Posted on 09/17/2005 4:40:41 PM PDT by topcat54
Much fuss has been made in our Jewish evangelism circles regarding "replacement" theology, the idea that the church has "replaced" the Jewish people in the plan of God. Some have even accused all who think New Covenant believers are "Spiritual Israel" as being guilty of this "replacement theology", that is, of replacing the Jewish people with the church. Charges have been made that this idea of "Spiritual Israel" leads to anti-semitism.
Ironically my first exposure to the idea of all believers being spiritually Israel came about through involvement in "Messianic Judaism"! Way back in 1975 I attended a seminar by Manny Brotman, president of the "Messianic Jewish Movement International" on "How to Share the Messiah". In the seminar notes I read: "When a Gentile asks the Messiah into his heart and life, he is accepting the Jewish Messiah, the Jewish Bible, and the Jewish blood of atonement and could be considered a proselyte to biblical Judaism and a child of Abraham by faith!" Isn't this essentially a statement of the "Spiritual Israel" idea?
(Excerpt) Read more at chaim.org ...
...
Some Jews who are for Jesus call their movement "Messianic Judaism". A few of these Jewish believers distinguish "Messianic Judaism" from "Christianity". I believe it would be better theology to distinguish between a culturally Jewish expression of New Covenant Judaism and a culturally Gentile expression of New Covenant Judaism. Our New Covenant faith is the true, Biblical Judaism.
Gentiles who come to believe in the Jewish Messiah convert to Biblical Judaism! Our New Covenant faith is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant faith. Christianity is New Covenant Judaism, the true religion of the Jewish people -- even if most Jewish people don't know it yet! The concept of "Spiritual Israel" is a Biblical doctrine. It doesn't mean "replacement"...it means EXPANSION! God has joined Gentiles to the true faith of Israel --He has expanded the nation spiritually!
Standard tactic of a great many people: Build a strawman, and knock it down. Thanks for taking the torch to this particular strawman.
Thank you, Topcat, for your many wonderful threads on "escatology" because they are so much more than simple speculation about future events -- they articulate, based on clear Scripture, the meaning of true salvation by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ.
The hearers of the parable understood its implications in Lu. 20:16. They answer, "May this never be!" They realized that this was a threat that Israel's franchise from God would be taken away from them, and given to another people who "would pay proceeds at the proper time" (Mt. 21:41).
I to echo Dr. E. appreciation. I enjoy your articles and they have been a great blessing. It's nice to hear "another" view than the typical pre-trib/pre-mil that seems to be common these days.
"They answer"
It looks to me like the parables are directed to the chief priests and pharisees, not to common Israel. Jesus says the "publicans and harlots go into the Kingdom of God."
That still doesn't answer the puzzling question, why is the last question to the Lord, "When shall you return the Kingdom to Israel" if their understanding of the scriptures was enlightened and why didn't Jesus just tell them their thinking on the subject was wrong if there was going to be a "replacement" theology?
Who says he didn't? The Gospels and the Epistles seem to do an adequate job of fleshing out the case as to why. Just because he didn't answer their question directly then and there doesn't mean that he wouldn't eventually.
Without endtimes speculation, how are we supposed to get such entertaining books like Left Behind and cheesy Christian movies with horrible acting?
He did answer them in a way that would lead them to believe the Father would eventually restore the Kingdom to Israel. He said the "times and seasons" are in the Father's power not that their thinking is wrong. If my son asks when he will be getting a new baseball glove and I say the timing is up to his mother, I am telling him he will get it when his mother decides, not that the glove will be given to someone else, not him.
I've always wondered why the acting is so inevitably "cheesy" in those films.
Is it because the actors can't relate to the material? Because the director is struggling to keep a straight face? Because God isn't in the audience? Or because Catherine Oxenberg should have quit after "Dynasty?"
He did, in His own way. First of all, as I said, He gives them no hope that the kingdom would be restored to Israel. Second, by His response one can tell that, once again, they were asking the wrong question. What does He say? "But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." Jesus turns their attention from the carnal things on which they tended to dwell, to the true nature of the kingdom, that it is universal and spiritual. They must go out into all the kingdom in order for it to be restored as God intended.
You can't see Jesus' answer because of your dispensational presuppositions.
The more I think about it, the argument, "the Kingdom will be restored to Israel because Jesus didn't correct his apostles is an argument from silence - a logical fallacy.
So what you are saying is that Jesus deliberately left the Disciples with a false impression? I don't think so. Jesus was not a politician. He was truth. Deliberately using words to leave a false impression can be chargeable as perjury. Clinton's statement that "there is no sex" would be the same thing. Clinton stated that there "is" no sex attempting to leave a false impression. What he said was technically true, because he was not having sex with Monica Lewinsky at that time. But it left a false impression. That statement was the reason why he lost his ticket to practice law.
By not correcting the Disciples' false impression, Jesus would have been engaged in the same sin that Clinton was engaged in.
The question was "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" If Jesus had no intention of restoring again the kingdom of Israel, the TRUTHful answer would have been "never". But his answer belies that theory. Jesus answer was TRUTH. His answer was "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power"
In other words, Jesus' answer is "in due time and it's none of your business when." Not "never." It cannot reasonably be interpreted as "never". Unless you wish to make Jesus out to be a dissembler. There was no other question pending, so we must assume that his answer was the answer to the question posed. Your theory would have him commenting on a question which was not posed. If he did that in court he would be accused of being non-responsive and his answer would be striken.
I don't think Jesus dissembeled. In order to conclude that Jesus never intended to restore the kingdom to Israel, you would have to conclude that Jesus deliberately left a false impression. In law leaving a deliberately false impression under oath is Perjury. Jesus cannot be accused of that.
No, Jesus will restore the Kingdom of Israel. We are simply not given the information as to when.
"The more I think about it, the argument, "the Kingdom will be restored to Israel because Jesus didn't correct his apostles is an argument from silence - a logical fallacy."
But Jesus did answer the question. He said the Father knows the time when it will be restored. He didn't need to correct the disciples since they asked the correct question. The answer was not "if" it will be restored but "when" and that was in the Father's timing.
And if our Lord Jesus would have been clearer on that "I am the bread of life" stuff than we wouldn't be arguing with the Catholics today.
Even after our Lord Jesus died on the cross and rosed from the grave the disciples were STILL looking for an earthly kingdom. It was only after Pentecost and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit did they realized the kingdom was not of this world.
Not true. Please look at specifically what our Lord Jesus stated:
There is no indication in this verse that it WILL happen. He only states that it isn't our business to know what times any event will happen. A subtle but important difference.
I suppose it all depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.