Not precisely. Nowhere in the NT does any author say that Gentile believers become Jews, "spiritual Jews," "the real Jews," or any of the other catchphrases that Replacement Theology regularly uses to get around the clear Biblical promises to the natural seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Indeed, Sha'ul (Paul) repeatedly uses "Jew and Gentile" and "circumcised and uncircumcised" to refer to believers in the Messiah, indicating that there is indeed a practical difference (just as there is between male and female)--but while maintaining, and rightly so, that we are still all one Ekklesia, one Body, co-heirs together, and that Jewishness and Gentileness is nothing compared to the importance of keeping God's commands.
Remember, even in the illustration of the olive tree (Rom. 11), Sha'ul still notes that the Gentiles who are grafted in are of a wild olive tree, and distinct from the natural branches. Moreover, he warns us against arrogance over the natural branches, whether they are broken off or not, and reiterates God's promise that "all Israel will be saved, as is written," even though they are currently "enemies of the Gospel for your sakes, but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes."
Now, in regards to my "what slander" statement, let's review the context: You said that it borders on blasphemy to suggest that the Jews are held in special esteem by God; I pointed out that Sha'ul himself said that they are, which means that you have three choices:
a) Continue to insist that it is borderline blasphemy to say that the Jews have a special place in God's heart, and thereby accuse (and slander) Sha'ul as a near-blasphemer (in which case, why do you consider his writings to be canon);So far, you seem to be going for option c). If you want to, okay, but I'll continue to point out that you in fact have no counter-argument to my own other than a weak "argument by outrage."b) admit that you spoke in error, and change your position; or
c) try to divert attention from your error by trying to claim some sort of victim status because I pointed out that your "near-blasphemy" statement amounts to slandering Sha'ul.
I understand completely what Paul is saying about the Jews and anyone who has ever known any true Jew who has become a Christian understand it as well.
Then you don't understand what Sha'ul is saying at all, since we're right back at the point (never answered, by the way) of the previous thread: Is the Jewish believer in the Messiah, whether he identifies himself as a mainline Christian or a Messianic Jew, an enemy to the Gospel because of Gentile inclusion (Rom. 11:28)?
No.
Therefore, clearly Sha'ul is saying that the unbelieving Jewish people are still, "as touching the election . . . beloved for the fathers' sakes"!
So what does this mean? It means that while indeed Gentiles who have put their trust in the Messiah are indeed grafted into Israel--just as, in national terms, Syria would be "grafted into" Israel if that nation surrendered to and were annexed by a Jewish King--that we have neither replaced the Jewish branches nor are we "the new Israel." Rather, to put it in geographical/political terms again, we are a province of the greater commonwealth of Israel--but the original kingdom, though currently in rebellion against her King, still retains the right to that name, insofar as the King has promised to restore them.
To put it another way, there is currently a rift in the Kingdom of God. Those to whom the Kingdom first belonged were blinded by God for the express purpose of bringing the Gospel to the Gentiles and enabling the Gentiles to be included in that greater Kingdom. However, there will indeed be a day when the Kingdom will return to Israel (Acts 1:6-7)--not to the exclusion of the Gentiles of the Kingdom, but to include both so that God's family is even larger.
To put it yet another way, we have been adopted into God's family. The firstborn son (Exo. 4:22) is currently out of the house due to a long-ago act of rebellion--but he is still the firstborn son, the one born into the household. We who were adopted did not replace him at all, any more than my adopted younger brother replaced me. The Father has promised that the firstborn will be brought back into the house, therefore the firstborn is still Israel.
Now, if you want to argue that because we are adopted into the father's household that we are part of Israel in a broad sense that does not preclude the name to the firstborn, I would agree. In which case I would advise you to keep the commands that the firstborn was commanded to keep and which the Father never recinded. Not for inclusion--you're already adopted--but because those are the rules the Father set.
But if by the term you mean that the firstborn, all natural Israel, has been cast out of the house forever, and we, the adopted children, have replaced him--then you are dead wrong. You are even more so when we can see that the firstborn has been given a place by the Father by virtue of seeing him returning to the Land.
God retained a remnant for His sake and glory-not because of their actions.
Funny you should mention that. He says just that about bringing Israel back into the Land in the Last Days (Ezk. 36:22). So you admit that for the sake of His Name, Israel is still blessed and even returned to the Land, just as they were blessed with forgiveness for the sin of the Golden Calf for the sake of YHVH's Name.
God came to seek and save what He had lost. It wasn't because they were good.
And yet, Yeshua was still a blessing, the Seed through whom all the nations of the world, including Israel, are blessed. And He came when Israel was in a state of disobedience.
There's hope for you Buggman. If you won't switch to a Presbyterian or Reformed Baptist; perhaps you'll switch to a Reformed Messianic Jew.
Do they have these issues in other religions?
HD-Gentiles were grafted into the Jews-we are one.
Buggman-Not precisely. ....
indeed Gentiles who have put their trust in the Messiah are indeed grafted into Israel....
To put it yet another way, we have been adopted into God's family...
if you want to argue that because we are adopted into the father's household that we are part of Israel in a broad sense...
Only a Calvinist would understand that there is a hardening on the heart of Jews until the time of the Gentiles are complete. (I thought God wants all men saved.) But that's another story.
You said that it borders on blasphemy to suggest that the Jews are held in special esteem by God
I'm not trying to divert attention away from anything nor am I trying to melodramatic. I stand by what I stated. God shows no partiality and He is no respecter of person. (Acts 10:34)
Is the Jewish believer in the Messiah, whether he identifies himself as a mainline Christian or a Messianic Jew, an enemy to the Gospel because of Gentile inclusion (Rom. 11:28)?
I thought I answered that. Jew or Gentile-it makes no difference. If you want to go to the synagoue on Saturdays to worship, be my guest. If you want to give up pork or you want to circumcise yourself, have at it. You are free in Christ to do what you want to do. But if you think any of these works or actions are pleasing to God then you better stop and think again. What is worst is purporting that others should do them as something that is pleasing to God. A Christian rest upon the saving works of Christ-all of our actions are as filthy rags.
But if by the term you mean that the firstborn, all natural Israel, has been cast out of the house forever, and we, the adopted children, have replaced him--then you are dead wrong.
I didn't say that we replaced Israel. I said we are grafted in WITH Israel.