Gentile is under the new covenant if he is a "spiritual Jew". Maybe he just wanted to get someone's attention???

 

[cyberjosh]

Ah, I actually found a place where they acknowledged Gentiles as spiritual Jews: "This is what Paul refers to in Romans chapter 11 when he says the unbelieving Jews were "Cut off" from the tree of the covenants and promises made to Israel and believing Gentiles were "grafted in".

And I think I finally understand why they make fun of John Hagee. They must think that anyone who vouches for "Israel after the flesh" (Gal.4:29) (like John Hagee) - as they mention - must be evil, but this is contrary to Paul's own message in Romans which tells us that we owe the Jewish people a debt, and should aid them and pray for them. Granted Israel is currently (and in the past has been) unrepentant and only a small percentage of Orthodox Jews exist in present day Israel, but this doesn't mean we should stop trying to evangelize to them and "Pray for the peace of Jerusalem".

I suppose the only place where they might have a point is if Hagee was only wanting to help Israel just because they are physical Israel, not out of some sense of duty to God or for the purpose of spreading the Gospel - which would be a vain task. I'm not the judge of John Hagee on that point though. If he actually does that then that is actually his problem. But until I know more I don't think the article is right in criticizing Hagee for wanting to help the Jewish people as a whole.

~Josh

 

[francisdesales]

Perhaps the writer of the article hasn't read the last verse of Romans 2?

Regards

"But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God" (Romans 2:29).

Hmmm... well that kind of sounds like what he is trying to argue, that only "Jews" (inwardly) are under the covenant. But why then be scandalous to say that "Gentiles" are not under covenant? Because obviously a Gentile is under the new covenant if he is a "spiritual Jew". Maybe he just wanted to get someone's attention???

Yea, I agree. A Jew is normally understood as a non-Christian, so the language he uses is a bit deceiving for whatever reason. The Scriptures clearly tell us that the New Covenant is offered to the entire world, not just national Jews. And it is clear that Paul expects for the Jews to convert to Christianity, not that the Jews would have their own covenant separate from the Gentiles. The Gentiles are to be grafted into one root. Not two different trees. There is only one "vine" by which we abide in Christ.

Regards

 

[Drew]

They rightfully argue that the Church today is Spiritual Israel, thus they seem to be accounting Gentiles not as Gentiles, but as spiritual Israelites.

Wow. I find some of this terminology to be a little open-ended. In any event, let me add this: Romans 4 opens with this cryptic question:

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter?

I have always found this question to be mysterious - I am not sure what Paul is really asking here.

In any event, and without providing the actual argument, I am convinced that the correct intent of this question is asf follows:

What then shall we say, are Gentile believers to be incorporated into national Israel?

I grant that this intepretation, which I believe originates with theologian Richard Hays, does not, at a surface reading, bear much resemblance to the actual question. Nevertheless, I think this is the real essence of Paul's question.

And the answer he give is "no"- Gentiles are not to be incorporated into national Israel (and get circumcized and follow Torah, etc., etc.).

So I think this line of thinking is also at odds with what is claimed in the article. Paul does indeed have this category of "true" Israel - constituted by Jew and Gentile. And he retains the category of national Israel, a people to whom, as you stated, we ("true" Israel) owe a great debt.

But I would certainly say that Gentile do not "become Jews" in order to become members of God'e true covenant family.

 

[cyberjosh]

Wow. I find some of this terminology to be a little open-ended.

Sorry, I would hope I could refine it a little more if the opportunity arose. I was just following my general impression of what the scriptures say on the subject and in Romans 9:6 where it says, "for they are not all Israel who are of Israel". But I was looking on google and saw several articles that argued that the Church was not spiritual Israel. I didn't have time to read them, but perhaps it hinges on a particular technicality. I'd just have to know what the point of contention was to answer definitively. I'm open to persuasion if someone has a good arguement on this point.

In any event, let me add this: Romans 4 opens with this cryptic question:

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter?

I have always found this question to be mysterious - I am not sure what Paul is really asking here.

In any event, and without providing the actual argument, I am convinced that the correct intent of this question is asf follows:

What then shall we say, are Gentile believers to be incorporated into national Israel?

I grant that this intepretation, which I believe originates with theologian Richard Hays, does not, at a surface reading, bear much resemblance to the actual question. Nevertheless, I think this is the real essence of Paul's question.

And the answer he give is "no"- Gentiles are not to be incorporated into national Israel (and get circumcized and follow Torah, etc., etc.).

Hmmm, interesting. I'll have to further ponder over that.

So I think this line of thinking is also at odds with what is claimed in the article. Paul does indeed have this category of "true" Israel - constituted by Jew and Gentile. And he retains the category of national Israel, a people to whom, as you stated, we ("true" Israel) owe a great debt.

But I would certainly say that Gentile do not "become Jews" in order to become members of God'e true covenant family.

I think I can agree with you there. Another element though where the Church is described relationally similar to Jews is where Paul in Galatians says that Jerusalem is the mother of us all, and we also know that New Jerusalem will be our eternal home, so there is a strong tie to the Jewish mother city of Jerusalem and the Church Body. So I think it's almost mixed metaphors, in a sense we do become assimilated into the Body under covenant as "spiritual Israel" yet we retain our position as either ethnic Jew or Gentile, the latter being a distinction which must retained for passages like "to the Jew first and also to the Greek" (Romans 1:16 & 2:9). So I suppose you do have to get down to the gnitty gritty to really be precise with the terminilogy.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

I think Ephesians 2 really says it all on this subject, although you could further dissect technicalities from it - yet the basic meanign and implications are as clear as day:

"11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands 12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
Christ Our Peace
14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. 18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father. Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God"

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, only one body, yet here as well a similar metaphor possibly in favor of the idea of "spiritual Israel" is hinted at by saying that you once were Gentiles in the flesh, here (as other places in the NT) using Gentile as a synonym for unbeliever ("you should no longer walk just as the Gentiles walk" Eph. 4:17), and saying that we were once strangers from the commonwealth of Israel, but now are "fellow citizens". Yet maybe its saying both that Gentiles are no longer Gentiles anymore and Jews are no longer Jews, thus transcending both designations (in Christ).So I don't know. I think the metaphor for Spiritual Israel was only meant to be applied in certain immediate contexts rather than a forensic reality, but its pretty clear that we are all part of the same ("generic") Body, where such distinctions are meaningless. And yet, as goes the classical paradoxial tension that the Bible is knwon for the distinctions are present in the flesh when it comes to practical rather than spiritual matters & realities. So both are present, and context determines which fits best for each passage.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Drew]

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, only one body, yet here as well a similar metaphor possibly in favor of the idea of "spiritual Israel" is hinted at by saying that you once were Gentiles in the flesh, here (as other places in the NT) using Gentile as a synonym for unbeliever ("you should no longer walk just as the Gentiles walk" Eph. 4:17), and saying that we were once strangers from the commonwealth of Israel, but now are "fellow citizens".

I think that the Ephesians 2 text is very important to this issue. But I read it as basically saying: You Gentiles are now part of the true family of God, that is the true Israel, those who inherit the blessing promised to "Israel"

I do not know why you think Paul is using the term "Gentile" as a synonym for unbeliever, though.

I think Paul's basic view is this:

1. The Old Testament represents God as having entered into a covenant with Abraham and his descendents;

2. This covenant included certain promises to those descendents;

3. Despite superficial appearance, this covenant was never intended to be with Abraham's genetic descendents - Abraham's true offspring are both Jew and Gentile and have faith (not genetic lineage) as their badge of family membership;

4. So all the covenant promises - land, vindication, deliverance from exile - are neither for ethnic Jews, nor do they even mean what they seem to mean. For example, the promise to give ethnic Israel the land of Palestine was misunderstood on both who the recipients are and what the promise is. The real promise, Paul contends, is that the "Jew+Gentile" faith family of Abraham get the entire remade world, not Palestine (see Romans 8:18 and following);

Based on this view about what Paul believes, I do not agree with this suggestion:

Yet maybe its saying both that Gentiles are no longer Gentiles anymore and Jews are no longer Jews, thus transcending both designations (in Christ).

The "true" Israel - the "Jew+Gentile" faith family of Abraham, is not just "the church" - it is that set of persons who are the heirs of the covenant promises. Therefore it is indeed correct to refer to them as "true" Israel - to do not do so would be to lose the covenant connection. So I do not think it is accurate to talk about "transcending" the "Israel" designation.

The "Jew+Gentile" faith family are the true covenant members. There is therefore a distinctive "Israel-ness" about them.

 

[cyberjosh]

I do not know why you think Paul is using the term "Gentile" as a synonym for unbeliever, though.

Well let me clarify, I was stating that as separated from the immediate context of that argument, and it is an observation I've always noticed when reading Paul's epistles (particularly Ephesians) is that sometimes when he uses the word 'Gentile' in a verse it is clear that he is only talking about unbelievers ("you should no longer walk just as the Gentiles walk" Eph. 4:17), while obviously not referring to saved Gentiles (thereby narrowing the definition). So my observation there simply was that Paul uses 'Gentile' sometimes in the negative sense as a model of the worldly man ("the Gentiles in the flesh" Ephesians 2:11), and I wasn't modeling that interpretation on my argument, but rather as a separate observation altogether I was using it to illustrate that it might be possible if you properly clarify your meaning (as the writer of that article seems to have failed in doing) to indeed say that "Gentiles" are not saved, but rather "Spiritual Israelites". But such an argument is of little use since it does not apply well to other contexts in the Bible in which the Gentile is clearly shown as being saved and under covenant. But in a few contexts where the Gentile is shown as I noted above (in the context of referring to an unbeliever, or someone "in the flesh") you could possibly make the "Spiritual Israelite not Gentile" argument. But now that I've clarified the conditions for that statement above does that make more sense to you now? Although note, as I've already said, the argument itself is of little use due to its limited context. I was just throwing it out there for "sake of argument".

The "true" Israel - the "Jew+Gentile" faith family of Abraham, is not just "the church" - it is that set of persons who are the heirs of the covenant promises. Therefore it is indeed correct to refer to them as "true" Israel - to do not do so would be to lose the covenant connection. So I do not think it is accurate to talk about "transcending" the "Israel" designation.

The "Jew+Gentile" faith family are the true covenant members. There is therefore a distinctive "Israel-ness" about them.

So then it seems you actually do agree that the Church is Spiritual Israel. Why then did you say my terminology was open-ended? We seem to agree on that idea.

Also what I meant by suggesting transcendence in identity is taken from the verse, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). And I also was balancing my argument if you noticed, in which I noted both interpretations and I said that it should be determined by context. So while the Church surely has an "Israel-ness" about it (as I said - I believe the Church is Spiritual Israel), they also yet in Christ are all one, the whole (as a body) transcends the individual identities in Christ. The same holds for male & female, who have very different roles given by God, and where the woman is the "weaker vessel" (1 Peter 3:7), yet in Christ male and female are equal - no distinction (Galatians 3:28), though not so in their individual roles. The unity in Christ is the transcendence I was referring to.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[DanielPatrick]

If " the ISRAEL of GOD" Gal 6:16 refers to the Church that has to mean it is the Israel recognized by God and the other 'Israel' is the pretender to the title. This is why Paul says "They are NOT all Israel who are of Israel: Only " the children of Promise are counted for the seed"

Also Rm 2:28,29 is quite clear on who is a Jew and who is NOT a Jew. "He is NOT a Jew which is one outwardly...But he IS a Jew which is one inwardly"

And yes. I believe Paul did mean his arguments to be "forensic' and to be taken as judicial arguments on who was a Jew/Israel and who wasn't--that is, if you consider the 'court' you are in, and who is the ultimate Judge.

I believe the 'problem' with Paul is that he saw the Old Covenant as it really was: just a flannel-graph for children--Just types and shawdows of the real thing of the Spirit. This didn't set too well with all the Pharisees and Old Covenant Jewish/Christians, like James and the bunch back in Jerusalem.

By the way, it doesn't say in Galations that 'Jerusalem is the mother of us all' but "Jerusalem which is ABOVE is mother of us all"-- And "Jerusalem which NOW is is in bondage with ALL her children". Which is why I entitled the article Who's Yo Mama?

 

[cyberjosh]

If " the ISRAEL of GOD" Gal 6:16 refers to the Church that has to mean it is the Israel recognized by God and the other 'Israel' is the pretender to the title. This is why Paul says "They are NOT all Israel who are of Israel: Only " the children of Promise are counted for the seed"

Also Rm 2:28,29 is quite clear on who is a Jew and who is NOT a Jew. "He is NOT a Jew which is one outwardly...But he IS a Jew which is one inwardly"

I can agree with that.

And yes. I believe Paul did mean his arguments to be "forensic' and to be taken as judicial arguments on who was a Jew/Israel and who wasn't--that is, if you consider the 'court' you are in, and who is the ultimate Judge.

Well what I meant by 'forensic' is that it obviously does not change our ethnic identity when we are saved, although it does indeed change our spiritual identity. I tried to be eclectic & balance my views by saying that in some contexts we can be spoken of as Gentiles who have been extended the merciful salvation of God, and others where we can say that we are part of the Body of Christ, the Spiritual Israel of God, and that we have been grafted into the root, God having made the two one (as I pointed out from Galatians). Thus we are still ethnic Gentiles, but spiritually we are the Israel of God.

By the way, it doesn't say in Galations that 'Jerusalem is the mother of us all' but "Jerusalem which is ABOVE is mother of us all"-- And "Jerusalem which NOW is is in bondage with ALL her children". Which is why I entitled the article Who's Yo Mama?

Oh, so you are the one who wrote the article? Interesting. Out of curiosity how did you come across this thread where we just happened to be discussing this? Also about the Jerusalem passage: I was paraphrasing, but yes you are right. You in turn paraphrased a bit as well ( :wink: ); the exact quotation (using the KJV) is, "But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all" (Galatians 4:26).

P.S. What originally got me is the picture. I still think you should make it clear that you meant spiritual Israel, so as to not exclude ethnic Gentiles, because even Jesus himself invoked the the Old Testament stories of the widow who helped Elijah and Namaan the Syrian (both Gentiles on whom God chose to show favor):

"But I say to you in truth, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the sky was shut up for three years and six months, when a great famine came over all the land; and yet Elijah was sent to none of them, but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian, And all the people in the synagogue were filled with rage as they heard these things" (Luke 4:25-28).

I'm just trying to avoid confusion and be precise. And I'm also wondering if you are aware of the potentially scandalous nature of that picture, even for mature Christians. I only speak from sincere concern. Just a thought: Romans 14:13.

In Christ,

~Josh

 

[DanielPatrick]

What originally got me is the picture. I still think you should make it clear that you meant spiritual Israel, so as to not exclude ethnic Gentiles

I'm not deep I'm just not clear. By no means am I trying to say that Ethnic Gentiles are excluded from the New Covenant. what I was trying to say with the picture and the text is that since the OT prophecies stated that ONLY Israel, Jews, the house of David, Joseph etc are mentioned as the ones that God was to establish the New Covenant with that unless you are a Jew or Israel,or house of David, Joseph you are not under the New Covenant. In-other-words Gentiles, who receive Jesus as Savior ARE Jews and Israel. They are the Israel of God and the ONLY Israel and Jews that God recognizes.

Paul compared the Jews of his day who refused to accept Christ to Esau and Ishmael, both firstborn sons who were disinherited and were not the promised seed. I don't think 2000 years of rejection have changed this.

OK, the pictures are sort of over the top but when people like Hagee who are public figures and embody certain doctrines I think they have given up their anoniminity. Part of this is because I am coming from a charismaniac background and I am sooooooo fed up with this christian-zionism.

 

[cyberjosh]

I'm not deep I'm just not clear. By no means am I trying to say that Ethnic Gentiles are excluded from the New Covenant. what I was trying to say with the picture and the text is that since the OT prophecies stated that ONLY Israel, Jews, the house of David, Joseph etc are mentioned as the ones that God was to establish the New Covenant with that unless you are a Jew or Israel,or house of David, Joseph you are not under the New Covenant. In-other-words Gentiles, who receive Jesus as Savior ARE Jews and Israel. They are the Israel of God and the ONLY Israel and Jews that God recognizes.

Ok, that perspective makes sense. Just out of curiostiy though have you noticed the, sometimes subtle sometimes very obvious, suggestions all throughout the OT that God was planning to include the Gentiles among His people - even though he still had to make rules to exclude stranger from certian holy observanes of Israel and though he made the covenant specifically with Israel? Aside from the story of Ruth and the two examples Jesus cites, we see it even as early as Exodus (well actually Genesis - according to Paul [Romans 4:12-13] in that Abram was uncircumcised before he was called - and actually the Abrahamic covenant came before the other two covenants and included [via shadow] Gentiles also), where we read "A mixed multitude also went up with them, along with flocks and herds, a very large number of livestock" (Exodus 12:38) and also in the fact that Moses have a Cushite (Nubian, Ethiopian) wife.

But I'm sure you know those things. You were probably just focusing on just the strict details of who the covenant was made with, and not the other tell-tale signs in the OT that God was going to eventually include the Gentiles among His people, right?

Paul compared the Jews of his day who refused to accept Christ to Esau and Ishmael, both firstborn sons who were disinherited and were not the promised seed. I don't think 2000 years of rejection have changed this.

As a nation they have been cut off but obviously Jews can still be saved. What is your view of Israel's salvation and God's plan for Israel. Hagee is atleast right that God does have a plan for Israel - and the prophecies in Isaish prove how prominent Israel will be above all the nations of earth in the end times.

OK, the pictures are sort of over the top but when people like Hagee who are public figures and embody certain doctrines I think they have given up their anoniminity. Part of this is because I am coming from a charismaniac background and I am sooooooo fed up with this christian-zionism.

I've only intermittently watched John Hagee's sermons, so I can't make an overall judgement of his message, but I remember that from what I watched I liked the unique topics of his messages (like the significance of the gates of Jerusalem, end time eschatology for Israel, etc.). What exactly rubs you wrong about Christian-zionism, and how do you defin Christian Zionism? In one of my posts above I notes where Paul said that we owe a debt to the Jewish people, and also where the Bible tells us to pray for the peace of Jerusalem. Is that what you define as Christian-Zionism or is it something more than that? I honestly don't know since I'm not very knowledgeable abotu Christian-Zionism myself.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[mondar]

The article that I am about to show you makes an interesting but misguided argument: that only Israel was given the New Covenant thus no Gentiles are under the New Covenant.

In this sentence there are actually two separate propositions.

1-- Only Israel was given the New Covenant (NC from here on).

2-- Gentiles are not under the NC.

Strictly speaking, I think both propositions are incorrect.

Warning---If you read the following, you might have to read each sentence carefully.----
Proposition #1 would be correct statement if the writer said "Only Israel was promised the NC." That would be a true statement. Gentiles are not explicitly named in the promises of the New Covenant. In the NT, this does not limit Gods grace. Gods grace can superabound beyond his promises and this does not mean that God violated his promises.

If God had said that "only Israel will receive the New Covenant, then he would have violated his promise to Israel. But there is no such limit in the NC promises.

If I promise to give all the Jewish kids in my neighborhood who come to my door on Halloween $1. Then when Gentiles come along with the Jewish children, and I also give them $1, I have not violated my promise to the Jewish kids.

This leaves me disagreeing with both the above propositions. Gentiles are under the NC, but were not promised the NC. But neither is there any explicit teaching that Gentiles have become Israel or spiritual Israel.

Also, it is an exegetical mistake to assume that the theologocial content of the term "Jew" in Romans 2 is identical with the theological content of the word "Israel." I do not see Galatians mentioned in the thread. It is appropriate to say that we are Jews by nature in the inner man, we are the children of Abraham by faith (Galatians), but none of this is the same as being Spiritual Israel.

 

[DanielPatrick]

Out of curiosity how did you come across this thread where we just happened to be discussing this?

I was just trolling your site and decided to join the conversation.

What is your view of Israel's salvation and God's plan for Israel.

The way Inow see it is that there is no salvation of national Israel but that these verses in Romans 11 apply to the "Israel of God". There is prophecy being fulfilled over there in the falsely called Israel (see Rev 2:9 & 3:9) but for the most part, I BELIEVE, it is misinterpreted. The ONLY way ethnic Jews can be saved is individually by accepting Jesus Christ as their Savior then they become part of the "ISRAEL OF GOD" AND YES, "ALL THE ISRAEL OF GOD SHALL BE SAVED".

 

[DanielPatrick]

Out of curiosity how did you come across this thread where we just happened to be discussing this?

I was just trolling your site and decided to join the conversation.

What is your view of Israel's salvation and God's plan for Israel.

The way Inow see it is that there is no salvation of national Israel but that these verses in Romans 11 apply to the "Israel of God". There is prophecy being fulfilled over there in the falsely called Israel (see Rev 2:9 & 3:9) but for the most part, I BELIEVE, it is misinterpreted. The ONLY way ethnic Jews can be saved is individually by accepting Jesus Christ as their Savior then they become part of the "ISRAEL OF GOD" AND YES, "ALL THE ISRAEL OF GOD SHALL BE SAVED".

 

[stranger]

Cybershark5886 wrote:

They rightfully argue that the Church today is Spiritual Israel.

Greetings. Is there any substantial difference between the above statement and saying:

'They . . . argue that the Church today is Israel?'

There remains prophesy that is still unfulfilled and unique to Israel. This seems to be another form of replacement theology which offers a peculiar reading of Rom 9-11. The grafting in of the natural branch will bring unprecedented blessing to the wild branches which are the gentile Church at the end of the age.

I would probably agree with replacement theology had I not met a Messianic Jew in the year 2001. I told him that 'I was a son of Abraham' and he said: 'you are a son of Abraham by promise, I am a son of Abraham by blood.' I had never thought about that until that moment - and have since explored the riches of God's plan for Israel AND the Church at the end of the age.

PS Thankyou very much for Lev 17:4 since it deepens my conviction about the eucharist re 1 Corinthians 11:25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." and John 6:53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. It's alarming that as a Protestant I missed!

 

[stranger]

DanielPatrick

The way Inow see it is that there is no salvation of national Israel but that these verses in Romans 11 apply to the "Israel of God". There is prophecy being fulfilled over there in the falsely called Israel (see Rev 2:9 & 3:9) but for the most part, I BELIEVE, it is misinterpreted. The ONLY way ethnic Jews can be saved is individually by accepting Jesus Christ as their Savior then they become part of the "ISRAEL OF GOD" AND YES, "ALL THE ISRAEL OF GOD SHALL BE SAVED".

welcome Daniel,

Isn't Israel by defintion the Israel of God?

The Church was Jewish before it spread into the Gentile world and the hardening that came upon the Jews happened sometime before 65-66AD. Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. - the equality and unity 'in Christ' of all who are saved does not mean that gender, slavery and nationalty disappeared in the first century.

I have found it interesting that Paul preached the Gospel to the Jews first and also to the Greeks or Gentiles.

 

[cyberjosh]

Isn't Israel by defintion the Israel of God?

Well, "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" (Romans 9:6).