Christianity and Israel

[doug yowell]

Israel" that is separate from the descendants of Jacob. This imaginary entity is prevalent in the traditions of the church, but is not found in Scripture. Virtually all who claim to be part of this group exhibit no Israelite characteristics or behaviors.

This is an important misrepresentation of the "spiritual Israel" that the church has traditionally taught and is continued on by the teachings of dispensationalism today. Historically the church (and the Bible)has taught that Spiritual Israel included BOTH Jewish AND Gentile believers.Thus, just as the spiritual man is different from the fleshly man, the spiritual Israel is different from the fleshly Israel.To state that spiritual Israel is separate from the descendants of Jacob is a misleading half-truth. "I say then,has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin."

[doug yowell]

 ‎Heb 3:18 And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? ‎19 So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.

ESV | ‎Ro 2:28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. ‎29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

ESV | ‎Ro 9:27 And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved,

good stuff, Gerry, how's the wife?

[Ron Amnsn]

Originally Posted By: Ron Amnsn

Israel" that is separate from the descendants of Jacob. This imaginary entity is prevalent in the traditions of the church, but is not found in Scripture. Virtually all who claim to be part of this group exhibit no Israelite characteristics or behaviors.

This is an important misrepresentation of the "spiritual Israel" that the church has traditionally taught and is continued on by the teachings of dispensationalism today. Historically the church (and the Bible)has taught that Spiritual Israel included BOTH Jewish AND Gentile believers.Thus, just as the spiritual man is different from the fleshly man, the spiritual Israel is different from the fleshly Israel.To state that spiritual Israel is separate from the descendants of Jacob is a misleading half-truth. "I say then,has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin."

Hi Doug,

God's covenants with Abraham and literal Israel have always included both Jews and the Gentiles who joined themselves to the covenant people. The covenants included Abraham's household servants, the mixed multitude that left Egypt with Israel, and people like Ruth the Moabitess and Uriah the Hittite.

What is different about the Gentiles who claim to be "spiritual" Israel is that they hold themselves separate from literal Israel. I did this when I was an SDA in my youth, as did all the SDAs around me. Rather than being grafted-in to literal Israel as the Bible teaches, we believed that as "spiritual Israel" we had replaced literal Israel as God's covenant people, leaving the literal Jews with only the curses of the covenants unless they joined us in "spiritual Israel". We had little love for Jews and the land of their inheritance, and taught unbiblical doctrines such as the notion that God has rejected the Jewish nation as a whole and annulled His covenants with the descendants of Jacob. From reading this thread and others on this forum it is apparent that not much has changed among SDAs.

The Bible doesn't once mention "Spiritual Israel". That is a man-made doctrine handed down to us by the Roman church. If the Protestant Reformation had finished the job of discarding false traditions, we wouldn't hear much about "Spiritual Israel" today.

[Windsor]

The tree that would never bear fruit was finally cut down, Ron. There is no blessing to those who reject Jesus regardless of who their ancestors are.

[Guest]

Mat 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

Rom 2:28,29 For he is not a Jew, who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, (spiritual) and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

KJ2000

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

ESV | Heb 3:18 And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? 19 So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.

Yes, disobedience is a problem, both for Israel and for the church. In this verse Paul is talking about the Israelites who refused to enter the land promised to Abraham, but instead wandered in the wilderness with Moses until they died. When this verse is taken out of context and combined with the myth that the Jews as a whole rejected Jesus, it does seem to support the notion that God rejected literal Israel as a nation.

Taken out of context? Exegete the passage all you want in its context. Will any Jew inherit the kingdom because he/she is an ethnic Jew? Paul could not have been any clearer! ESV | ‎Ro 2:28 "For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. ‎29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God."

Originally Posted By: Amnsn

How does a person behave who is a Jew inwardly? Does he separate himself from other Jews? Does he teach that God has reneged on his promises and covenants with the Jews? Does he disdain the land given to his Jewish and Israelite ancestors? Or does he join with other Jews standing shoulder to shoulder with them? The context of this passage does not at all support the notion of a "spiritual" Israel that is separate from literal Israel.

What Jesus told His followers - "to be in the world but not of the world" is the same principle that applies to believing Jews!!! But they [believing Jews] can't help but be different from unbelieving ethnic Jews, just as true Christians cannot help but be different from their unbelieving neighbors. One looks back to a Messiah that has already come, while the other rejects Him. They may have similarities, but they will also have fundamental diametrically opposed differences.

We have gone over this subject in another thread before, but, yes, as a political entity, Israel is no longer God's chosen people. "Seventy weeks are decreed about your people..." Dan 9:24. ESV | ‎Lk 13:35 "Behold, your house is forsaken," "desolate" KJV. ESV | ‎Lk 20:16 He will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others.” When they heard this, they said, “Surely not!”

Originally Posted By: Amnsn

Both in Romans 9 and in Isaiah 10 (where Paul quotes this from) it is clear that the "remnant" is made up of literal Israelites. Growing up in the SDA church I was taught that the word remnant referred to the "remnant church",

A good study on the "remnant" will quickly show that it does not ALWAYS refer to the "remnant church!" The Jews that returned to the Promised Land during the Babylonian captivity was referred to as "remnant", yet even they were not all saved.

Originally Posted By: Amnsn

so a verse like Romans 9:27 (taken out of context) seemed like positive proof that the "remnant" was separate from literal Israel. Later, when I learned the importance of context, I realized that a remnant is made of the same stuff as the original. When my mom bought the remnant of a bolt of cloth, it was what remained of the original bolt of cloth. If the original bolt was flannel, the remnant was flannel (not silk or something else). The "remnant of them" is what remains of the literal descendants of Israel.

What you are saying is that I have taken out Ro 9:27 out of context! Paul has made it clear that inheriting the promised blessing is not a matter of having the right human DNA. The inheritors are those who born of the divine seed/DNA.

A covenant is a two way agreement with stipulations for both sides. The blessings and curses are clearly spelled out in Dt. 28. While Israel as a literal entity is no longer God's chosesn people, NO JEW who puts his trust in HIM is ever rejected. Yet, for His name's sake, even literal Israel is not obliterated, and also for sake of Abraham & David as He repeatedly said.

Originally Posted By: Amsn

Notice how Paul defines the good news of the Gospel for those same Jews in that synagogue:

"We tell you the good news: What God promised our fathers he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus." (Acts 13:32) This was Paul's gospel to literal Jews and to the Gentiles who had joined together with them.

And He will continue to keep that promise to all, including literal Jews, who accept His covenant.

[Ron Amnsn]

The tree that would never bear fruit was finally cut down, Ron. There is no blessing to those who reject Jesus regardless of who their ancestors are.

Windsor, what you say has been often repeated. Do you mind if we put it to the test of Scripture?

Where in Scripture does it say that the [fig] tree represents the descendants of Jacob? Where does it say that the tree never bore fruit? Where does it say that it was finally cut down? Where does it say that being cut down would represent the end of God's covenants with Israel?

There are several passages in Scripture that say God will not reject the people of Israel. There are only traditions that say God has rejected Israel as a nation.

Where in scripture does it say that there is no blessing to those who reject Jesus regardless of who their ancestors are?

Do you realize how many passages there are in the New Testament that speak of large numbers of Jews accepting Jesus? Here's one: "If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him." (John 11:48)

Did the Jews who lived in other parts of the world lose their inherited blessings because a few Jews living in Judea rejected Jesus?

What if there are some Jews who have rejected Jesus as the Messiah because the Gentiles misrepresented Jesus as a Torah-breaking, pork-eating, Jew-hating, Catholic crusader? Do Jews who reject a profane "Jesus" (as they ought to) lose the blessings God gave to their ancestors?

Speaking in the present tense about the literal Jews who had not accepted Jesus, Paul wrote,

"For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen." (Romans 9:3-5)

Not only does Paul say that the unbelieving Jews still inherit certain blessings from their ancestors, but Paul is personally very grieved that they are separated from their Messiah. That sentiment toward the unbelieving Jews seems to be missing entirely from much of modern Christianity. Have you noticed the tone with which people speak or write when they assert that the Jews are no longer God's covenant people? It's not the same tone with which Paul wrote about the unbelieving Israelites. Have we been taught a different gospel than the one that Paul was teaching?

[doug yowell]

There are several passages in Scripture that say God will not reject the people of Israel. There are only traditions that say God has rejected Israel as a nation.

Where in scripture does it say that there is no blessing to those who reject Jesus regardless of who their ancestors are?

Do you realize how many passages there are in the New Testament that speak of large numbers of Jews accepting Jesus? Here's one: "If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him." (John 11:48)

Did the Jews who lived in other parts of the world lose their inherited blessings because a few Jews living in Judea rejected Jesus?

What if there are some Jews who have rejected Jesus as the Messiah because the Gentiles misrepresented Jesus as a Torah-breaking, pork-eating, Jew-hating, Catholic crusader? Do Jews who reject a profane "Jesus" (as they ought to) lose the blessings God gave to their ancestors?

Speaking in the present tense about the literal Jews who had not accepted Jesus, Paul wrote,

"For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen." (Romans 9:3-5)

Not only does Paul say that the unbelieving Jews still inherit certain blessings from their ancestors, but Paul is personally very grieved that they are separated from their Messiah. That sentiment toward the unbelieving Jews seems to be missing entirely from much of modern Christianity. Have you noticed the tone with which people speak or write when they assert that the Jews are no longer God's covenant people? It's not the same tone with which Paul wrote about the unbelieving Israelites. Have we been taught a different gospel than the one that Paul was teaching?

What you keep pushing, Ron, is the new tangled mess of dispensationalism. You seem to be asserting that somehow God's OT promises to His people have never been conditional. "The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are these."If that is true then what point is there in being faithful to His calling? ..."and say not unto yourselves, we have Abraham as our father..." "Therefore I say to you that the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to A NATION bearing the fruits of it." Actually, you are teaching a gospel that is almost identical to the one that Paul had to deal with in the NT. One that Jesus came to do away with.

[Ron Amnsn]

Mat 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

[Ron Amnsn]

Taken out of context? Exegete the passage all you want in its context. Will any Jew inherit the kingdom because he/she is an ethnic Jew?

[Ron Amnsn]

What you keep pushing, Ron, is the new tangled mess of dispensationalism. You seem to be asserting that somehow God's OT promises to His people have never been conditional. "The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are these."If that is true then what point is there in being faithful to His calling? ..."and say not unto yourselves, we have Abraham as our father..." "Therefore I say to you that the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to A NATION bearing the fruits of it." Actually, you are teaching a gospel that is almost identical to the one that Paul had to deal with in the NT. One that Jesus came to do away with.

Doug, this will be more profitable if you talk about what you believe and let me talk about what I believe. When you try to tell me what I believe, you miss the mark.

I utterly reject the teachings of Dispensationalism.

Dispensationalism (as I understand it) artificially divides the earth's timeline into seven (or more) eras or "dispensations". In each dispensation the "rules" change. That is, God's expectations and methods of dealing with humans change, so the way of salvation is different in each era. The whole Dispensational belief system is built on man-made philosophy supported here and there by passages misinterpreted out of context. The "secret rapture" was adopted by Dispensationalism because they could see that in the end-time prophesies God's people would be keeping all the commandments of God (not just the 10 commandments) and they had already decided that "the church" didn't need to keep the commandments, so they had to get "the church" off the planet before the end times. Dispensationalism doesn't stand up to scrutiny and has difficulty actually nailing down the day or the event that determines when the rules change, and which parts of Scripture are considered valid or invalid in each era, especially near the transitions between eras.

Traditional Christianity (as I understand it) divides earth's timeline into two (or more) eras or covenants, old and new. In each era the "rules" change. That is, God's expectations and methods of dealing with humans change, so the way of salvation is different in each era. This is what I was taught in the SDA church. This belief system has many of the same difficulties as Dispensationalism, but in a more subtle way. The old covenant is commonly misunderstood and maligned. Beliefs about the new covenant are based largely on man-made teachings rather than on Scripture.

My own belief (as I currently understand it) is that God has dealt with mankind in a consistent manner at all times of earth's history. I don't believe that God has changed the "rules" for salvation -- not even between the old covenant and the new covenant. When you read what is actually contained in the new covenant, you see that the definition of sin and the definition of righteousness have not changed. The new covenant contains better promises. Under the old covenant it was man's responsibility to write God's instructions (Torah) on his own heart and his children's hearts. (Deut 6) Under the new covenant God takes responsibility for writing His instructions (Torah) on man's heart. (Jer 31 quoted in Heb 8).

[Lysimachus]

So Adventists don't really see any significance to modern-day Israel, but most other mainline Protestant churches do.

The fact is, most mainline Protestant churches DIDN'T. It was not until after the Great Disappointment that all the mainline Protestants shifted over to Futurism and Dispensationalism, while the Adventists held to the expanded Reformation teachings.

Adventism held to the rock. The other Protestant Churches apostatized, and fell hook-line-and-sinker for the Jesuit virus of Futurism.

Futurism can be traced back to the teachings of the Jesuit Cardinal Francisco Ribera in the 16th century, and later elaborated upon by Jesuit Cardinal Robert Bellarmine in the late 16th and early 17th century.

Dispensational concepts, concerning the distinction between Israel and the Church and a rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem can be traced back to the Jesuit Cardinal Manuel de Lacunza in the 18th century.

John Nelson Darby admits to reading Lacunza's work, and when one reads Darby's work side by side with Lacunza's, one has no doubt where Darby derived many of his ideas.

In a nutshell, Dispensational-Futurism is a virus of Rome that has INFECTED the entire Protestant world.

Adventism is virtually the LAST standing main Christian body that has not fallen for this deadly, deceptive, Devilish virus of the last days. Why? Because Adventism happens to have more Anti-virus protection in it!!

Whether you want to believe it or NOT!

[Lysimachus]

For those of you interested, I recommend reading the following:

Futurism's Incredible Journey - The Change of the Times and its Implications for Seventh-Day Adventist Apocalyptic Interpretation ~ A Paper prepared by Stephen P. Bohr, Senior Pastor Fresno Central Church

Powerful powerful powerful! It traces the entire history of Dispensational-Futurism!

[Lysimachus]

Doug, this will be more profitable if you talk about what you believe and let me talk about what I believe. When you try to tell me what I believe, you miss the mark.

I utterly reject the teachings of Dispensationalism.

Dispensationalism (as I understand it) artificially divides the earth's timeline into seven (or more) eras or "dispensations". In each dispensation the "rules" change. That is, God's expectations and methods of dealing with humans change, so the way of salvation is different in each era. The whole Dispensational belief system is built on man-made philosophy supported here and there by passages misinterpreted out of context. The "secret rapture" was adopted by Dispensationalism because they could see that in the end-time prophesies God's people would be keeping all the commandments of God (not just the 10 commandments) and they had already decided that "the church" didn't need to keep the commandments, so they had to get "the church" off the planet before the end times. Dispensationalism doesn't stand up to scrutiny and has difficulty actually nailing down the day or the event that determines when the rules change, and which parts of Scripture are considered valid or invalid in each era, especially near the transitions between eras.

Traditional Christianity (as I understand it) divides earth's timeline into two (or more) eras or covenants, old and new. In each era the "rules" change. That is, God's expectations and methods of dealing with humans change, so the way of salvation is different in each era. This is what I was taught in the SDA church. This belief system has many of the same difficulties as Dispensationalism, but in a more subtle way. The old covenant is commonly misunderstood and maligned. Beliefs about the new covenant are based largely on man-made teachings rather than on Scripture.

My own belief (as I currently understand it) is that God has dealt with mankind in a consistent manner at all times of earth's history. I don't believe that God has changed the "rules" for salvation -- not even between the old covenant and the new covenant. When you read what is actually contained in the new covenant, you see that the definition of sin and the definition of righteousness have not changed. The new covenant contains better promises. Under the old covenant it was man's responsibility to write God's instructions (Torah) on his own heart and his children's hearts. (Deut 6) Under the new covenant God takes responsibility for writing His instructions (Torah) on man's heart. (Jer 31 quoted in Heb 8).

Ron, allow me to ask you a question:

Do you believe there is any distinction whatsoever between Israel and the Church? Or do you believe that Israel is now realized in the Church in the New Covenant?

If your answer to this is that you believe there to be a distinction, then regardless, your ideology is "of dispensational kin".

Notice:

What is the foundational pillar of dispensationalism? What is the main premise that supports the whole of dispensational systematic theology? Dispensationalists answer these questions in the following: Charles C. Ryrie explains:

“The essence of dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel and the Church” (Dispensationalism Today, 47)

Lewis S. Chafer states: “The distinction between the purpose for Israel and the purpose for the Church is about as important as that which exists between the two testaments” (Systematic Theology, Vol. 4, 47.)

So the bottom line is, regardless if the official teachings of Dispensationalism expresses Seven Economies or Seven Covenants, it is the distinction between Israel and the Church that is the root of Dispensationalism.

It is all part of the same virus package.

When you have time, I recommend you take out time to read the following book. It WILL BLOW YOUR MIND.

It's entitled:

Prophetic Toolchest for Dismantling the Dispensational Delusion ~ by D.S. Farris

All 12 chapters, PDF format, about 550 pages total. Entire book online for free! =]

Please read it, and it will greatly enlighten you on the BIG picture of the great controversy ensuing within professed Christianity like never before.

Lysimachus

[Ron Amnsn]

Ron, allow me to ask you a question:

Do you believe there is any distinction whatsoever between Israel and the Church? Or do you believe that Israel is now realized in the Church in the New Covenant?

The New Testament does not teach about a "church" that is separate from Israel (neither does the OT). The Dispensational church has separated itself from Israel, but that separation is not legitimate. Christ doesn't have two bodies. On the other hand, the non-dispensational church has also separated itself from Israel, but claims that they are now the true "Israel of God" of the new covenant or "spiritual Israel" because God supposedly rejected literal Israel. That claim is also illegitimate -- based on man-made traditions rather than on Scripture.

I believe the only legitimate place for followers of Jesus is to be grafted-in to Israel (the descendants of Jacob) as Paul teaches in Romans 9-11. That is the only position that is consistent with all of Scripture.

[Gerr]

The New Testament does not teach about a "church" that is separate from Israel (neither does the OT). The Dispensational church has separated itself from Israel, but that separation is not legitimate. Christ doesn't have two bodies.

You are correct! Only ONE body! That's why the argument made in another thread that the Sabbath was/is only for Jews is bogus! The nation of Israel crucified Jesus. And what did the literal Jewish nation do with the message of the Apostles after the resurrection/ascension? They rejected it. Not only that, they tried to destroy it. So, what did believing Jews (the early church) do? They had to SEPARATE themselves!

Quote:

I believe the only legitimate place for followers of Jesus is to be grafted-in to Israel (the descendants of Jacob) as Paul teaches in Romans 9-11. hat is the only position that is consistent with all of[ Scripture.

So, who needs to be grafted into whom? Good branches into the rotten olive tree? Or bad branches into the good tree? And to what/who is the good tree into which ALL are to be grafted in? Who gives life and nourishes the grafted branches? I think you have totally missed as to where/what/whom all olive branches are to be grafted in. Look at the metaphor in John 15.

[Ron Amnsn]

The nation of Israel crucified Jesus.

[jasd]

QR frame:

>>The Bible doesn't once mention "Spiritual Israel". That is a man-made doctrine handed down...<<

Like the inventions of the Historic-Futurist-Dispensationalists?—err, ahh, Rapturists?

[doug yowell]

As he was dying, Jesus asked that those killing and mocking him be forgiven. That was Jesus' will. Should those who follow Jesus continue to blame those whom Jesus has forgiven?

Where did this statement come from??? Have you been suggesting universal salvation for all mankind or universal salvation for all Jews?

[doug yowell]

The Jews in Judea were just a small portion of the nation of Israel. When Paul took the Gospel to the nations he preached in Jewish synagogues and in many cities a significant portion of the Jews believed (along with some of the Gentiles who were attending the Jewish synagogues).

Yes, and they treated both Paul and the early converts to Christ in the same manner as did their brethren in Jerusalem/Judea.(I Thes.2:14-16)You might also want to check out Paul's comments regarding the remaining Jewish state in Gal. 4:21-31. It'll shed more light on the "spiritual" Israel concept not found in the the Bible.

[Ron Amnsn]

Where did this statement come from??? Have you been suggesting universal salvation for all mankind or universal salvation for all Jews?

Luke 23:34 "Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing."

No, I have only been suggesting that God is still honoring His covenants with Abraham and the Israelites. If those covenants provide universal salvation, I am not aware of it.

[Ron Amnsn]

Yes, and they treated both Paul and the early converts to Christ in the same manner as did their brethren in Jerusalem/Judea.(I Thes.2:14-16)

[Lysimachus]

The Bible doesn't once mention "Spiritual Israel". That is a man-made doctrine handed down to us by the Roman church. If the Protestant Reformation had finished the job of discarding false traditions, we wouldn't hear much about "Spiritual Israel" today.

The Bible doesn't mention a lot of expressions, yet they are implied. Such as "Justification by Faith". Yet it is a well understood concept.

When comparing ALL the Bible verses concerning Israel, you will note that Israel has ALWAYS been "spiritual". Always. Even in the Old Testament.

However, the Jewish Nation was the "husbandman" or "vinedresser" for the "House of Israel". But this vineyard (Israel) was taken away from the Jewish Nation and given to the Church (the new Husbandmen).

So Israel has always been the same. But the operators, or caretakers, have been different. The Jewish Nation had the keys to the house in the Old Testament, and the Church has the keys to the house in the New Testament.

I recommend a full study on this here:

The Israel of God and the False Charge of "Replacement Theology"

[doug yowell]

[At that time the present Jerusalem was in bondage to the Romans. For the Israelites, bondage was a consequence of disobedience to the terms of the covenant. The Law of Moses was the Law of Freedom for the Israelites -- when they obeyed they enjoyed freedom, when they moved away from Torah they suffered bondage.

Yet there was in existence a parallel Jerusalem which Paul describes as the "mother of us all" which is still in existence today.This is also described by other bible writers as the Mt. Zion/Heavenly Jerusalem,ect...Why the need for a literal Israel if believers in Christ are already citizens of the "church registered in heaven"?

[doug yowell]

.

I recommend a full study on this here:

The Israel of God and the False Charge of "Replacement Theology"

If one can still find a copy of the book I recommend a small one I read 30 years ago called "The Once and Future Israel" Small,concise, readable, 80% bible texts, unforgettable. Not that Ron would be interested, or would you Ron?