The Son of Man returns with and for his people

[Spiritual Israelite]

I realize that. I'm not trying to be daft in explaining to you, once again, that Replacement Theology is the term for those who view "Israel" as the "International Church."

You're acting as if there are people who claim there is only one Israel and it's the "International Church", but people like me believe there are two Israels.

It doesn't matter if anybody is being replaced, and I understand that you're not replacing physical Israel with spiritual Israel.

How can that not matter when the term you're using is called "REPLACEMENT theology"? How can something be called "REPLACEMENT theology" if no one is being REPLACED? You need to come up with a better term that actually makes sense.

Rather, you're retaining physical Israel while asserting an "Israel" in an advanced international sense. Physical Israel has largely abandoned its spiritual heritage while a remnant of Israel retains it and is joined by an international group of believers, who now share a single heritage.

Uh huh. And this is "REPLACEMENT theology" how exactly?

Detractors would argue that this is "replacing" Israel with a new Israel, while you would not. Still, that is the term that is used for lack of a better term.

It's a terrible term and it annoys me greatly, as you probably have noticed.

I'm sorry it misconstrues the fact you do not "replace" Israel.

Are you really? I have a hard time believing that when you continue using that ridiculous term, anyway. Surely, you can come up with a better term than that. It shouldn't be difficult.

You just redefine them in a non-national sense, and claim that Israel has always been defined not as a nation of faith but only as a remnant of faith.

In Old Testament times the entire nation received blessings from God including the ones who didn't have faith. But, that changed in NT times. God took that way from those who lacked faith and they were cut off, as Paul wrote about in Romans 11. But, the ones who were cut off did not fall beyond recovery, but were given an opportunity to be grafted back in (to be saved), as Paul wrote about in Romans 11:11-14.

If I'm saying this wrong, you need to correct it. But what I often get is a long essay in what those of your doctrine believe, leaving no abbreviated term to express what you believe in contrast to other opposing beliefs. Then the fall back term becomes, once again "Replacement Theology."

Are you asking for someone to give you a term to use instead of "Replacement Theology"? How about "Unity Theology" because my view is all about God uniting Jew and Gentile believers together as one through their shared faith in His Son Jesus Christ.

Right, but the change from believing Israel to unbelieving Israel, to be replaced by believers in new nations does indicate a "replacement," as such. And I think we would both agree on this?

No, I disagree because Gentile believers would have been grafted in even if every person in Israel was a believer. The reason that the unbelieving Israelites were cut off was not so they could be replaced by believing Gentiles. The sole reason that the unbelieving Israelites were cut off was because of their unbelief. The believing Gentiles were going to be grafted in regardless since it was always God's plan to offer salvation to the Gentiles as well.

Those who disagree with "Replacement Theology" do not do so because they reject "replacement,"

That is the case for me. Please don't try to speak for me.

but rather, because it is being defined as a replacement *in perpetuity,* with no chance of restoring the nation of Israel to faith.

I don't know what you are talking about here. This does not apply to what I believe since my view is that the ones who were cut off in Paul's day had the opportunity back then to be grafted back in. If you would read Romans 11:11-14 you can see that the ones who were cut off back then and had stumbled (but not beyond recovery) were the ones that Paul said he hoped to help save some of them.

In fact, it is denied that the nation of faith ever existed or that it was even intended to be a nation of faith. Please correct me if I'm wrong?

You're wrong about my view. I'm wondering if you're even reading what I'm saying about what I believe and are just assuming that I believe the same thing as what other people you have in mind believe.

I do understand that God left a remnant of Jews to inherit promises made to Abraham.

And because of that Paul was able to say this:

Romans 11:1 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: 3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”? 4 And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.

At the same time, Jesus' statement that Israel would be replaced with a more worthy nation meant that the collective nation would be replaced.

Jesus never said that. I assume you are getting that from Matthew 21:43-45? What He indicated there was not that He was replacing the nation of Israel, but that He was taking the kingdom of God away from unbelieving Israelites like the scribes and Pharisees and would be giving it to people who obeyed Him instead, which includes both Jew and Gentile believers. The kingdom was never taken away from believing Israelites, so you are wrong to act as if Jesus was saying that Israel itself as a whole was being replaced. All He was saying is that one's nationality was no longer going to be enough for someone to share in God's blessings that He had given to the nation of Israel in OT times because one needed to put their faith in Him in order to enter the kingdom of God at that point.

This was a replacement of a national structure--not a replacement of the Jewish People. The promise was to bless their nation--otherwise they would be destroyed. Jesus indicated the nation would be destroyed.

Well, He indicated that Jerusalem would be destroyed, anyway. And it was.

The reserve of Christians within the Jewish People had nothing to do with revocation of God's blessing upon the nation as a whole. Consequently, the Kingdom being taken from Israel meant that God's blessings were not lifted from Jewish individuals who converted to Christianity, but from the nation as a whole since the majority had turned away from Christ.

I agree with this. I was starting to wonder if I would agree with anything you said in this entire post.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Paul was not saying that there are two Israels,

Yes, he most certainly was.

Romans 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

If we read this the way you understand it, it results in complete nonsense. The way you understand this, Paul would be saying not all who are descended from the nation of Israel are the nation of Israel. Huh? That's a completely nonsensical statement. How can you think that is what he was saying?

What I highlighted in red here refers to Spiritual Israel and what I highlighted in blue refers to national Israel. National Israel consists of those who have naturally, physically descended from Abraham and the nation of Israel. Those who are part of Spiritual Israel are "God's children", are "the children of the promise", and are "Abraham's offspring" (spiritually) and Paul very specifically said "it is not the children by physical descent who are God's children". So, he made it very clear that being part of Spiritual Israel has nothing to do with which nation someone descended from.

Do you see how I broke this passage down, Randy? I cannot take you seriously on this unless you do the same and show me exactly how you are coming to your conclusions of what this passage is saying. So, can you do that? You are saying things about it, but not showing exactly how you are coming to your conclusions.

I did not make up the Abrahamic promise, which promised the nation of Israel fulfillment, as well as a company of nations of faith. If you think I made that up, I wonder what you base your denial on?

I don't know what you are talking about here. If you want to properly understand the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise, then I suggest you read Galatians 3:16-29. You seem to always want to act as if that passage doesn't exist. You say the promises made to Abraham and his seed were made to Abraham and the nation of Israel and "a company of nations of faith". But, Paul, who is FAR wiser than you, said that the promises applied to Abraham and his seed, which is Jesus Christ. And he said they apply to those who belong to Christ as well, which includes both Jew and Gentile believers.

Paul was talking about Israel not being rejected in the sense that ultimately Israel would be restored. Israel certainly had been rejected as a nation representing the temporal Kingdom of God on earth. The nation, as a whole, had come under the curse of God, and now no longer represented a nation of God.

You are completely wrong about this and I have to wonder if you are even reading what it says in passages like Matthew 21:43-45 and Romans 11:1-5. Those passages don't say what you are saying here. Paul was talking about Israel not being rejected because there was a remnant of believers. No restoration was needed because Israel was not rejected due to that remnant of believers. To say that Israel as a whole was rejected requires you to ignore that Matthew 21:43-45 only applied to unbelieving Israelites and not to believing Israelites.

You seem to just ignore the remnant of believers that there were in Paul's day. Paul asked "Did God reject His people?" of which he said he was one when he said "I am an Israelite myself"? And the answer was "By no means!". But you say the answer is "Yes, He did, but one day He will restore them.". You seemingly just completely ignore what Paul actually said.

God continues to accept the remnant of Israel as a down payment on the final product, when Christ comes and reestablishes the entire nation on Christian law.

There is no scripture which teaches this.

The "grafting" had to do with the possibility of individual Jews returning to God by accepting Christ in the present age.

Yes. But, do you understand that even the ones who Paul said had been broken off of the cultivated olive tree had the opportunity to be grafted in again? Just read Romans 11:11-14. Do you agree that the ones who he said had stumbled, but did not fall beyond recovery, were the ones who had been broken off? If so, then can you see that Paul hoped to save some of them? You have this idea that God completely wrote those people off at that point

The complete restoration of the nation is not a "graft" but the Abrahamic Promise being fulfilled.

Your understanding of the Abrahamic promise is flawed because you are not accepting what Paul wrote about that in Galatians 3:16-29.

It is referred to in Romans 11.26 as well as in Acts 1.6-7.

Sorry, but in my view that's exactly what Paul taught. Rom 11 clearly and explicitly teaches that, as I interpret it.

Rom 11.26 and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written:
“The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27 And this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”

In my view, Paul is referring not to the restoration of Jewish individuals, but rather, to a restoration of the national politic, the restoration of a nation living in covenant with God, a "nation under God."

Which covenant is it by which people's sins are taken away? Do you not recognize that Paul was referencing an Old Testament prophecy there and was referencing the new covenant? What other covenant besides the new covenant can take people's sins away? The new covenant was established by the blood of Christ long ago. That is not talking about a nation having its sins taken away. That concept is not taught anywhere in scripture. It is individuals who repent and believe who have their sins taken away under the new covenant. That is what Romans 11:26-27 is about. And that is how all of those who are in Spiritual Israel, which consists of God's children, which are those who have faith in Christ (Galatians 3:26), are saved.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You're acting as if there are people who claim there is only one Israel and it's the "International Church", but people like me believe there are two Israels.

It's irrelevant to the point whether you believe in 2 Israels or not. Just the belief that you see Israel as a *non-national entity* in one of your definitions of "Israel" renders it a different definition of "Israel," as it would normally be referred to. To claim, for example, that "Israel" is just the "true believing remnant" within Israel is not the normal definition for Israel, which is normally an entire nation.

That may not be normally how you describe your "2 Israel" position. But in effect you end up with at least 1 Israel as being less a nation than a Salvation entity that is not really a nation at all. At best it is a metaphorical nation.

How can that not matter when the term you're using is called "REPLACEMENT theology"? How can something be called "REPLACEMENT theology" if no one is being REPLACED? You need to come up with a better term that actually makes sense.

It's not my term, brother. It may be inaccurate in the way you look at it. But to your detractors, it legitimately recognizes that the definition of "Israel," as normally used, has been changed. It now means "Individual Salvation," in place of "National Salvation." And if you refer to "National Salvation" at all, it is a metaphorical use of the term "nation." Again, the literal meaning of "Israel" is being changed by you.

It's a terrible term and it annoys me greatly, as you probably have noticed.

I can understand it that you're annoyed by the term "Replacement Theology" if it misrepresents your position. However, it is the only term I know of that distinguishes belief that Individual Salvation renders obsolete any literal sense of "national salvation."

Are you really? I have a hard time believing that when you continue using that ridiculous term, anyway. Surely, you can come up with a better term than that. It shouldn't be difficult.

Very few actually come up with terms for the general public.

In Old Testament times the entire nation received blessings from God including the ones who didn't have faith. But, that changed in NT times.

I don't believe God changes. The Covenant of Law may have lapsed or failed. But God's way of blessing nations has not changed. Nations may still enter into covenant relationships with God, to be Christian nations. They will surely bring blessings to those nations, if they are obedient, in the same way that Israel was blessed for being obedient under the Law.

No, I disagree because Gentile believers would have been grafted in even if every person in Israel was a believer. The reason that the unbelieving Israelites were cut off was not so they could be replaced by believing Gentiles. The sole reason that the unbelieving Israelites were cut off was because of their unbelief. The believing Gentiles were going to be grafted in regardless since it was always God's plan to offer salvation to the Gentiles as well.

Yes, we disagree. I believe the "grafting in" refers to individual Jews who wish to return to Israel as she was intended to be, who had been in a covenant relationship with God under the Law. By embracing Christ they can return to Israel's proper status with God, even though the nation as a whole continues to reject Christ.

That is the case for me. Please don't try to speak for me.

This is all part of a rhetorical process. Unless I express what I *think* you're saying I can't be corrected. Don't be so sensitive about those trying to "speak for you." I'm not speaking for you--I'm suggesting what I *think* you might be saying.

Jesus never said that. I assume you are getting that from Matthew 21:43-45? What He indicated there was not that He was replacing the nation of Israel, but that He was taking the kingdom of God away from unbelieving Israelites like the scribes and Pharisees and would be giving it to people who obeyed Him instead, which includes both Jew and Gentile believers.

I don't agree with that. Jesus pointedly said he was dismissing the entire nation from their land and standing with God. They would be *under punishement.* The veil of the temple was rent. The enter nation would be treated as in violation of the covenant, to the point of its being irrevocably broken.

This did not set aside Pharisees for special judgment--this was about the entire nation, notwithstanding some Jews were innocent of the respective sins of the nation. Jesus was indeed replacing Israel as the bearer of God's temporal Kingdom on earth with other nations worthy of embracing God's covenant, the new Christian Covenant.

 

[ewq1938]

And as you can see, in Rev 14, the 144,000 are viewed as those who did not have impure relations with women. Do you see the connection, agree or disagree?

One can be a virgin for other reasons as well such as spiritual.

2Co_11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

 

[ewq1938]

I realize that. I'm not trying to be daft in explaining to you, once again, that Replacement Theology is the term for those who view "Israel" as the "International Church." It doesn't matter if anybody is being replaced, and I understand that you're not replacing physical Israel with spiritual Israel.

If no one is replaced then it cannot be replacement theology.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It's irrelevant to the point whether you believe in 2 Israels or not. Just the belief that you see Israel as a *non-national entity* in one of your definitions of "Israel" renders it a different definition of "Israel," as it would normally be referred to.

It's not my definitions of Israel, it's Paul's definitions as given in passages like Romans 9:6-8. And spiritual Israel is referenced in passages like Ephesians 2:11-13 and Galatians 6:15-16 by Paul as well.

To claim, for example, that "Israel" is just the "true believing remnant" within Israel is not the normal definition for Israel, which is normally an entire nation.

I'm not even claiming that, I'm claiming that spiritual Israel consists of all believers, Jew and Gentile, because the requirements that Paul lists in Romans 9:6-8 for being part of spiritual Israel are to be one of the spiritual offspring of Abraham and to be a child of God and a child of the promise. If you read Galatians 3:26-29, you can see that is a description of all who belong to Christ, including both Jew and Gentile believers. That this may not be the definition of Israel that people normally think of is meaningless.

That may not be normally how you describe your "2 Israel" position.

No, it wasn't.

But in effect you end up with at least 1 Israel as being less a nation than a Salvation entity that is not really a nation at all. At best it is a metaphorical nation.

So? What is your point? It is a spiritual nation. It is the "holy nation" that Peter wrote about. You act as if that doesn't mean anything for some reason.

1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

It's not my term, brother. It may be inaccurate in the way you look at it. But to your detractors, it legitimately recognizes that the definition of "Israel," as normally used, has been changed.

No, it hasn't. Not in my view and in the view of the many others who see it as I do. In my view the nation of Israel is the nation of Israel. But then there is also spiritual Israel. Nothing has been changed. Why is it that you are trying to tell me what I believe instead of me telling you what I believe? This kind of thing happens constantly on this forum.

It now means "Individual Salvation," in place of "National Salvation."

It has always meant that in terms of spiritual Israel. There is no such thing as national salvation. NEVER has someone been saved because of their nationality. If you think otherwise then you are horribly mistaken.

And if you refer to "National Salvation" at all, it is a metaphorical use of the term "nation." Again, the literal meaning of "Israel" is being changed by you.

No, it isn't. I'm not changing anything. I do not appreciate you misrepresenting my view like this at all. And you're doing it even after I made it very clear that I believe there are 2 Israels. You're talking to me as if I believe there is only one Israel.

I can understand it that you're annoyed by the term "Replacement Theology" if it misrepresents your position.

It absolutely does. And my position is shared by many others.

However, it is the only term I know of that distinguishes belief that Individual Salvation renders obsolete any literal sense of "national salvation."

What renders the literal sense of "national salvation" obsolete is that it's never taught anywhere in scripture.

Very few actually come up with terms for the general public.

It would be nice, when talking about people who see things as I do, if you would use a term that actually represented what we believe.

I don't believe God changes.

No one said you did. I don't believe that, either.

The Covenant of Law may have lapsed or failed.

It didn't fail, it lapsed. Which was part of God's plan. Agree? It served its purpose successfully.

But God's way of blessing nations has not changed. Nations may still enter into covenant relationships with God, to be Christian nations.

That isn't taught anywhere in scripture. You are just saying things without offering any scriptural support to back them up.

They will surely bring blessings to those nations, if they are obedient, in the same way that Israel was blessed for being obedient under the Law.

They were not obedient under the Law. Where are you coming up with that? Do you not know that being guilty of breaking even one commandment makes you guilty of breaking them all (James 2:10)? If they could be obedient under the Law then Jesus wouldn't have had to come to die for their sins.

Yes, we disagree. I believe the "grafting in" refers to individual Jews who wish to return to Israel as she was intended to be, who had been in a covenant relationship with God under the Law. By embracing Christ they can return to Israel's proper status with God, even though the nation as a whole continues to reject Christ.

I believe you're not recognizing that Romans 11 is about individual salvation just like Romans 10:9-12 except that it's being described figuratively there instead of literally like it is in Romans 10.

This is all part of a rhetorical process. Unless I express what I *think* you're saying I can't be corrected. Don't be so sensitive about those trying to "speak for you." I'm not speaking for you--I'm suggesting what I *think* you might be saying.

You're not coming across that way. Maybe if you didn't constantly misrepresent what I believe then I wouldn't be as bothered by that.

I don't agree with that. Jesus pointedly said he was dismissing the entire nation from their land and standing with God.

Where did He say that? Please don't just make claims without backing them up with scripture.

They would be *under punishement.* The veil of the temple was rent. The enter nation would be treated as in violation of the covenant, to the point of its being irrevocably broken.

This did not set aside Pharisees for special judgment--this was about the entire nation, notwithstanding some Jews were innocent of the respective sins of the nation. Jesus was indeed replacing Israel as the bearer of God's temporal Kingdom on earth with other nations worthy of embracing God's covenant, the new Christian Covenant.

Please show me exactly how you are coming to these conclusions using scripture. I am not seeing this taught anywhere in scripture.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Right. I might add that any sensible person would render a just verdict by "discriminating" between the good and the bad. If there is such a thing as a just war at all, then one would identify one nation as the "good" and the other nation as the "bad." If there is an aggressor nation, it must be distinguished. As such, it is "discriminately identified."

If a particular race is acting as a whole in the "good" camp, then it is not "racist" to discriminately identify the race that is acting "good" and in good faith. When Israel was chosen, they chose initially to live in accord with God's Law. It was God's Law and adherence to it that made their "race" good, and different from pagan races. It was *not* "racism!"

The charge of "racism" is a distraction from the point that the Just Judge of Heaven may decide to select a large group of people to become recipients of His promises. But God has already determined that not just Israel can become the recipient of His promises, but there can be many other nations that are recipients of the same or similar promises. This is equity--not racism!

Right. We discriminate all the time. We have laws that discriminate based on age, for instance. We have decided that no one under 16 is allowed to drive; no one under 18 is allowed to vote; no one under 21 is allowed to drink alcohol. Married couples can file taxes jointly. And I might be missing many other ways we discriminate.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Right. We discriminate all the time. We have laws that discriminate based on age, for instance. We have decided that no one under 16 is allowed to drive; no one under 18 is allowed to vote; no one under 21 is allowed to drink alcohol. Married couples can file taxes jointly. And I might be missing many other ways we discriminate.

Oh my, I've just been reading tax law! ;( Not a strong point with me!

 

[CadyandZoe]

It's not my definitions of Israel, it's Paul's definitions as given in passages like Romans 9:6-8. And spiritual Israel is referenced in passages like Ephesians 2:11-13 and Galatians 6:15-16 by Paul as well.

These are not Paul's definitions, they misconstrue what Paul means to say. Spiritual Israel doesn't include Gentiles; Spiritual Israel are sons and daughters of Jacob that God has kept for himself for his own possession.

I'm not even claiming that, I'm claiming that spiritual Israel consists of all believers, Jew and Gentile, because the requirements that Paul lists in Romans 9:6-8 for being part of spiritual Israel are to be one of the spiritual offspring of Abraham and to be a child of God and a child of the promise.

Spiritual Israel doesn't include Gentiles. Spiritual Israel is comprised of every Jewish believer who is also a child of the promise.

If you read Galatians 3:26-29, you can see that is a description of all who belong to Christ, including both Jew and Gentile believers. That this may not be the definition of Israel that people normally think of is meaningless.

Yes, all who belong to Christ are circumcised of heart. And when the time comes, Spiritual Israel will also be circumcised of heart.

So? What is your point? It is a spiritual nation. It is the "holy nation" that Peter wrote about. You act as if that doesn't mean anything for some reason.

1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

Peter is talking about his kinsmen, not Gentiles in this passage. Remember that Peter is the apostle to the Jews and he is writing to the diaspora.

No, it hasn't. Not in my view and in the view of the many others who see it as I do. In my view the nation of Israel is the nation of Israel. But then there is also spiritual Israel. Nothing has been changed. Why is it that you are trying to tell me what I believe instead of me telling you what I believe? This kind of thing happens constantly on this forum.

Spiritual Israel doesn't exist yet. Spiritual Israel will exist at some time in the future when God decides to make his name holy.

I believe you're not recognizing that Romans 11 is about individual salvation just like Romans 10:9-12 except that it's being described figuratively there instead of literally like it is in Romans 10.

Romans 11 is about Israel's status before God. Verse one asks whether or not God has rejected his people; verse 11 asks whether or not Israel has stumbled and fallen to her destruction. The answer is no, God has not rejected his people and no, Israel did not fall to her destruction.

 

[covenantee]

But does he discriminate between a Jew and a Gentile? Yes.

Absolutely not.

Romans 10:12
For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

Galatians 3:28
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.

Colossians 3:11
Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

1 Corinthians 7:19
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Galatians 5:6
For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

Ephesians 2
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;


Who has the last word in Scripture?

It's not the OT.

 

[Randy Kluth]

It's not my definitions of Israel, it's Paul's definitions as given in passages like Romans 9:6-8. And spiritual Israel is referenced in passages like Ephesians 2:11-13 and Galatians 6:15-16 by Paul as well.

I'm not at this point arguing biblical interpretation with you--just pointing out how you view things differently from others. Your view has a label--Replacement Theology, or Supersessionism. Those who call you RT and miscommunicate what you actually believe may be abusive, but the term itself is not. It is just a tool to discriminate between what you believe and what others believe.

...I'm claiming that spiritual Israel consists of all believers, Jew and Gentile...

This is why it's called "Replacement Theology," because you think that "spiritual Israel consists of all believers, Jew and Gentile." That is a redefinition of the standard meaning of "Israel." It is a metaphorical usage of the same--not a literal definition.

1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

That expression, "a holy nation," applied to the nation Israel, and not to a metaphorical use of the term to apply to the international Church. It is your belief that it applies to the "International Church" that constitutes a redefinition of 'Israel," a non-literal meaning of the term.

No, it hasn't. Not in my view and in the view of the many others who see it as I do. In my view the nation of Israel is the nation of Israel. But then there is also spiritual Israel. Nothing has been changed. Why is it that you are trying to tell me what I believe instead of me telling you what I believe? This kind of thing happens constantly on this forum.

You are just not getting it! I'm not telling you that you don't have definition #1 for "Israel," namely that of a literal, physical nation. I've said you believe that a number of posts ago. What I am saying, however, is that your #2 definition for "Israel" is a metaphorical use of the term, which normally would be acceptable except that you apply it in places where definition #1 would normally apply. That's what renders your belief system RT, regardless of the fact you also hold to definition #1.

It has always meant that in terms of spiritual Israel. There is no such thing as national salvation. NEVER has someone been saved because of their nationality. If you think otherwise then you are horribly mistaken.

National Salvation would depend on one's nationhood if God promised that anybody from the U.S. should be saved. To fulfill that promise God would have to save somebody with US citizenship!

But you're charging God with racism and discrimination if God should promise to save a nation with a particular race? Why would that be, unless it left other races out? In this case, the promise of National Salvation for Israel does *not* leave other nations and races out!

God did promise Abraham a nation of his own descendants who would share in his faith. Do you then charge God with being a racist?

No, it isn't. I'm not changing anything. I do not appreciate you misrepresenting my view like this at all. And you're doing it even after I made it very clear that I believe there are 2 Israels. You're talking to me as if I believe there is only one Israel.

No, I'm treating only your #2 definition of Israel, which changes what should've remained the #1 definition of "Israel." Instead, you add a 2nd definition and apply it where the #1 definition should've been applied.

What renders the literal sense of "national salvation" obsolete is that it's never taught anywhere in scripture.

Again, my purpose here is not to argue our theological differences, but to point out why Replacement Theology is used in your case.

It didn't fail, it lapsed. Which was part of God's plan. Agree? It served its purpose successfully.

I believe the Law not just lapsed, but failed. God intended for it to fail, because the Law was in effect a confirmation of God's judgment in the Garden of Eden. Just a single sin exludes one from the Tree of Life. And for all practical purposes, Sin is communicated in both ourselves and our descendants. The net result is that a little leaven leavens the whole bunch. A nation starts with some sin, and ultimately becomes very sinful. The nation under the Law of Moses was destined to fail, not because God wanted Israel to fail, but only to show that all men sin and need atonement.

God always had a backup plan in the event the Law failed as a system. Even the Law was promised to have a backup to re-start it when it failed. You can read that in Leviticus and in Deuteronomy. Failure was judged to be when the super-majority of the population became so irresponsible with the covenant that it was effectively dead and the population was deported from their land. But God remedied this by promising them restoration contingent on their willingness to start the covenant back up again, obedient to its demands.

In the case of Israel's failure in the time of Christ, that was an apostasy, a deportation, and a complete failure under the Law. But this time, the backup plan took place through Christ's atonement, rendering all temporal atonements under the Law unnecessary and redundant.

They were not obedient under the Law. Where are you coming up with that?

General statements showing God's exasperation with Israel's repeated failings was not evidence of Israel's inability to *ever* obey the Law! This is just as true for the nations embracing Christianity as it was for Israel under the Law. There will always ultimately be failure, but in the meantime there is also the potential for obedience and blessing.

Where did He say that? Please don't just make claims without backing them up with scripture.
Please show me exactly how you are coming to these conclusions using scripture. I am not seeing this taught anywhere in scripture.

I've backed up everything I said with Scriptures. You can go back and re-read, if you wish? If there's any point I didn't back up with Scriptures, let me know? Our disagreement about what those Scriptures mean is likely where the problem is?

 

[covenantee]

Peter is talking about his kinsmen, not Gentiles in this passage.

False. He is addressing the Church, using figurative descriptions unique to the Church.

1 Peter 2
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

 

[Randy Kluth]

If no one is replaced then it cannot be replacement theology.

The definition of Natural Israel is replaced with Spiritual Israel.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Absolutely not.

Romans 10:12
For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

Galatians 3:28
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.

Colossians 3:11
Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

1 Corinthians 7:19
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Galatians 5:6
For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

Ephesians 2
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;


Who has the last word in Scripture?

It's not the OT.

You are taking scriptures out of context. Paul is talking about matters of salvation, and in that context, there is neither Jew nor Greek.


Look here.
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.

With respect to salvation, there is neither male nor female. But with respect to honor and respect, "Wives obey your husbands" "I do not permit a woman to teach."

Outside of the question of salvation, all categories remain. Children continue to obey their parents; wives continue to honor their husbands; slaves continue with their masters unless the master sets them free.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

To the Jew first . . .

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

These are not Paul's definitions, they misconstrue what Paul means to say. Spiritual Israel doesn't include Gentiles; Spiritual Israel are sons and daughters of Jacob that God has kept for himself for his own possession.

What good is it for you to just make claims without backing them up with scripture and showing how you are coming to your conclusions?

Here is why Gentiles are included in Spiritual Israel.

Romans 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

What I highlighted in red here represents Spiritual Israel and what I highlighted in blue represents national Israel.

So, with that in mind, we can see here that Spiritual Israel is referred to as "Abraham's children"/"Abraham's offspring" (his spiritual children/offspring - notice it's contrasted with his natural descendants), as "God's children", and as "the children of the promise". Notice that Paul very specifically indicates that "it is NOT the children by physical descent who are God's children" which means that being part of Spiritual Israel (and therefore being a child of God) has nothing to do with one's nationality. Did you miss that? Because what you said here contradicts that.

You say Spiritual Israel can't include Gentiles, even though Paul himself didn't say that. Does Paul ever write elsewhere about God's children who are also Abraham's children/offspring and children of the promise, which are the ones who make up Spiritual Israel? Yes, he did.

Galatians 3:26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

So, in Romans 9:6-8, Paul indicated that being part of Spiritual Israel has nothing to do with one's nationality and that it consists of those who are Abraham's children/offspring, are God's children and are children of the promise. What did Paul say in Galatians 3:26-29 about those who are Abraham's children/offspring, are God's children and are children of the promise? That they are those who have faith in Christ Jesus and belong to Him, whether Jew or Gentile. So, this makes both Jews and Gentiles who belong to Christ all part of Spiritual Israel.

Spiritual Israel doesn't include Gentiles. Spiritual Israel is comprised of every Jewish believer who is also a child of the promise.

What scripture can you reference to back this claim up?

Yes, all who belong to Christ are circumcised of heart. And when the time comes, Spiritual Israel will also be circumcised of heart.

When the time comes? LOL. What does that mean? The time already began long ago. Please explain the things you are saying so that we don't have to guess as to how exactly you are coming to these conclusions.

Peter is talking about his kinsmen, not Gentiles in this passage. Remember that Peter is the apostle to the Jews and he is writing to the diaspora.

Did you somehow forget that Peter also preached to Gentiles? Have you never read Acts 10 which gives the account of Peter preaching to Cornelius and other Gentiles? Also, did you not read the verse after 1 Peter 2:9 to help understand the context of the verse?

1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

How do you figure that the Jews "once were not...the people of God"? That can't possibly be what he was saying because they were considered the people of God before that time. No, the ones who were once not the people of God were those who put their faith in Christ and became the people of God through faith in Christ, and that includes the Gentiles. They were joined together as one with the Jews who believed. So, the holy nation Peter referred to must, at the very least, include Gentile believers because that holy nation consists of those who were formerly not the people of God.

Spiritual Israel doesn't exist yet.

LOL. This statement can't be taken seriously. Paul clearly referred to Spiritual Israel as a current reality in Romans 9:6-8 as well as in other passages like Ephesians 2:11-13 and Galatians 6:15-16.

Spiritual Israel will exist at some time in the future when God decides to make his name holy.

The things that you believe are just sad. You are wrong about almost everything.

Romans 11 is about Israel's status before God. Verse one asks whether or not God has rejected his people; verse 11 asks whether or not Israel has stumbled and fallen to her destruction. The answer is no, God has not rejected his people and no, Israel did not fall to her destruction.

So, Gentiles are not referenced at all in Romans 11? Should Romans 11 be read in isolation from Romans 9 and 10 as if what he wrote there had nothing to do with what he had just written previously or did Paul have an overall narrative in Romans 9-11? I vote for the latter.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The definition of Natural Israel is replaced with Spiritual Israel.

And who is doing that exactly?

 

[Randy Kluth]

And who is doing that exactly?

The rendering of 2 definitions for "Israel" and then conflating them results in a change in definition #1 to definition #2. The fact is, definition #2 is different from definition #1. The fact you think they should be separated into 2 definitions does not remove the fact that others do not agree with it. To me, this constitutes a change in definition.

Let's say I have 2 definitions for "cave," the normal one, meaning a hole in a granite mountain, and another one, a "man cave," or a place in the basement for doing my own thing. That's all acceptable and good, to have 2 definitions for the same word. But when I start stating that in every place I reference a hole in the side of a hill, I infer or say that it is a "man cave," I'm confusing the definition of what an actual "cave" is.

That's what you're doing with the word "Israel." You're replacing it where it belongs as a literal nation and trying to impose your 2nd definition on it, referring to the International Church. In doing so, you're effectively *replacing* one definition with another in cases where that should not be done. It certainly can be done in certain situations. But you do it in situations where many others believe literal "Israel" is in view.

I don't know why you get so worked up about it? You just seem unable to accept that people brand your belief with a particular name and then try to affix *what you actually believe* to it, in contrast to how others would see it. It's a difference of opinion that has existed for perhaps 2000 years. Why be ashamed of it, if that's what you truly believe?

 

[covenantee]

You are taking scriptures out of context. Paul is talking about matters of salvation, and in that context, there is neither Jew nor Greek.


Look here.
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.

With respect to salvation, there is neither male nor female. But with respect to honor and respect, "Wives obey your husbands" "I do not permit a woman to teach."

Outside of the question of salvation, all categories remain. Children continue to obey their parents; wives continue to honor their husbands; slaves continue with their masters unless the master sets them free.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

To the Jew first . . .

The Gospel continued to be preached to the Jews first and alone for 3 1/2 years after Jesus' death and resurrection (Acts 3:25,26; Acts 13:46). Thereafter, beginning with the conversion of Cornelius, the Gentiles were included (Acts 11:18).

Gentiles have been full and complete recipients of the Gospel since that time.

God is not a racist.

Acts 10
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

That is not limited to salvation. It extends to the entirety of Christian life experience for every person in every nation.

 

[Keraz]

The definition of Natural Israel is replaced with Spiritual Israel.

I have read, mostly; the replies on this thread.
The glaring lack here, to me; is the omission of how ancient Israel was divided into two entities, two nations, who actually fought against each other. The Lord said this division was His doing: 1 Kings 12:20-24 There was then and still is now, the House of Israel and the House of Judah.

Jesus clearly said that He came to save the House of Israel, Matthew 15:24, who were exiled and are still scattered around the world, an uncountable multitude. Hs mission succeeded and we Christians are the result.
Thinking that the Jews, who have wrongly usurped the name of Israel, are the only ethnic Israelites is not correct.

So, the many Prophesies telling of a restoration of Israel are yet to happen, the House of Judah has come back to a small part of the holy Land, but in apostasy and many Prophesies tell of their virtual demise on the Day the Lord will clear and cleanse all of the holy Land.

I view the Prophecy in Ezekiel 20:32-38, as a very telling and informative scripture. Many of those who were born into Israel, will be thrown into the dark; Matthew 8:11-12

 

[ewq1938]

The definition of Natural Israel is replaced with Spiritual Israel.

That is still replacing.

Luckily, no replacing took place. Natural Israel (olive tree) has received new branches from other wild olive trees. They are all real olive branches. The spiritual part means the Holy Spirit is involved. You can only be upon the olive tree if you have faith in Jesus. Any Jesus-rejecters are removed and are no longer part of this despite being born legally as an Israelite (also known as Jewish).

So, you are only part of Israel if you have Jesus. There was no replacing in this. There was removing. There was joining (grafting). No replacement. Paul was clear no replacing was taking place by speaking against the idea that anyone was removed so new branches could be brought in.