Bible Discussion Thread

Hello Jema

S, Spencer has responded. He represents the Dispensational point of view. It teaches that when Israel is spoken of in Scripture it is always ethnic, national Israel. Also it teaches that the Church and the Jews are always to be kept distinct from one another forever.

I do not adhere to the dispensational theological viewpoint about Israel and the Church. I hold more to the Covenant Theology view concerning Israel and the Church. This view states that in the Old Testament and under the Old Covenant Israel is most often addressing ethnic, national Israel, excepting that some Scriptures are speaking prophetically about Jesus. The nation of Israel under the Old Covenant is a type or shadow of what was to come in the New Testament and New Covenant of Jesus.

In the New Testament and New Covenant, Jesus is the completion of the Old Testament and Old Covenant. He is the "Seed" promised to Abraham in Ge. 17:7 as Paul tells us in Gal. 3:16. Further in chapter 3 Paul speaks of those who believe in Jesus as being children of God (which is the same thing said of ethnic Israel in the Old Covenant) ( Gal. 3:26). Because we have put on Christ through our baptism (vs. 27), in Him there is neither Jew nor Greek (Gentile) for all believers are one in Christ (vs. 28) and therefore, if we be Christ's then we are Abraham's seed (Israel) and heirs according to the promise (to Abraham in Gen. 17:7)

Gal. 4:24-25 speaks of the Jews (Jerusalem) as being in bondage to Judaism (the Law) being of Mt. Sinai and of bondage to the Law given. But in vs. 26-31 speaks of the Church as the New Jerusalem, of Isaac, children of the promise given to Abraham. Verse 30 says that the children of the bond woman (ethnic Israel under the law of Moses) is cast out and the children of the promise (vs, 30) (the Church of the New Covenant in Christ, the promised Seed) are heirs of the promises to Abraham. We (the church) are heirs to what was promised to the heir of Abraham, who is Jesus.

cont.

Thanks Gigi , to you and S. Spenser , I'm still interested in other people's views on this if anyone else would like to answer . For me , I always used to believe that all Jews ALL , would be saved and in God's Kingdom . Over the years of reading I'm changing my mind I think . I'm at the stage where I believe that , all physical Jews who were waiting for their Messiah and died before Christ , are saved . Once Christ came and initiated the new covenant in his blood then he is now The Way and the only Way .Everyone who believes in Christ is now the Israel of God . I also believe , that when Christ returns to earth , that any humans still alive , whatever creed race religion they are , they will be given the opportunity to accept him as their saviour and if they do they will be saved also . I think we all need to be open minded about our beliefs , mine do occasionally change as I keep reading the Bible and this site , it's no shame to change our beliefs if we discover that we got something wrong or misinterpreted something . God works in us to bring us all closer to Him , this can take time as we humans only have limited understanding , Our Heavenly Father is limitless in wisdom , truth and thankfully patience :) .

Hi Jema,

I may be different, but in my understanding of the Bible, I approach scripture simply and do not try to complicate things with preconceived ideas and let the Bible and the Holy Spirit do the interpretation. To me, a symbol will have a non-symbolic meaning.

A symbol represents something real, a real person, a real thing, or a historical event. When I read, I understand words in a literal sense first, then in a figurative or spiritual sense if the literal doesn't make sense.

Are the Christians now the Israel of God? Have the promises to Israel and the church merged into one common heritage? If so that brings up.

Will the promise of the land given to Abraham's seed, Isaac then Jacob be fulfilled? Isaiah 11:11-12 Ezekiel 37:21-25 Jeremiah 24:5-6 Ezekiel 34:11-12 Ezekiel 36:24-26 Hosea 3:4-5 Micah 4:6-7 Zechariah 13:8-9

Will Jesus the Messiah return and reign on the earth, with a rod of iron? Isaiah 2:1-4 Isaiah 11:1-4 Daniel 2:44 Daniel 7:14 Zechariah 14:1-4 Jeremiah 3:17 Revelation 2:26-27 Revelation 11:15 Revelation 12:5 Revelation 19:11-21.

Will there be a literal millennium during which Satan will not deceive the nations and Christ will reign on earth? Revelation 20:1-6 2 Timothy 2:11-12 Isaiah 2:2-4 Isaiah 11:5-16 Isaiah 65:19-25 Isaiah 51:4-5 Zechariah 14:16-21 Micah 4:1-4 Psalms 46:7-11 Matthew 19:28.

To me there are too many scriptures that are showing God has not replaced Israel with the Church. We see in Romans 11:24-27 a day when God will again turn to Israel, the day Jesus returns. Forgive me if some of the scriptures do not fit.

God bless,

RLW

Thanks for your response RLW . You have given me plenty to think about :) . So many of Jesus's parables seem to indicate that physical Israel will be rejected if they have rejected Christ , e.g. Luke Ch 12 verse 41-46 , Ch 13 verse 23-30 Ch 14 verse 15-24 , I could go on and on . I shall certainly look up all the references you gave me and thanks so much for your reply .

Good Morning Jema,

You are right, we are to keep open to the workings of the Holy Spirit as to understanding His word and the formation of our beliefs. You are right in that what we think is correct may change in time, and we should be willing to consider other ideas.

Hi Gigi.

You said I represents the Dispensational point of view.

I wouldn't be so quick to say that being that other dispensationalist may disagree. ( All don't have the same views.)

So you may falsely assign a view on someone by labeling and grouping.

For instance; You said "it teaches that when Israel is spoken of in Scripture it is always ethnic, national Israel. Also it teaches that the Church and the Jews are always to be kept distinct from one another forever."

What you should have said is that S Spencer believes God is not through with the nation Israel and there's unfulfilled promises to Abraham and David concerning them that will be fulfilled literally.

Now if "according you" that's dispensationalism, then according to your interpretation of it that you're right. On that basis only!

I only speak for me, You speak for covenant theology as you said but neither do the hold the same views as a whole.

To see where we differ we would have to examine the covenants.

The covenants ( to Israel ) differ from the promise (from Israel.)

Here's a exercise that I would like to present. This exercise is not to promote a eschatological viewpoint but to give understanding how one uses hermeneutics (the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation, especially of the Bible or literary texts.) when forming eschatological views.

This exercise is that it will give you a chance to examine your approach to scripture and again it's not intended to promote eschatological views, It's your approach to scripture as a whole.

Here's a few questions to consider. Does God mean what he says? Does God change his mind? And last but not least, what is God saying?

God bless.

oops, S, Spencer,

I looked back and it was your post that brought up dispensational and covenant theology to Jema. That seemed to be the way that the conversation was going so, knowing you favor dispensational tenets as opposed to covenant, I thought I could be the one to present more on covenant theology and you could explain dispenational theology for Jema. I would like to read what you would write concerning that.

Gigi.

Example. Part 2.

Romans 9:1-6.

Who is Paul's Kinsman of the flesh? Is it the church? No. I'm sure most agree on that.

Paul tells us here in Romans 9:3-4.For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

Some believe the distinction made here in

Romans 9:6 is Israel and the Church but scripture Identifies them for us.

Here in Romans 9:7-8 Paul is simply saying Israel don't inherit salvation by natural birth/Kinsman of the flesh,

You inherit it by the promise, which is Christ. He's making a distinction between believing Israel and non believing Israel.

The Church at large is not in the discussion here.

Paul is clearly talking about Abraham's descendants.

It gets clearer as we read

Romans 9:9-10

I'm going to leave off right here Gigi.

It's getting late here and I'm using the cellphone.

I will get back to this when I can get in front of my computer.

Again I will like to go to the OT and comb through the details of the covenants and promises.

God bless you.

Hello S. Spencer,

I agree that for the most part, in Romans 9 Paul is speaking about ethnic Israel, who mostly rejected Jesus and he says that a remnant will be saved. The subject really is not Israel nor the Church but God's righteousness and mercy and how one receives these.

Romans 10:14 says that there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek; for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon Him. So, Paul is speaking to gentiles believers here and chapter 9 and 11. Showing them that though they were not God's people, gentiles are now God's people ( Rom. 9:25-26) So I think that Paul was actually contrasting believers (both Jews and Gentiles) and unbelieving Jews.

Gigi.

You stated; In Romans 9 "the subject really is not Israel nor the Church but God's righteousness and mercy and how one receives these.

Here is how Romans 9 starts;

1) "I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,

2) That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.

3) For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

Here's how it ends;

9:31) But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

32) Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

33) As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Here's how Ch 10 starts;

10:1) Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

2) For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

Here's how ch 10 ends;

21) But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

Here's how Ch 11 starts.

1)I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

2) God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,

Here's the conclusion:

Romans11:25-27.

Back to my point.

Romans 9:6

"For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:" doesn't refer to the Church.

It speaks of the promise of God, not the work of man.

Inheritance was not through natural birth!

It's through the promise given to Abraham back in Genesis.

The text involves Natural Israel and the Israel of God. (The remnant) Romans 11:5.

God bless.

Hello S. Spencer

I agree that the reference of "they are not all Israel who are of Israel" does refer to ethnic Israel.

Steven, I do not wish to belabor this thread I have shared with Jema what I understand on this topic, and you have, too and can do so further. My intention was not to get in a long thread with you. You are welcome to go through these chapters and give your understanding as I did, but I do not wish to exchange with you because most of the time it doesn't feel right to me. Have a good evening. I would love to read your whole analysis of this topic to Jema, but, please, do not direct it to me.

Understood Gigi.

God bless you and all you do.

If God permits I will try to go to the OT and highlight some of the covenants and prophecies and see when and if they were "fully" fulfilled as presented.

It's a way to investigate and shape our hermeneutics.

There will be several views on this and it should atleast help one in examining their approach to scripture.

So it definitely won't be a debate where we challenge one views.

It won't be directed to individuals or focused on a certain eschatology viewpoint.

Instead we will let the scripture send us in the direction it intended.

Good luck! Right?

God bless.

S. Spencer

That sounds good. I have been reading on these promises and covenants also. But I will let you do the posting and I will l"listen in". Thank you for this in advance.

Did Israel faithlessness void God's promises to Israel?

Romans 3:3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

Paul is asking if there is someone without faith, shall their lack of faith cancel out the faithfulness of God?

Paul answers that in vs 4 God forbid:

Israel's failures doesn't void out the promises of God.

God's promise to send Israel the redeemer was not voided by their wilful disobedience and rejection.

All his promises for the future of the nation will be fulfilled to his glory in spite of their unbelief. This is the unconditional covenant God made with Abraham.

Here's a few more verses causes people to believe the Church is the new Israel.

Galatians 3:28-29.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Romans 2:28-29

"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Now these verses is not talking about an ethnic group.

Paul gives us the subject of the matter in Romans 3:1.

"What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?"

Now here is where Paul was actually contrasting the Jews and the law, and the promise by faith of Jesus Christ.

Colossians 2:11-12.

This contrast the belief that righteousness came by the outwardly circumcised jew and the circumcision of the heart, in the spirit,

In other words Abraham was given the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith before he was circumcised.

Romans 4:11-13.

So Jew and Israel is not always used synonymous in the scripture.

Hi Gigi.

Part 1

This exercise is not to promote a eschatological viewpoint or to explain neither dispensationalism or covenant theology.

It's to give understanding on how one uses hermeneutics when forming eschatological views.

This exercise will give us a chance to examine our approach to scripture whether it's fundamentally, figuratively, allegorically, ect.

It's not intended to promote eschatological views, It's the approach to scripture as a whole is what's being examined.

So it's not a breakdown of whatever theological category we espouse..

Its simply does God mean what he says? Does God change his mind? And what is the word of God actually saying?

It's also paying close attention to detail on scripture and putting it in context. Especially when linked to the covenants and promises without focusing on a particular theology.

Here's an example;

Galatians 6:12-16.

verse 16 is a scripture that causes a lot of controversy.

vs16- "And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on (THEM,) and mercy, and upon the ISRAEL OF GOD.

(Who's the them? The believing Gentiles! ) uncircumcised.

( PUTTING IT INTO CONTEXT )

Paul is completing his distinction he was making between the two believing groups he was talking about in the previous verse.

Vs 15) For in Christ Jesus neither CIRCUMCISION availeth any thing, nor UNCIRCUMCISION, but a new creature.

Who's the Israel of God? ( The believing Circumcised) Israelites.

Paul is saying in Christ we're all the same.

He's not calling the Church the Israel of God. Read through it from verse 12.

See example part 2.

God bless.

Hello S. Spencer,

In reviewing Gal. 6_11-16, it clearly says that in Christ, whether one is circumcised or not doesn't matter, but what matters most is being a new creation. This way of speaking of re-birth, regeneration, or being made alive in Christ. It is speaking of the Church as the Israel of God, both jew and gentile, as Paul in Rom. 11 speaks of the church as gentiles being ingrafted into the olive tree of believing Israel with Jesus as the root. When we take in what Paul says in chapter Romans 11 then Gal. 6:16 makes more sense.

This is how I understand this passage, but I am sure you will disagree.

Hi Gigi.

In Galatians 6:15-16 we've already established that Paul is speaking of the Church.

However it's clear he's talking about the two people in the body.

"The circumcision and the uncircumcision."



That's clear from verses 12-15.

Vs 15) "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

Here in vs 16 he's clearly still dealing with the same two groups that make up the Church.

vs 16) "And as many as walk according to this rule, ( PEACE BE ON THEM,) and mercy, ( AND UPON THE ISRAEL OF GOD.)

If the Israel of God is the Church, Who do you say "the them" is?

There's definitely two groups within the Church Paul is speaking on from vs 12 onwards.

There's no way or reason to cross them up being that the circumcision is always speaking of Israel so the Israel of God relates to them.

And the uncircumcision always refers to the Gentiles and "Them" refers to the Gentiles.

The entire context is on "the two" in Christ.

So yes I do disagree.

I do agree with you that Romans 11 says the Gentiles are grafted into the vine. And the Church is made up as Jews and Gentiles.

No ones debating that.

However that has nothing to do with what Paul is saying in Galatians 6:12-16.

And it has nothing to do with my point.

My point is the Church is not called the Israel of God in the scripture.

More to come

God bless.

Hello S. Spencer.

do believe You are right. Not all dispensationalist think as you do. Classic Dispensationalism of Darby, Chafer, Scofield, Ryrie, and Walvoord, from what I know do have the distinction between Israel from the Church and an eternal separation of Israei from the Church as paramount and foundational tenets of their theology that must be kept in view whenever interpreting Scripture. You may not think this way. As with any theological viewpoint, there is a continuum of which people of that theology fall. Your view about Israel still having some promises for God to fulfill with them is a tenet of dispensationalism and not of covenant theology. But you may not adhere to the tenet of keeping Israel and the Church separate as Darby taught.

It was my understanding that Jema was asking for information about dispensationalism and covenant theology.

I did not mean to misrepresent you in any way. Thanks for clarifying.

As to your questions, I don't think it would be helpful for me to get in a discussion on them, not because I think we probably disagree, but because I think that there are better resources than this forum to explore such questions as an individual.

I will certainly keep them in mind and seek to answer them for myself privately.