Posted on 05/16/2012 3:48:19 PM PDT by wmfights
Romans 9:6 is a passage sometimes used by supersessionists to show that the church is explicitly called Israel.[1] This verse reads, “But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel.” Some see in the first mention of “Israel” a concept of Israel that goes beyond ethnic boundaries. Thus, Paul is allegedly making a distinction between ethnic Israel and a spiritual Israelthat consists of all believers including Gentiles. This is the view of Ridderbos: “Even the distinction Paul makes within national Jerusalem between who is and who is not a ‘Jew,’ between ‘Israel’ and ‘those who are of Israel’ (Rom. 2:28ff.; 9:6), tends to a usage that denotes the believing gentiles as well and therefore the Christian church as such as “Israel.”[2] In reference to Rom 9:6–8 Wayne Grudem declares, “Paul here implies that the true children of Abraham, those who are in the most true sense ‘Israel,’ are not the nation of Israel by physical descent from Abraham but those who have believed in Christ.”[3] In his comments on Rom 9:6, Robertson states, “It is those who, in addition to being related to Abraham by natural descendency, also relate to him by faith, plus those Gentiles who are ingrafted by faith, that constitute the true Israel of God.”[4]
This verse, though, is not a supporting text for supersessionism as most commentators on Romans 9:6 acknowledge. As Murray has noted, Rom 9:6 is teaching that “there is an ‘Israel’ within ethnic Israel.”[5] Paul is not saying that believing Gentiles are now part of Israel. Instead, believing Jews are the true Israel. William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam make this point:
But St. Paul does not mean here to distinguish a spiritual Israel (i.e. the Christian Church) from the fleshly Israel, but to state that the promises made to Israel might be fulfilled even if some of his descendants were shut out from them. What he states is that not all the physical descendants of Jacob are necessarily inheritors of the Divine promises implied in the sacred name Israel.[6]
Thus, the true Israelite is one who is a Jew ethnically and one has believed in Jesus Christ (see Romans 2:28–29). Romans 9:6, therefore, is not a supporting text for Replacement Theology.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Those who view Rom 9:6 as including believing Gentiles in the concept of “Israel” include: Ridderbos, Paul, 336, n. 30; Grudem, Systematic Theology, 861; C. H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans(London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1932), 155; Goppelt, Typos, 140; Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, 137; and James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9–16, WBC, vol. 38b (Dallas: Word, 1988), 540; LaRondelle, The Israel of God in Prophecy, 121; Bright, The Kingdom of God, 226–27. Commenting on Rom 9:6, Origen stated, “For if the judgment respecting the ‘Jew inwardly’ be adopted, we must understand that, as there is a ‘bodily’ race of Jews, so also is there a race of ‘Jews inwardly.’” Origen, First Principles 4.21, ANF 4:370.
[2] Ridderbos, Paul, 336, n. 30.
[3] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 861.
[4] O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R, 1980), 40.
[5] Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2:9.
[6] William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, ICC (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1923), 240. See also Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 574. About Rom 9:6, Gutbrod writes, “We are not told here that Gentile Christians are the true Israel. The distinction at R. 9:6 does not go beyond what is presupposed at Jn. 1:47. . . .” Walter Gutbrod, “’Israhl, k. t. l.,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 387.
Hmmm..not sure about that.
Eph 2:11 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—
Eph 2:12 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.
Gentiles have no hope and were (are) without God. Strangers to the covenants, which were to Israel, and to the commonwealth of Israel.
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
Gentiles were far from any of these but because of the sacrifice of Christ become partakers of the promises to Israel.
Eph 2:14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation,
There's no separation between Israel and gentiles who enter into the promises to Israel through Christ.
Hmmm..not sure about that.
Eph 2:11 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—
Eph 2:12 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.
Gentiles have no hope and were (are) without God. Strangers to the covenants, which were to Israel, and to the commonwealth of Israel.
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
Gentiles were far from any of these but because of the sacrifice of Christ become partakers of the promises to Israel.
Eph 2:14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation,
There's no separation between Israel and gentiles who enter into the promises to Israel through Christ.
So also we, while we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental things of the world. 4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5 so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. (Galatians 4:3-5)
So we see that, again, Gentile believers are adopted into the New Covenant, which God made with the Jews, not Gentiles, and we are participants, not takers-over. God specifically singles out the "children of promise", who are descendants of the son of Sarah and who come to faith in Jesus Christ, as the true Israel.
Where do you find Gentile believers in this passage?
“THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED.” 8That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. 9For this is the word of promise: “AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON.”
Was Sarah, who gave birth to the child of promise, a Jew or Gentile? Was her son, Isaac, a Jew or a Gentile? Who did God use to create those who He calls the "children of promise" Was it a Jew or a Gentile?
Rom 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh,
Rom 9:4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises;
Again everything applies to Israel. Gentiles gain access through Christ.
And that's consistent with whom the new covenant pertains:
Heb_8:8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "BEHOLD, THE DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL MAKE A NEW COVENANT—
Who is the new covenant made with? According to the word of God the new covenant is made with the houses of Israel and Judah. Gentiles join these households, the Israel of God, when they enter into the new covenant through Christ.
I think the Auschwitz message board is ———————> that way...
Surely others will post Scripture to counter your post—there’s plenty of it. I’ll merely point out that the majority opinion of Christians through the centuries has been the polar opposite of the dispensational understanding of Israel.
I support Israel as much as anyone, but not because of my eschatology. I fear many will miss Christ due to their obsession with the modern secular state named Israel. There are many who know the dispensational end-times timetable like the back of their hand yet they don’t understand original sin, substitionary atonement, propitiation, and all the other great doctrines upon which our faith is built.
Bottom line: My ancestors were Scots-Irish, but I’m Israel because I’m in Christ, the true Israel.
Nay, not so. That Israel was to be made up of people of all nations, Jews too, was precisely the point of Paul's argument. Hence he made the point elsewhere that no longer was any distinction being made on the basis of Jew, Greek, slave or freeman.
“Israel” was going to going receive the kingdom that was taken away from the Jewish nation.
Yeah,
The New Covenant (Deut. 29:4; 30:6; Isa. 59:20–21; 61:8–9; Jer. 31:31–40; 32:37–40; 50:4–5; Ezek. 11:19–20; 16:60–63; 34:25–26; 36:24–32; 37:21–28; Zech. 9:11; 12:10–14; Heb. 8:1-13; 10:15-18) provides for the yet future spiritual regeneration of Israel in preparation for the millennial kingdom. This is an unconditional covenant and is made between the Lord and the nation of Israel and has not yet been enacted for the nation of Israel. The New Covenant is predictive of Israel’s new spiritual condition that begins at the end of the tribulation and continues into and throughout the Millennial Kingdom.
Arnold Fruchtenbaum tells us the following about the New Covenant for Israel:
The announcement of the New Covenant begins with a declaration that it will be a Jewish covenant, for it will be made with both houses of Israel (v. 31). It will be in sharp contradistinction with the older Mosaic Covenant (v. 32). Of the five Jewish covenants, the Mosaic was the only conditional one. Although God had been faithful in keeping His terms of the covenant, Israel had not been so faithful, resulting in the Mosaic Covenant's being broken. For while the Mosaic Covenant showed the standard of righteousness which the Law demanded, it could never impart to the Jew the power to keep it. But that problem will be rectified in the New Covenant (v. 33) through regeneration, which will provide the internal power necessary to meet and to keep the righteous standards of God. The result of the New Covenant will be a total national regeneration of Israel (v. 34). Jewish missions and Jewish evangelism will not be needed in the Messianic Kingdom because every Jew will know the Lord, from the least to the greatest. The sins of Israel will be forgiven and forgotten. While there will be Gentile unbelievers in the Kingdom, there will not be Jewish unbelievers in the Kingdom. To a man, all the Jews will believe. There will be no need to tell a Jew to "know the Lord" because they will all know Him.1
THE NEW COVENANT AND THE CHURCH
We have seen how the New Covenant will be fulfilled for Israel, but an often ask question is does this covenant relate in any way to the church? A New Covenant is mentioned a number of times in reference to the church in the New Testament (Matt. 26:27-28; Luke 22:20; 2 Cor. 3:6). It appears to be the basis for the forgiveness of sins and a spiritual dynamic that is not just reserved for the nation of Israel. I believe that there is one New Covenant, which will be fulfilled in the future with Israel but is participated in relation to the doctrine of salvation by the church today. The Bible clearly teaches that God promised a New Covenant to His people Israel (Jer 31:31–34; Ezek 36:26–38) and that Jesus established the New Covenant through His death on the cross (1 Cor 11:25–26). “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me” (1 Cor. 11:25). The inclusion of the Gentiles is substantiated by Jesus’ statement in Matthew 26 enlarging the scope of the New Covenant when He says,
“This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28). Luke records a similar statement when Jesus says, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood” (Luke 22:20).
Paul contrasted two covenants in 2 Corinthians 3:6–18. The first was the old Mosaic Covenant, while the second is the New Covenant. Under the old there are the tablets of stone, the letter, a ministry of death, and fading glory. Under the new there are tablets of flesh (human hearts), the Spirit, a ministry of life, and surpassing glory. The first has passed away. The second is now reigning. Paul is a minister of this New Covenant, as the passage says, “who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant” (2 Cor. 3:6). So it appears that in some way the New Covenant applies to the current church age, even though none of the specific prophecies relating to Israel appear to have been fulfilled under the New Testament application of the New Covenant to the church age.
We see in Scripture that the Church has not replaced literal Israel in its relationship to the New Covenant, and the New Covenant is not being fulfilled totally in the Church today.
HOW THE NEW COVENANT APPLIES TO THE CHURCH
A key to understanding what Scripture teaches on this matter is to recognize that the Old Testament promise of the New Covenant contained both spiritual and material benefits. The church indeed is enjoying the spiritual benefits (e.g., regeneration and the indwelling Holy Spirit), but the church is not experiencing the material benefits, which remain unfulfilled and will remain unfulfilled until literal national Israel appropriates the New Covenant to experience both its spiritual and physical benefits at the end of the Tribulation and throughout and throughout the millennium. Paul says in Romans, “For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they are indebted to minister to them also in material things” (Rom. 15:27). Rodney J. Decker has the following explanation of how the New Covenant applies to the church today:
The New Covenant, prophesied in the Old Testament to be made with Israel, was ratified at the Cross and implemented as a replacement of the Mosaic Covenant. It is presently the basis on which anyone relates to God and it governs the life of all believers. The church, though not a formal partner of the New Covenant, participates in the covenant both as a subject of its rule of life and as a recipient of promised Abrahamic Covenant blessings for Gentiles that have come through the Seed of Abraham, Jesus Christ. This explanation does not demand that the church “fulfill” the covenant; that remains for national Israel in the future millennium. It does acknowledge that there is more involved in the New Covenant than could have been known simply from the Old Testament. This in no way changes the meaning of those passages, but does allow for God’s doing more than He promised (though it will be no less than promised). The term “partial fulfillment” is not necessary. If fulfillment is used to describe the relationship of the covenant partners, then fulfillment in any respect should be viewed as future. “Participation” is a better term to describe the present aspects as it both avoids replacement concepts (the church replacing Israel in fulfilling the covenant) and also explains the partial nature of the obedience evident in the experience of the church. Even though the ministry of the Holy Spirit has changed dramatically, based on the ratification and implementation of the New Covenant, the full ramifications of that ministry will not be experienced until the covenant enters the fulfillment stage in the future messianic kingdom. . . . The Old Testament does not say that only Israel will participate in the New Covenant. The Old Testament does say that the New Covenant is made with Israel. That is different, however, from saying that the New Covenant is only for Israel. The New Testament does not violate Old Testament statements when it includes more than was revealed in the Old Testament.2
CONCLUSION
If one attempts to say that the New Covenant is being fulfilled today, during the current church age, through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, then it would mean that we should not evangelize any more, that every Jew would be saved, and that we would have the Law of God written on our hearts (compare Jer. 31:31–34). This is not the case within the church today. Therefore, it means that we are not currently experiencing the full impact of the New Covenant as described in the Old Testament. postmillennialists, Amillennialists, Covenant Theologians, and preterists all believe that all aspects of the New Covenant are being fulfilled today. If such were the case then why do we have evangelism and have to teach people the Law? Jeremiah speaking the word of the Lord says, “I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. And they shall not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more” (Jer. 31:33b–34). Believers today simply do not fit this description. Further, the Lord is speaking about what He will do with Israel. Notice to whom the passage is directed: “’But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,’ declares the LORD” (Jer. 31:33a). This is certainly not yet a description of the Jewish nation as it exists today. The Bible is clear that Israel will one day receive the benefits of the New Covenant. What a wonderful day that will be when she enters into a right relationship with the Lord after all of those years. At the same time, the church is a partaker in the spiritual blessings that flow from the New Covenant, not “a taker over” of Israel’s promises, as some are inclined to say. God’s plan is on course and will be fully implemented in the course of His timing. Maranatha!
http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-%28Part7%29CovenantsandD.pdf
Now, y’all might of heard rumors about the election happening soon. Well, we’ll be working a little earlier. Were gonna be dropped into FreeRepublic, dressed as mods. And once were in FReeper territory, as a bushwackin guerrilla army, were gonna be doing one thing and one thing only... Zotting Trolls. Members of Democratic Underground elected Obama through clever marketing, lies, intimation, and terror. And that’s exactly what were gonna do to them. Now, I don’t know about y’all, but I sure as hell didn’t come down from the Smoky Mountains, cross five thousand miles of water, fight my way through half the internet and then join Free Republic to teach the Trolls lessons in humanity. Trolls aint got no humanity. They’re the foot soldiers of a Conservative-hatin, baby murderin maniac and they need to be zotted. That’s why every son of a Pelosi we find wearin a Troll uniform, they’re gonna get zotted. We will be cruel to the Trolls and through our cruelty they will know who we are. They will find the evidence of our cruelty in the mocked, zotted, disfigured accounts their brothers we leave behind us and the Trolls will not be able to help themselves from imagining the cruelty their brothers endured at our hands, at our boot heels, and the edge of our keyboards. And the Trolls will be sickened by us, the Trolls will talk about us and the Trolls will fear us. And when the Trolls close their eyes at night and their subconscious tortures them for the evil they’ve done, it will be with thoughts of us that it tortures them with. Sound good?
Zot!
How ridiculous is dispensational theology.
Is there one people of God? Or two?
When we look at the book of Revelation—the consummation of all things—is there one glorified people—from every tribe and nation, praising God eternally, or some arbitrary separation of Jew and Gentile (forever?)?
Is God a segregationist? Or did the Jewish Messiah come to graft in the gentiles to the root of Abraham?
Ask yourself, if a Jew believes in Jesus marries a gentile believer in Jesus is there any sin in that? OF COURSE NOT! In Christ there is no Jew or Greek—and God is not a segregationist. Are there believing Children Jew or Gentile? Does their ethnic heritage mean they called to worship differently and not be a part of the fellowship of believers? Did the early Church separate Jewish and Gentile believers?
There is no “replacement theology” as gentiles have never replaced the Jews—we have only been grafted into the tree that came before Jesus, from Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses... Ethnic Jews who rejected (and still reject) Jesus have cut themselves off from that tree of faith... Nor is “dispensationalism” biblical, as it is separatism, or really, 19th Century ideas of segregation...writ large.
There is one people of God, saved by one Savior on one cross, and one good news—for all people, “for I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God to salvation to every one that believes; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” (Romans 1:16)
The book of Acts is absolute proof of that there is one people of God, not two...
http://www.defendproclaimthefaith.org/blog/?p=1605
The epistle of 1 John clearly tells us the method to determine of someone was from God regarding the first coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. The test was whether Jesus Christ literally came in the flesh. Those that believed He did were of God.
1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
Conversely, those that did not believe that He came in the flesh were not of God, but were of the spirit of antichrist. This is a very simple test that revolved around the literalness of Bible prophecy.
1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
This was aimed at the gnostics which believe that Jesus Christ was just a spirit being that did not have a body, but notice that it was the literal interpretation of the Bible that is what the Apostle John was defending. There was much more than the Lord Jesus came in the flesh because if He was merely a man, He could not redeem mankind. EVERYTHING about the first coming of the Lord Jesus was LITERAL. This is what John is driving at in showing who is from God and who is manifesting the spirit of antichrist. It was over the literalness of Christ’s first coming according to the Bible.
There is really no scripture about Christ’s first coming that was not literal. The following are just a few verses to show the Old Testament scriptures prophesying the Lord’s coming as a man were all literal. There is no spiritualizing the first coming of the Lord Jesus. It is all literal!
Isaiah 7:14 He was born of a virgin Micah 5:2 He was born in Bethlehem
Isaiah 9:1,2 His ministry would be from the Galilee
Isaiah 42:6,7 His healing ministry opened the physical eyes of the blind
Zechariah 9:9 He presented Himself to Israel as King riding on a donkey.
Isaiah 53:9 He was sinless
Isaiah 53:10 He was made an offering for sin
Psalm 22:14-17 He died on the cross as described in these verses.
Psalm 16:10 Jesus Christ bodily rose from the dead.
The above verses show what it means that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. Any denial of these verses means that this person is of the spirit of antichrist and not of God. For example, how can someone deny the virgin birth, and yet “confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh”? He had to be born from a virgin, so He could be the sinless Son of God to redeem mankind? To deny He was born from a virgin was to deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh.
Now let us look at the glorious Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.
By applying the test for His first coming, we can determine whether a doctrine of His Second Coming is from God or the spirit of the antichrist. The test is centered on the literalness of His coming. The Old Testament was literal about His first coming, so what changed about the literalness of His Second Coming? Can the first coming of Jesus Christ be literal, and yet, somehow the Second Coming is now switched to being spiritualized? Jesus Christ is coming the second time literally just as His first coming was.
Luke 21:24 Jesus Christ stated that the destruction of Jerusalem and dispersion of the Jews was temporary.
Zechariah 14:3,4 Jerusalem will be the literal location of His Second Coming.
Zechariah 12:6 Jerusalem will be the capital of a Jewish state.
Zechariah 12:6 Israel will be a great military power.
Ezekiel 36:16-24 God will restored the Jews back to Israel in unbelief before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.
Romans 11:26,27 At the Second Coming all Israel will be saved.
Ezekiel 36:8-15 The land of Israel will be greatly blessed.
Ezekiel 38:8 The Jews will be restored to Israel from all nations in the latter-day.
Daniel 7:13,14 Jesus Christ will return with the “Clouds of Heaven,” His church to establish a kingdom on earth.
Revelation 19:5-9 After the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, His bride will return with Him to Jerusalem.
Revelation 20:3-5 His kingdom will last of 1000 years.
Revelation 19:11-15 He is returning bodily.
Zechariah 14:12 When Jesus Christ returns, He will annihilate the armies gathered to destroy the Jews and Jerusalem.
Ezekiel 43:7 He will rule on the throne of David from His temple on Mount Zion.
There are many more scriptures but the ones posted above show what is needed to believe in the literal Second Coming of Jesus Christ. An integral part of Christ’s Second Coming is the restoration of the nation of Israel as He is returning to Jerusalem, and all of Israel will call upon Him as their Savior! This is the time when all Israel and not the church will be saved. How is it possible to spiritualize Romans 11:25-28?
Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. (26-27) And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. (28) As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.
The First and Second Coming of Jesus Christ together:
Zechariah 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.
Zechariah 9:10 And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off: and he shall speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth.
Based on Replacement Theology, is one suppose to believe that verse nine is literal, while the following verse is now spiritualized to mean something else? That Ephraim and Jerusalem now mean the church? The Lord Jesus came literally to Jerusalem in verse 9, but somehow Jerusalem in verse 10 is not to be understood literally? These two verses together show the fallacy of Replacement Theology. They both are literal.
Any person that tampers with the literalness of Christ’s Second Coming is playing with spiritual fire and is falling under the danger being condemned as being from the spirit of antichrist. How can someone claim to being led by the Holy Spirit and deny the literalness of Christ’s Second Coming, and in many cases actively hinder the fulfillment of God’s prophetic word? How can someone claim Jesus Christ as his Savior, and yet refuse to see the connection between the everlasting covenant and modern Israel?
The nation of Israel was twice destroyed in 600 BC and 70 AD. The second dispersion lasted for 1900 years, but now Jerusalem is once again the capital of Israel. They speak Hebrew which had been an extinct language. They even have shekels once again for money. The unbelief of Replacement Theology is very, very powerful. With Israel once again a nation, it takes a greater unbelief to deny Israel, then it does to believe the nation is the fulfillment of prophecy and covenant.
The Lord Jesus stated the coming destruction of Jerusalem, in His day, was only temporary until the “times of the Gentiles were fulfilled”. Current events are indicating that the “times of the Gentiles” are coming to an end.
Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
Just as apostates in the Apostle John’s day refused to believe the literalness of Christ’s first coming, now in our day there are huge numbers of people who refuse to believe in the literalness of Christ’s Second Coming. These people are in great spiritual danger. They share the same unbelief as Muslims as they refuse to believe the Bible. The Muslims reject modern Israel as does Replacement Theology. Because of this unbelief, God is in the process of merging these two groups. This can clearly be seen in the rhetoric and actions in many of the Replacement Theology camp. They and Muslims both use the very same rhetoric and arguments against Israel. They both are actively trying to delegitimize Israel.
Islam is being led by the spirit of antichirst, and now many of the Replacement Theology camp have merged with them. They face the same judgment as Islam. Whoever interferes with God’s prophetic plan for Israel faces judgment from the Holy God of Israel. The reason for this is the Second Coming of Jesus Christ is directly tied to the nation of Israel. He is returning to Jerusalem!
Obadiah 1:15 For the day of the LORD is near upon all the heathen: as thou hast done (To Israel), it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head.
Replacement theologists are not true believers in Christ, any more than Muslims or anyone else who denies and does not believe the Word of God is a Christian.
We need to remember that when these threads are posted.
Would you or the author of the article you posted in your reply like to explain Paul’s words in Romans and Ephesians? Seemed pretty clear to me....
Which commentators?
His argument is very weak and never really address the whole text. He limits it to Romans 9:6. Note what Paul states in Romans:
I was wondering, do you believe Rahab or Ruth to be children of the promise? Neither was a "true" Israelite. They were both Gentiles. Yet both are in the lineage of Christ and Rahab is in the roll call of faith in Hebrews.
None! God does establish the new covenant with the house of Israel and Judah. Scripture is clear and consistent on this in both the old and new testaments.
Pauls words in Ephesians and Romans shows that he believed that gentiles become part of Israel, not physical Israel, but the Israel of God, and become partakers of those promises given to Israel.
If we're Christians we're under the new covenant and we now have hope and God in our lives...as Paul said.
Now, at this time, are you prepared to say that God was lying when He made His promises to the literal nation of Israel when the Church was thousands of years away from being established?
While parts of Israel are definitely in the “church,” The church is definitely not Israel.
The 144,000 will not be made up of gentiles; they all will be genuine Israelites from each of the tribes as stated in Revelation.
The Israel that is within ethnic Israel is called the Remnant. Note that Christ spoke of tares within the church. That is why the church and the Bride of Christ are not one and the same. The church is a corrupt and fallible body.
.
It's an epistle to the saints at Rome. They are gentiles.
They were a Messianic Believers Community. Your understanding is incorrect.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
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.