The False Idea of Replacement Theology
- Thread starter Davy
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
Have you read Daniel 9 where God does away with both the OT and the NT?
Once sin is removed and eternal righteousness the norm, no human will be in Adam's dead corruptible flesh.
We are still in Adam's dead corruptible flesh 1993 years after the Cross. In fact, even all the dead are still the dead in your interpretation of Daniel 9. No one has been resurrected, have they? You seem to think we are only represented in heaven inside the physical body of Jesus Christ, no?
I am the one stating that the sacrifices for sin will not continue into the Millennium per the book of Hebrews. I pointed out the feast of tabernacles is not just about animal sacrifices. You ignored the verses presented. (Or that was a different forum)
There is no sin in the Millennium. I explained it was back to the way Adam and Eve were prior to Adam's disobedience. I explained that disobedience meant instant death, not the ability to live in sin in a state of death, like Adam and Eve lived in sin and death.
You think disobedience has to be sin. You think sin has to be in reality, if there is a reality with Laws. Disobedience can result in death alone. No sin attached. God can even destroy a person prior to disobedience, to avoid harm to others. Yet you call that nonsense. Why do you think I am stuck in understanding Hebrews, when you default to that book instead of understanding the first 4 chapters of Genesis?
During the Millennium the NT Covenant will be inferior to the Law written in the hearts and will of every person born on the earth. Now we can sin because it is our nature to sin. We have to repent and confess that sin. In the Millennium, an act of disobedience against the natural law written in their nature, means instant death. Disobedience will be against nature, not one's nature. No one will mourn the death of a loved one, because they will be considered cursed and removal from society will be deemed a blessing.
So after the Second Coming, why would God, after removing sin and transgression, bring back the NT Covenant that allowed one to live in sin and disobedience in Adam's dead corruptible flesh?
Are you saying you have left Adam's dead corruptible flesh in the second birth and are now in a permanent incorruptible physical body? The Cross was only a part of the fulfillment of Daniel 9:24-27. At the 7th Trumpet, the time given as 70 weeks will be up. Then both the OT and NT economy will be done away with. Because for the last 1993 years we have been living under the Hebrews 8 NT economy, but that was not the point of Daniel 9:24. After the 7th Trumpet the economy will be even superior to the NT economy.
Disobedience will not be eradicated. The ability to break a law will not be eradicated. Having a sin nature and the propensity of sin and death will be eradicated. But disobedience will not be normal. Disobedience is just the flip side to living with a Law. But not a Law that points to Adam's punishment. A law we obviously have no idea about, since no one has produced the future Law they can disobey.
If one cut off their head would the OT economy of animal sacrifices prevent death? If one cut off their head under the NT covenant would that prevent death? I don't think death would be prevented in the Millennium if one cut off their head. But common sense would dictate don't do it. It would seem that the laws that dictate nature would prevent people from even doing stupid stuff, just as they did prior to Adam's disobedience. Not like in fantasy where if one did something stupid they could not die.
So if they cannot do anything to break a law, then what is the point of redemption? After Satan is loosed, he will decieve many into an act of war, but no war will happen, because they are consumed by fire before they can act out their desire. You rationalize they are sinners in an economy you don't even understand, because sin and transgression don't even exist. Sin and transgression still exist in the current NT economy. To state otherwise is self deception. 1 John 1:7-10
"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."
That is the NT economy that replaced the OT economy. But after the Second Coming and the 7th Trumpet, Daniel 9:24 will mean all sin and transgression will be removed. Not only will the OT Covenant of Moses be obsolete, but so will the NT Covenant be obsolete. The one you think I cannot grasp, when it is you who deny the Day of the Lord when Daniel 9:24 will be realized.
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
I don't claim there are two Israels. So saying you do is not a misrepresentation since you yourself make that quite clear. If you claim there are two Israels that is replacing the original with two, no?
When do you think God created a second Israel?
I have pointed out that in giving Jacob the name Israel it did not create two Israels nor was Jacob replaced with Israel. If you think Jacob is natural Israel, then you don't need two Israels. Jacob is the ethnic nation, and Israel is the spiritual nation. But the offspring is the same, no? How could only certain offspring of Jacob become Israel and the rest remain Jacob? I think you are still missing the whole point where God was not a respector of who is whom. Now we see that even Jacob or was it Israel who chose one son over the other.
"And when Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, it displeased him: and he held up his father's hand, to remove it from Ephraim's head unto Manasseh's head. And Joseph said unto his father, Not so, my father: for this is the firstborn; put thy right hand upon his head. And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations."
Was that God's choice or Jacob's? God cut off those of Israel who were no longer Israel. You don't have to have 2 Israels running separately side by side. Israel is the spiritual as opposed to Jacob the physical ethnicity. Saying there are two different Israels defeats the spiritual purpose, no? You are saying there are two spiritual entities side by side. Then how does not all of Israel are Israel make any sense? Which Israel is now part of the other Israel? I guess only you can keep it straight in your head. You do realize the word Jacob is used in Scripture way after Jacob was dead to indicate those of the flesh instead of those remaining under the spiritual blessing? Even the term Israel was seemingly lost when the ten northern tribes were scattered leaving only the Jews.
Hope was restored with Daniel. Then the coming of Messiah restored the meaning of Israel. But the restoration was not complete, even though you all seem to literally think Israel can never be restored but has been replaced by the church. That is not a misrepresentation. You all deny Paul's point.
"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."
Yes, in the NT economy there is no difference between Israel and Gentile. Obviously being born either way makes no difference. Did it make a difference prior to the Cross?
Could God remove one's status in Israel, ie cut them off as a natural branch? What does a natural branch even mean if being born an Israelite meant nothing prior to the Cross? Blindness was never given to the Gentiles but to Israel which is the spiritual term for Jacob. Gentiles were naturally blind being wild and not natural. Certainly it did not mean they stopped understanding the OT Law. It means that Israel as spiritual was in the same condition as wild Gentiles.
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
Thanks for representing brethren, that are ignorant of this mystery, and wise in their own conceits.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
No, I haven't since Daniel 9 has absolutely nothing to do with doing away with the NT. That is utter nonsense. It has to do with Jesus establishing the new covenant, not doing away with it. Good grief. Unbelievable.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
You weren't talking about what you believe, you were talking about what I believe and misrepresenting it. You were acting as if I believe that spiritual Israel replaces national Israel. No, I do not. That would require there originally being one Israel (national Israel) and then it being replaced by spiritual Israel, leaving one Israel. That is not what I believe. What is hard for you to understand about this?
If I believed that there was once one Israel and then later there were two Israels, that would mean I believed one was added to the other. How is that a case of one being replaced by two? That's nonsense. Nothing is replaced in that scenario. But, I don't even believe that. I believe spiritual Israel is simply a reference to the Israel of God, which consists only of God's people (believers) and that is has existed from the beginning.
I believe God created spiritual Israel when he created Adam and Eve. So, the second Israel in my view would be the nation of Israel. But, I know your question was intended to ask me when I think He created spiritual Israel, so I answered that question. Spiritual Israel is simply a reference to people who have a personal, spiritual relationship with God and who have faith like Abraham did. Some might say it started with Abraham, but the point is that it was created long ago.
If there aren't two Israels, then what do you think Paul meant when he said not all who are descended from Israel are Israel? You can't possibly make sense of that statement unless there are two Israels.
Where are you getting this from?
You're asking if the ethnic offspring and spiritual offspring are the same? Of course not. The spiritual Israel of God consists only of believers who are the children of God. Being part of the ethnic offspring only requires having the same ethnicity whether you have faith or not.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. Why are you acting as if Jacob and Israel are different people. Jacob was a person and God changed his name to Israel. You're turning something simple into something very convoluted that only you can understand, if you can even understand what you're saying. I can't read any more of your nonsense. It's making my head spin.
You wouldn't be mystified if you'd stop wallowing in unrighteousness, and accept the Everlasting Righteousness of Calvary. Daniel 9:24
But you won't, so you are.
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
Except that is not used in Scripture. The called out assembly is not Israel. The called out assembly was called the congregation, and today we call it the church, not Israel. Abel was not called Israel. The church does not distinguish between Israel and Gentile, so why name the church Israel? The church is symbolized as the body of Christ, or the bride of Christ.
In Abraham we are the seed of Christ, a seed of Abraham. But in the church we are called out of Adam's dead corruptible flesh, not an ethnicity, but humanity as a whole. Israel is an ethnicity called out of Egypt which is a type. But Israel is a nation among all the nations on earth. That is a fact that cannot be changed ever.
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
Because God cut them off. They are no longer Israel.
There is no Israel in the LOF.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Paul called it "The Israel of God". Why do you try to create rules about how many terms can be used to described the congregation of God's people? It's called the church, the body of Christ, the bride of Christ, the Israel of God and the New Jerusalem. Paul called it "The Israel of God" here.
Galatians 6:15 Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation. 16 Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God.
In this passage Paul referred to those who have been made a "new creation", which is not determined by whether someone is circumcised or not (whether they are a Jew or Gentile) as being part of "the Israel of God". He described the same people who are said to make up the church as making up "the Israel of God", so that means the Israel of God is the church.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
That's not what Paul was saying at all. Being cut off because of unbelief didn't mean that an Israelite was no longer a part of the nation of Israel. No, they were still citizens of the nation of Israel. So, that means they were cut off from a different Israel, which is spiritual Israel or "the Israel of God" (Galatians 6:16).
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
Yet you insist there is an Israel not of God. Of course Israel is of God. God changed Jacob's name to Israel, and all of Jacob were of the Israel of God. Until they were cut off.
The church is not of Jacob, so no, the church is not the Israel of God. The OT congregation was the Israel of God. The church post the Cross is of Christ or the bride of Christ.
"And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God."
The church walks according to the rule: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature."
And the Israel of God is another group. That group faded away, because after the Cross, God did not deal directly with Israel. Paul did not say in this verse the church was the Israel of God.
In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul pointed out one time the term Israel of the flesh in comparison with believers, in that one partook of communion in Christ, and the other those sacrifices no longer necessary. After stating that Christ was with them all along.
"I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?"
"And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness."
Israel of the flesh was of Christ and drank of that rock. But many were also overthrown, and cut off like in the example of the natural olive tree. But the church is no longer of a fleshly identity even of Israel. The church is now the new birth into the family of God whether you are born into Israel or not.
Being in the church is not physical nor the first resurrection which is physical. Yet it is Paul that claimed all of Israel, even after the flesh, were of God. Until they were not. The term Israel was giving to Jacob as a blessing that incorporated all his offspring. Did all of Jacob's offspring become redeemed. Of course not.
Now today we have a religion called Christianity. Are all who call themselves Christians, born spiritually into God's family? Of course not. We can say that all of Christianity is not Christian. Some even believe they are Christians because their families and people around them all call themselves Christians. In fact the Jews had formed their own religion of Judaism by the time Paul was writing out the NT.
To the church it is all spiritual and the need to crucify the physical flesh and desires. But to the OT congregation it was physical with the economy centered around the Tabernacle and all the physical sacrifices. The spiritual was a taboo and banned within this congregation, because at that time the Gentiles were all under the bondage and influence of Satan and the demonic part of being spiritual. As long as they lived within the confines of the Law, they were spiritual Israel. They were the Israel of God.
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
Of course they were not part of an earthly nation. They were physically dead. There is no Israel in sheol, nor in the LOF.
Those disobedient in the wilderness all died. They did not go form another Israel somewhere. They did not even use the name Israel after 720 BC, as Israel was scattered across the earth. Around 140 years later even the southern kingdom was taken into captivity. They emerged as Jews. They formed a religion called Judaism. Their nation was called Palestine or Judaea.
That the Jews were still considered spiritual Israel is only because they still had the OT Covenant going with the Second Temple for the most part. Remember Judaism was a growing religion permeating the culture to the point; They would soon be cast out as husbandmen and the title given to the church. Not the name Israel. The title of being a caretaker. Remember that it no longer mattered if one were Jew/Israel or Gentile?
The name given to the church was Christian, like Christ. The revival of the name in 1948 has not changed things. The church is still the church. Israel is still Israel. After the Second Coming they will once again be the Israel of God. No one will be left in Adam's dead corruptible flesh.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
The nation of Israel, for the most part, rejected Jesus. How can you think they were the Israel of God when most of them rejected His Son Jesus? That makes no sense. Instead, it makes sense to see the Israel of God as being the one whose people love God and accept His Son.
Nope. You are reading that passage with doctrinal bias instead of accepting what it actually says.
Here is a better translation of that passage that gives a better indication of what it's saying:
Galatians 6:14 May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15 Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation. 16 Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God.
Here, you can see that what Paul was doing was just referring to the same people "who follow this rule" in another way, which was as "the Israel of God". He wasn't talking about those who follow the rule of being made a new creation and separately referring to a different entity called "the Israel of God". Why would he say "peace and mercy" to the nation of Israel as a whole when God was so angry with most of them (see Matthew 23) for rejecting Jesus? No, he would only say "peace and mercy" to those who actually love God and belong to Him. There is no "peace and mercy" to unbelievers.
Let's put your way of interpreting Galatians 6:16 to the test. You think Paul was referring to another group (the Israel of God) just because the word "and" is in there in the translation you're using. Let's see if that approach works with this verse:
Revelation 19:5 And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great.
Using the same approach you use to interpret Galatians 6:16, we would conclude that this verse is talking about one group of God's "servants" and another group of those "that fear him". Is that what this verse is saying? No. All of His people are His servants and they all fear Him. That is not talking about two different groups of people, it's talking about the same one group of people in two different ways. That is the case in Galatians 6:16 as well. It is referring to those who belong to Christ as being those who follow the rule of being new creations in Christ where "neither circumcision nor uncircumcision mean anything" and those who make up "the Israel of God". He's only referring to one group of people there: the Israel of God who follow the rule of being made a new creation in Christ regardless of whether one has been circumcised or not (whether one is a Jew or a Gentile).
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Are you even trying to understand what I'm saying? Are you actually reading what I'm saying? Your response would indicate that you're not since your response doesn't address what I was saying whatsoever. Are your reading comprehension skills just extremely horrible or are you just not trying? I'm sincerely wondering why it is that you completely missed my point. And I mean completely.
Have you ever read Romans 11? When Paul talked about some Israelites being cut off, he wasn't talking about them being killed, he was talking about them figuratively as being branches that were cut off of the cultivated olive tree because of their unbelief. That doesn't mean they were killed, it means they were cut off from the kingdom of God, as Jesus said would happen to them in Matthew 21:43-45 because of their rejection of Him. So, they were not cut off from the nation of Israel, they were cut off from the kingdom of God. They were still alive and citizens of the nation of Israel after being cut off from the kingdom of God.
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
No, you are using a translation that fits your bias. The Greek uses the conjunction "and". Show me a Greek translation that leaves out the conjunction.
I could also point out you are forming a doctrine from one verse.
Even Youngs Literal Translation has the conjunction.
"and as many as by this rule do walk -- peace upon them, and kindness, and on the Israel of God!"
As for Revelation 19, I would interpret it just how it is written. Of course there are different beings around the throne. You would not say all the angels are now become humans would you? I also don't go around forming doctrines.
Are you saying only the Jews are Israel specifically, or see the term Israel used loosely about the Jews? God cast off Israel in 720 BC. Are you saying spiritual Israel started then with only those redeemed and a small remnant has remained up until now called the church?
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
Are you missing the point Israel stopped being a nation in 720BC? All those people were dead hundreds of years before Paul wrote what he wrote.
Do you consider that billions of this ethnicity around the entire world today are still considered that ethnicity since 720BC? If you looked it up, there are several nations still who do consider themselves that ethnic Israel. I am not saying they are or they are not. You are the one claiming there is still a nation of Israel scattered around the world since 720BC.
It was only since 1948 that there was a newly formed Israel, but you don't seem to be referring to them. Being cut off is a metaphor. Now you are saying it is literal and now there are 2 distinct Israel nations? That is what I have been asking you, I thought?
Not only that, but Israel was the kingdom of God. Being cut out of Israel means just that, cut out of Israel whether literal or figurative.
But you say that when they were cut out they formed a non-Israel Israel? Otherwise you have two Israels going side by side, with some of physical Israel a part of spiritual Israel, but not all.
Sorta like some Americans are redeemed, but the vast majority are not. I think that is the wrong view to take, obviously. You cannot compare those living under the law (Israel) to those in America living under Grace. God had a Covenant with Israel. God does not have a Covenant with America. That is the whole reason that Israel was put on hold, as now an ethnicity does not matter.
But if it mattered, how can you say they are still Israel if the ethnicity did matter. Paul said they were no longer Israel by saying all that are of Israel are not Israel. They were, now they are not. Now they are all dead, and not redeemed, because they were cut off and became dead. If Israel had continued to be a nation and all the tribes were still viable in the first century, you may have had a point. National Israel would no longer be spiritually connected to God. The problem is they were cut off, even if you see it only as a metaphor. In being cut off, they were as good as dead, unless as individuals they retained a relationship with God in faith despite not living under the Law, because they had been destroyed.
That kind of reasoning simply shows you lack Bible study. God gave Jacob the new name 'Israel' and even said he would not be called Jacob anymore. Yet he still was called Jacob later in God's Word. So to keep from thinking that might be a scribe error in the Scriptures, it requires that we stop and think a bit about why God would give Jacob that new name Israel. It has to to do with its meaning, 'those who overcome with God's help'. It's connected to God's Plan of Salvation through His Son Jesus Christ, and that means The Gospel.
But.... but... some might then say, "The Gospel wasn't received by the majority of Jews and thus went to the Gentiles. So how can the name Israel be associated with Christ and His Church?" It's simple. The name 'Israel' was always FIRST ORIGINALLY associated with The Gospel of Jesus Christ among God's elect of the Old Testament, because The Gospel was part of GOD's Birthright He first gave through Abraham, and then it was passed to his son Isaac, and then it was passed to his son Jacob, and then to his son Joseph, and finally upon his sons Ephraim and Manasseh, where it is still to this day who is among the Gentiles.
Furthermore... if one starts reading 1 Kings 11 forward, they should... begin to understand that God split the old nation of Israel under Solomon's son into TWO SEPARATE KINGDOMS. Ezekiel 37:22 even points out that when Jesus returns for their gathering, at that point they will no longer be "two nations"...
Ezek 37:19-22
19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in Mine hand.
20 And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes.
21 And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land:
22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:
KJV
As of right now, God's Israel is still divided into "two nations", the one being the nation state called Israel in the holy land today, those represented with them by the unbelieving Jews of the old "kingdom of Judah".
And then the scattered ten lost tribes that migrated westward to form the historical Christian nations under The Gospel of Jesus Christ, and were descendants of the old "kingdom of Israel", those along with believing Jews, and believing Gentiles represent Christ's Church and thus God's Israel.
Thus man can claim all sorts of things, and if God didn't put it in His Word, then it ain't true.
Paul even goes on to write though they had been cut off through unbelief, they could be grafted in again IF they did not remain in unbelief!
Since when they believe they are grafted back into the same good olive tree (kingdom of God) with Gentiles of faith, together Jews of faith with Gentiles of faith are "all Israel that shall be saved." Not an ethnic people, but ALL people of God by grace through FAITH.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
What I meant, in terms of what Paul was talking about, is that the ones who were cut off because of unbelief (lack of faith in Christ specifically) were people like the Pharisees and scribes that Jesus called hypocrites. They were physical descendants of the nation of Israel and therefore considered to be Israelites in that sense. Paul called himself an Israelite in the physical sense in Romans 11:1 because he was a physical descendant of Abraham of the tribe of Benjamin.
What Paul was saying in Romans 9:6-8 is that being a physical descendant of Israel didn't make someone an Israelite who is part of the spiritual Israel of God even though it did make them an Israelite in a physical sense. He indicated that instead the criteria for being part of the Israel of which not all who are physically descended from Israel are part, was to be called "in Isaac" and to be one of the children of God and children of the promise.
Who are those who are called in Isaac and are the children of God and children of the promise? We can look at what Paul wrote here to determine that:
Galatians 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 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. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
This is what Paul said to both Jew and Gentile believers. He made it clear that being part of spiritual Israel (which he said in Romans 9:6-8 is to be called in Isaac, to be a child of God and to be a child of the promise) requires "faith in Christ Jesus" and belonging to Christ. So, Paul was contrasting being a physical descendant of Abraham and the nation of Israel with being a spiritual descendant of Abraham and being part of the spiritual Israel of God.
Similar threads
