ISRAEL HAS NOT BEEN REPLACED BY THE CHURCH

Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people
whom he has chosen for his own inheritance. Psalm 33:12

When Christ – the Messiah of Israel – came among His people, taught them and died for them, He came as the King anciently prophesied. Of Him Isaiah said, “Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever” (9:7). Daniel saw in vision, “there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed” (7:14). Messiah, on the throne of David, shall rule a kingdom comprised of many nations.

When the angel Gabriel foretold His birth to Mary His mother, he said, “the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father, David; and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; And of his kingdom there shall be no end.” (Luke 1:32, 33)

We see here Messiah coming into the world to establish and order his kingdom; it is called by the angel “the house of Jacob”, and in this kingdom will be many nations, peoples, and languages; Micah said of Messiah, that He is “to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting” (5:2). We also see that Messiah, Jesus the Christ, extends the boundaries of His kingdom – the kingdom of Israel – to include all the earth, and this is fitting, for “The earth is the LORD’s, and the fulness thereof; the world, and all they that dwell therein.... For God is the king of all the earth.... [He] reigns over the heathen” (Ps 24:1; 47:7, 8). There is no doubt that this long-awaited kingdom – of which Daniel said the God of heaven would set it up and it would never be destroyed but rather would do away with all rival kingdoms (2:44) – this very kingdom was Israel; its king, Jesus of Nazareth, seed of the royal line of David; its capital, New Jerusalem: “And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their honour and glory into it” (Rev 21:24).

But many in ancient Israel would not hear Him, rather hated Him. Of such, God speaking through Moses declared, “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him” (Deuteronomy 18:19), meaning, God would require his place in Israel and his life! The apostle Peter reiterated these words of Moses as follows, “every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people” (Acts 3:23).

In other words, the Lord – the King! – at this time ordered His kingdom by separating wheat from chaff, sheep from goats, and executed what He had earlier told the chief priests and elders of the people: “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof” (Matt 21:43). The kingdom of God given to a nation other than Israel? No, rather the nation of Israel so ordered anew by its king as to remove its ties to the temple and its priesthood, and to the government – both of which were conspiring to slay Him! – and transfer it to a new government of His choosing, with twelve apostles instead of twelve tribal elders, and comprised of all true Israelites who would bow the knee to their King and God. The others – all the others – who refused to heed the word of the God of Israel through Messiah, were removed from the nation of Israel, as a butcher cleaves inedible gristle from the meat. Israel was now comprised of only those loyal to God’s Messiah. His body was now the true temple, His word the law, and His apostles the appointed rulers of the people. The land of Israel would be extended to include the entire earth, no more restricted by the geography of Palestine; the true Jerusalem would be the heavenly, the one from above, to be brought to the earth in the fullness of time.

What was the status of those Jews cut off from the people of Israel? Unabashedly modern Judaism states,

“...it was the tannaitic [Pharisaic-Rabbinic teaching] tradition which was almost completely representative of the Jewish community in Palestine and, to a great extent, of that segment of the Diaspora which remained loyal to its ancestral faith.... Indeed, it is the halakhah [the Jewish legal system founded by the Tannaim] which may be described as that which typifies Rabbinic Judaism.” [1]

In other words, those Jews who refused to acknowledge Jesus as Messiah and were cut off by God from the nation – no more accepted as Israelites by the God of Israel, and by its messianic King – these renegades became rivals for the name and status of Israel and Jew. Though physical seed of Abraham, they were disowned by Jehovah. They murderously persecuted the true Israel when it was in their power.

What says Messiah of these? When giving John the letter for the church in Smyrna, Jesus says, “...I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan” (2:9). When the Greek word blasphēmia is used regarding humans it means reviling slander, and these Jews slanderously accused this small company of Messiah’s followers to the Roman authorities, causing their imprisonment and execution. Again, in the letter to the church in Philadelphia Jesus has John write, “Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship [bow down in humility] before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee” (3:9). This indicates that some of the church’s fiercest enemies were converted and won to their Messiah. But it also indicates that the King of Israel declared those Jews which were against Him (“He that is not with me is against me” Matt 12:30) were, in His eyes, not any longer Jews, but apostates.

The apostle Paul, by the Spirit of God, says the same:

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

Jeremiah concurs, for even in the Old Covenant uncircumcision of heart incurred God’s wrath, as it indicated wickedness and rebellion (Jer 9:25, 26). And again Paul says, “For they are not all Israel which are of Israel... but the children of the promise are counted for the seed” (Rom 9:6, 8), and “...if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:29).

And yet again, in his letter to the church in Philippi, Paul says, “For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Jesus Christ, and have no confidence in the flesh.” (3:3) To the Galatian churches he says, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.” (6:15)

Little wonder many in what is called Modern Jewry loathe Christ, the New Testament, Christians, and God for this pronouncement, even though it first came by Moses (Deut 18:15, 18, 19).

Paul says that in times past Gentile nations were looked upon as “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world…”, but now, in the fold of Messiah, they “are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God” (Eph 2:12, 19). This household of God is the same spoken of in Hebrews, Moses being a faithful servant in it – the house of Israel – while Christ is no servant but the “son over his own house; whose house we are” (3:1-6).

The Israel of God has not been replaced, but it has been culled, the faithful Jews gathered and the unfaithful cast off by word of the King; the promise to Abraham that “in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed” (Gen 12:3) is now being fulfilled, as is the prophecy of Daniel that “all people, nations, and languages should serve him” (7:14). Sometimes the kingdom of Israel is called the church, but this latter is a synonym, and no replacement! Only in this kingdom is this Scripture fulfilled: “In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory” (Isa 45:25), for justification before His presence is the gift of God through faith in Messiah; in true Israel alone are all the seed so blessed. The New Jerusalem which shall come down upon the renewed earth is its capital, and the glory of Israel is the Lamb who sits upon the throne of David, the divine Husband of that beloved Bride who shares His glory.
_____________________________

[1] Who Was A Jew? Rabbinic and Halakhic Perspectives on the Jewish-Christian Schism, by Lawrence H. Schiffman (KATV Publishing House, NJ 1985), Pages 4, 5.

__________________
Steve Rafalsky
Elder, International Evangelical Church (Reformed)
Limassol, Cyprus

"I am set for the defense of the gospel" (Philippians 1:17)

"Strengthened with all might, according to His glorious
power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness..." (Colossians 1:11)

Blog: A Great and Terrible Love

Good stuff! One might even say that Israel wasn't replaced, but simply expanded.

__________________
Philip
Potomac Hills Presbyterian Church (PCA) Leesburg, VA
Attending Reformed Presbyterian Church, Lookout Mountain, GA
Student Covenant College

The Importance of Being Orthodox

God has always had one called out people; although there is a real difference in visible administration under the New Covenant.

__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Reformed Baptist
Maryland

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
Visit my BLOG Theology for the Rest of Us

Gonna resurrect this thread,

If we being reformed claim Israel has no longer any place in redemptive history now that the church is here,

How do we explain the modern state of Israel?

__________________
Ewen
1689 LBCF
Assemblies of God Bible College
Singapore

The same way we explain the modern state of Egypt. Just another country.

__________________
Tim Vaughan
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian, OPC,
Santa Maria
California

Robert Reymond says in Who Really Owns the "Holy Land"? that,

__________________
Albert, The Republic of the Philippines
Pasig United Covenant Reformed Church (a Reformed church plant)
United Covenant Reformed Churches in the Philippines (UCRCP)
Three Forms of Unity and Westminster Confession of Faith

Psalm 27:1a (AV) The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?
“Perseverance is the badge of true saints. The Christian life is not a beginning only in the ways of God, but also a continuance in the same as long as life lasts.” -

ah awesome. you guys are great.

The appearance of modern unbelieving (for the most part) State of Israel might be a sign that God intends to graft the rest of the Jewish remnant back into the tree however.

I agree that Israel is just another nation. Oddly enough, so do the Orthodox, who believe that ONLY Moschiach can bring about the true nation of Israel. They don't believe that the current state of Israel is the Biblical one.

__________________
Ed
PCA
Cleveland TN

Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly , nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.
NKJV
Gal 3:24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. NKJV

Note how Paul says we and our. It still is. This is the continuation of Israel.
The Jews who did not follow The Way or accept the Messiah are the ones who left Israel and God's people.
These are the Jews God will continue to work with, not those who departed from the faith and Israel.

Who is more of a Jew, one who stays in the land of Israel and rejects the faith and the messiah or one who accepts, whether he stayed in Israel as many did or moved?

The nation ended and the laws were dropped but the same Jewish faith continued as it spread more to all nations. Just the OT laws were dropped and signs changed. But it is the same faith Abraham followed.
Christian was a term heathen put on the Jews who continues in The Way; the foretold expansion of their faith.

Jesus did not start a new religion, distinct from the original faith in Jehovah creator. He is the partial fulfillment of the prophecies of that faith.

So in one sense we are all Jews of The Way and Israel of faith and the ethnic Jews who abandoned their faith are not Jews. They are just other middle eastern heathen.

They as well as any can be graft into Israel of faith.

__________________
DonP

Great point Don.

I was really worried when I saw the title of the thread. Now not so much. Good discussion. Hopefully many misconceptions about who the true Israel of God is can be corrected in this thread.

__________________
Willie Grills
Trinity Presbyterian Church
OPC
Huntington, WV

Well how can anyone not get that this is the same religion and the unfaithful Jews forsook their religion when the fulfillments came?

This is the teaching of Judaism. It was never to be as those who left the faith, just because they continued to sacrifice and some stayed in Israel. Some didn't they moved to Germany Russia and New York.
So how are they the children of God?

Only the Jews who continued in the faith once for all proclaimed from the foundations of the earth, who were in the Ecclesia in the Wilderness, had the gospel preached to them are those Jews and Jewish proselytes who are the children of God.

If you are a Gentile you have simply become a Jewish proselyte and continue in the present day ministration of that faith.

1 Peter 4:6 For this reason the gospel was preached also to those who are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. NKJV

Acts 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: KJV

Boy no one wants to translate that word church now days do they??

Romans reminds us clearly that just as in the time of Jacob and Esau though both were ethnic Jews both were not the children of God. Just as Issac and Ismael were both descendants of Abraham this does nothing. Don;t say that is because Ishmael was a mix-breed because this is the same argument to day. Those who call themselves sons of Abraham are mix-breeds.
The point is it was never ever to the ethnic descendants. This was the error of the Pharisees who said Abraham is our father and Jesus corrected them and said, no he isn't. If Abraham was your father in the sense I meant it, you would know me.

Jesus was correcting the error that the dispensationalists hold to today.
He taught them that just as it had been said do not murder, this meant do not be angry, so also to be a son of Abraham did not mean be a fleshy descendant. It meant be of the faith of Abraham because the prophecies were all to the seed of faith, the seed of promise which is by The One Seed, being in Christ.

Only those Jews or gentile proselytes who are in the faith of Abraham were and are children of God and children of promise and heirs with Abraham.
Why, because it was always by faith, not by flesh or by law. Don't get hung up on law. It is used in the same sense as flesh. Hear the word of this.

Gal 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar — 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children — 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. NKJV

God tells us plainly these things were symbolic. They correspond to the elect, salvation of all who will be saved. The true Children of God. And those in bondage were not and are not now the children of promise, prophecy or of God. They are the ones he did abandon. now there may be some of them who will be saved but no differently any one else today who is saved. Not on the basis if their being ethnic Jews but because they are part of the elect of all nations.


The false Jews who remain in the land or form a new nation today have no part in God's plan.

There never was a complete restoration if the nation Israel on earth and God did not establish an earthly kingdom with Christ ruling in it.

All these prophecies failed or else they all pointed to the Heavenly kingdom and fulfillment of them Where Christ is reigning as King Supreme now and purging the land of the heathen as he continues to expand His kingdom, pulling people of all nations out of the bondage of satan breaking down the gates of hell as it were and saving them, grafting them into the root, Israel of promise, Israel of faith, the one body of Christ.

And ultimately the New Jerusalem will descend down from heaven to the new earth where the final fulfillment of all prophecy and Christ kingly reign will be fully established and all the heathen purged from this promised land.
So all Israel shall be saved and we have the fulfillment of prophecy.

BTW Steve: Excellent concise explanation. Who can resist this clarity and consistency and harmony of all scripture?

Reflecting on the classical Dispies view of Jews I wonder how they can think there can be a future for Jews who admittedly are mostly if not all mixbreed now in light of this scripture
John 4:9
How is it that You, being a Jew, ask me for a drink since I am a Samaritan woman?" (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.) NASB
Mix Breeds were not considered Jews.
So who are the Jews that will come at the end times? Sons of Ishmael?
Sons of Esau or just sons of Judah? And will mix-breed sons be counted or are they not Jews?

And Was Jesus teaching Judaism or Christianity? Did he teach Old covenant Judaism or new covenant Judaism?
The new covenant with the House of Israel ? Or was He teaching for the church?

I say there is only one truth and Christ taught truth, the same truth. He taught the gospel Abraham got with the promises and taught the New covenant Judaism which is was the Gentiles get grafted into.
"I will declare Your name to My brethren; In the midst of the assembly I will praise You. You who fear the LORD, praise Him! All you descendants of Jacob, glorify Him, And fear Him, all you offspring of Israel!" (Psalm 22:22,23)

I am an intended descendant of Jacob, I am a descendant of Israel by promise and faith, one whom the promises of Abraham have come to

John 4:21-23
"Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall you worship the Father. 22 "You worship that which you do not know; we worship that which we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 "But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. NASB

Jesus taught that No Longer will men worship in Jerusalem. That is done. Now we worship anywhere in Spirit.

To hold out a hope for Jerusalem is to oppose the clear teaching of Christ.

I always find it interesting when ppl question whether or not the Church replaced Israel WHEN IN FACT Israel was the Church first and then God brought in the Gentiles to be apart of the Church.

__________________
sarah
WI
OPC
My Pastor's Sermons: Mark Jenkins...he's awesome!!!

If you had simply posted this at the start of the thread, I wouldn't have to read through SOOO many lines.

Just kidding.

God has made us, those whom are His elect, Jew and Gentile, one nation and people in Christ. We are now the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16), true Jews circumcised in heart (Romans 2:28-29, Colossians 2) and of the seed of Abraham, which is Jesus Christ (Galatians 3). To claim that God has preference about race instead of by His grace is foolishness and plain wrong.

__________________
William Price
Attending Mills Road Baptist Church, Houston, Texas

http://www.commandmentsandjudgment.com

The Reformed Voice Radio Broadcast

LBCF 1689

Wow...what a timely thread and good comments! I thank God for the PB.

I was listening to a sermon at church sunday and the pastor said that Israel was replaced by the church. He said it in passing and so fast that I almost didn't think I heard it...and I wondered how legit that view was.

I was planning on asking the Q here on the PB but now I don't have to!

thanks,
bob

__________________
Robert
Lay Person
PCA
West Virginia
Go share your faith

According to Romans 11 God has cut the unbelieving Jews out of the Covenant people, and yet is still working with them in his providence and will re-ingraft them as a nation in his good time.

See also this thread which looks at Palmer Robertson's approach to Romans 11.


O. Palmer Robertson on Romans 11

__________________
Richard
communicant member, FCoS
Perth, Scotland UK

His Name forever shall endure;
last like the sun it shall:
Men shall be blessed in Him,
and blessed all nations shall Him call (Ps. 72:17)

How do you think this will look like?

It'll look like the nation of Israel and the Jews becoming true Christians instead of being Judaistic or secular, etc.

When it'll happen? Who knows. I don't buy Robertson's attempt to deny that as well as an ongoing number of Jews in the Olive Tree, there will not be a future ingrafting of the Jewish people. Robertson seems to be addressing premils and dispys on Romans 11, rather than postmils and optimistic amils who believe in a future national conversion of the Jews. As a postmil, I believe in future national conversions of all nations - not just the Jews - in God's good time.

Otherwise Robertson's book seems very good; what I've read of it.

That's a good statement.

However, isn't it fair to say "amillennialism" believes that as well, but not to the extent of "Christianizing" broadly all the nations of the earth.

Isn't it also characteristic of "amillenialism" historically to see apostasy at the end, right before Christ's return? Also, that there is some distinction among "amillenialism" between that apostasy and at least a more or less equal advancement reflected right before the time of Christ's return?

__________________
Scott
PCA
North Carolina


"Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)"
Hebrews 10:23

The Talmud (Kesubos 111a) forbids the Jewish people from returning to the Land before the Messiah brings them back.
The modern state of Israel is just another new Nation like Croatia or East Timor, and will probably pass away like all other nations. The Jews did attempt to return in the 4th century under the Apostate Emperor Julian and rebuild their temple, but God brought it to nought and scattered them again. I believe this will be the fate of this new state of Israel(falsely called) as it goes about claiming covenantal rights for a covenant which it has breached long ago.

__________________
Jacob Peters
Layman
URC
Toronto
Canada

Richard or someone please Please can you explain to me why you think the word fullness has two completely different or opposite meanings in this passage

Rom 11:12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness! NKJV

Rom 11:25 blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. NKJV

Obviously fullness does not refer to some later influx a mass of Gentiles. It means a steady continual accumulation.

So how can fullness of Jews mean anything different than that same thing. The gradual continual engrafting of them through the ages?

Please help he have some understanding of how you can interpret these differently .
----------

What Jews?
Reflecting on the classical Dispies view of Jews I wonder how they can think there can be a future for Jews who admittedly are mostly if not all mixbreed now in light of this scripture
John 4:9
How is it that You, being a Jew, ask me for a drink since I am a Samaritan woman?" (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.) NASB
Mix Breeds were not considered Jews.
So who are the Jews that will come at the end times? Sons of Ishmael?
Sons of Esau or just sons of Judah? And will mix-breed sons be counted or are they not Jews?



How can anyone not get that this is the same religion and the unfaithful Jews forsook their religion when the fulfillments came?

This is the teaching of Judaism. It was never to be as those who left the faith, just because they continued to sacrifice and some stayed in Israel. Some didn't they moved to Germany Russia and New York.
So how are they the children of God?

Only the Jews who continued in the faith once for all proclaimed from the foundations of the earth, who were in the Ecclesia in the Wilderness, had the gospel preached to them are those Jews and Jewish proselytes who are the children of God.

If you are a Gentile you have simply become a Jewish proselyte and continue in the present day ministration of that faith.

1 Peter 4:6 For this reason the gospel was preached also to those who are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. NKJV

Acts 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: KJV

Boy no one wants to translate that word church now days do they??

Romans reminds us clearly that just as in the time of Jacob and Esau though both were ethnic Jews both were not the children of God. Just as Issac and Ismael were both descendants of Abraham this does nothing. Don;t say that is because Ishmael was a mix-breed because this is the same argument to day. Those who call themselves sons of Abraham are mix-breeds.
The point is it was never ever to the ethnic descendants. This was the error of the Pharisees who said Abraham is our father and Jesus corrected them and said, no he isn't. If Abraham was your father in the sense I meant it, you would know me.

Jesus was correcting the error that the dispensationalists hold to today.
He taught them that just as it had been said do not murder, this meant do not be angry, so also to be a son of Abraham did not mean be a fleshy descendant. It meant be of the faith of Abraham because the prophecies were all to the seed of faith, the seed of promise which is by The One Seed, being in Christ.

Only those Jews or gentile proselytes who are in the faith of Abraham were and are children of God and children of promise and heirs with Abraham.
Why, because it was always by faith, not by flesh or by law. Don't get hung up on law. It is used in the same sense as flesh. Hear the word of this.

Gal 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar — 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children — 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. NKJV

God tells us plainly these things were symbolic. They correspond to the elect, salvation of all who will be saved. The true Children of God. And those in bondage were not and are not now the children of promise, prophecy or of God. They are the ones he did abandon. now there may be some of them who will be saved but no differently any one else today who is saved. Not on the basis if their being ethnic Jews but because they are part of the elect of all nations.


The false Jews who remain in the land or form a new nation today have no part in God's plan.

There never was a complete restoration if the nation Israel on earth and God did not establish an earthly kingdom with Christ ruling in it.

All these prophecies failed or else they all really pointed to the Heavenly kingdom and eternal fulfillment of them Where Christ is reigning as King Supreme now and purging the land of the heathen as he continues to expand His kingdom, pulling people of all nations out of the bondage of satan breaking down the gates of hell as it were and saving them, grafting them into the root, Israel of promise, Israel of faith, the one body of Christ.

And ultimately the New Jerusalem will descend down from heaven to the new earth where the final fulfillment of all prophecy and Christ kingly reign will be fully established and all the heathen purged from this promised land.
So all Israel shall be saved and we have the fulfillment of prophecy.

See my link to my analysis of O.Palmer Robertson's exegesis of Romans 11. I agree that the question of the possible meaning(s) of the word "fulness" is a problem for this explanation of Romans 11.

I would venture that the view that the Apostle is only speaking of a small remnant of Jews being saved down through the ages has greater problems.

E.g. Rom 11:12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness! NKJV

The fulness of the Jews that Robertson speaks of here - which is the full number of Jews converted down through the centuries - has not had, and will not have, a commensurate benefit for the world and the Gentiles to the Jewish apostasy, because according to Robertson when it comes in the world will end. This is although the end of the world/Second Advent is not mentioned in Romans 11, and when the world ends the state of the saved and unsaved is established, and converted Jews will not have opportunity to enrich the world, as their fathers did by their apostasy.

Quote from Don
So how are they the children of God?

I'm certainly not saying that modern Jews are the children of God or that the nation of Israel is God's country. What I am saying is that Jews become children of God by faith in Jesus Christ and repentance towards God, and that Romans 11 teaches not only an ongoing remnant of Jews that believe, but also that there will be a national conversion. I'm not a Dispensationalist, any more than Charles Hodge or Johnnie Murray were dispys.


Here's the link again:-

O. Palmer Robertson on Romans 11

Amillenialism doesn't believe the Bible gives us warrant to say that all nations will be Christianised and recognise Christ and Christianity in their constitutions, that there will be a long, long period of international peace and relative blessedness as a result of this Christianisation. Postmils also believe that at the very end of the world there will be a short period of apostasy before Christ's Second Advent.

Amils tend to believe that good and evil will grow together throughout this age until at the very end the evil overcomes the good, just before Christ's Second Advent.

Postmils believe that the good will eventually overcome the evil in this world at every level, from the individual to the international, because Christ is ruling and reigning and can do this by His Word in the Gospel, by His Mighty Spirit, by His Invincible Church and by His Divine Providence by which He rules the nations with a rod of iron and progressively brings them under His subjection.

Judaism was always a religion, never a race. Descent from Abraham was always covenantal, never biological. That explains how a handful of Hebrews in Egypt became in 400 years a nation numbering millions. The classic Rabbinic Torah Commentaries state that Joseph converted large numbers of Egyptians to the Faith, These converts then became children of Israel, no longer considered as Egyptians.
Even in Rabbinic Judaism, many prominent rabbinic authorites consider being Jewish as Religious rather than racial. I know Maimonides believed that. The last Gaon of Babylonia, Saadia Gaon wrote""We exist as a nation only by virtue of our Torah""

Very helpful in understanding this, thank you. A few questions below.

Very helpful in understanding this, thank you. A few questions below.

Yes. I think some amils believe that there will be a national Jewish conversion, but they don't believe there is biblical evidence to show that it will lead to a long period of Gospel success and international peace among the Gentiles. They may stick it before the final apostasy.

Amillennialism totally spiritualises passages like Micah 4:1-5 or launches them into the eternal realm. Amillennialism doesn't expect the Gospel to be so successful that whole nations are converted to Christ with widespread economic and social benefits and international peace lasting for centuries. Some amils might say that that might happen, but they would not say like postmils that the Bible teaches it is going to happen.


It's taught in Revelation 20 that at the end of the Millennium Satan will be released to deceive the nations again. The period will be relatively short. Christ will return and the world will end. Amillennialism does not have a Silver Age from which to apostasise.

1) Yes.

2) The terms can be confused. Some optimistic amils are just postmils who believe that the millennium started in the 1st century. E.g. I believe the millennium started in the 1st century because I believe that the binding of Satan began then. I believe that the better/best times of the millennium are still future, but that the millennium has started. Most postmils are like this now i.e. they believe the millenium has started. Therefore some postmils describe themselves as optimistic amils. I would call myself an amil-postmil.

The Bible teaches it and Christ will permit it in His providence. It's an important reminder after this long period when most people are believers, that Demonic and Human sin are incorrigible unless they are defeated by God's grace.

So, classically, both "amills" and "postmills" believe in a short apostasy before Christ's return?

Even "optimistic amillennialists" believe this?

So, the difference between "amills" and "postmills" is that the latter see the apostasy as a greater falling away (because the nations were broadly Christianized, compared to the "amills" who have seen good and evil advancing more or less in tandem through history before)?

Out of curiosity, you say
Why?

Quote from Trans4mr
I always find it interesting when ppl question whether or not the Church replaced Israel WHEN IN FACT Israel was the Church first and then God brought in the Gentiles to be apart of the Church.

Good point. I don't believe that unbelieving Jews are part of the Church. But I believe that in Romans 11 God has promised to reingraft the Jews as a nation into the Church by faith in Jesus Christ and repentance towards God.

And the alternative view, which can be held by any of the classical millennial views, and which may be advocated by Mr. Robertson in the book you reference is that people with some Jewish ancestry will be gathered in for redemption is small bits, but not broadly as part of the "true Israel of God" Jews and Gentiles?

Quote from Scott
I believe so, although I read recently on this board that some may try to get round this. I don't know how they would/could do that.

Both Amillenniallism and Postmillennialism are postmillennial in their orientation. Both believe that Christ returns after their respective versions of the millennium. The main difference between postmils and amils is that postmils believe that the Bible teaches the dominance/dominion of Christianity in society and the world for a long period of time - maybe thousands of years - before Christ returns. Amils don't believe that there is enough biblical material to warrant this belief/hope.


That's one difference, although the main difference is in the previous paragraph.

Well I would usually say I was a postmil. But, technically, since I believe that the Millennium started in principle in the first century, rather than starting in the future, I'm an amil-postmil. I think most postmils are like this now.

In the old days I think you had many more postmils who would say that the Millennium didn't start until the future e.g. when Romanism fell, the Jews believed, the nations were Christianised, there was world peace.

Most postmils now a days would say that the Millennium started with Christ's ascension, but that we have not yet reached the Golden/Silver Age of the Millennium.

For more information see Lorraine Boettner's "The Millennium" and Iain Murray's "The Puritan Hope"

And the alternative view, which can be held by any of the classical millennial views, and which may be advocated by Mr. Robertson in the book you reference is that people with some Jewish ancestry will be gathered in for redemption is small bits, but not broadly as part of the "true Israel of God" Jews and Gentiles?

These people you refer to who have some Jewish ancestry were never the children of God, they were not Jews in any sense that God made promises to them that He would have to fulfill in saving a bunch of them.

Does God still have anything to do with Ishmael?
What about Easu and his descendants?

Well if God has no dealings with these descendants of Abraham why would He with any other ethnic descendants, esp mix- breed 2000 years later?

Romans reminds us clearly that just as in the time of Jacob and Esau though both were ethnic Jews both were not the children of God. Just as Issac and Ismael were both descendants of Abraham this does nothing.

The clear teaching in scripture is to make the distinction that God never made any promises to ethnic descendants.

This was the error of the Pharisees who said Abraham is our father and Jesus corrected them and said, no he isn't. If Abraham was your father in the sense I meant it, you would know me.

So again we are told God has no dealings with ethnic descendants anymore than he has with the tares in the church today.

Being in the visible covenant does not mean God will have dealings with you.

Jesus was correcting the error that the dispensationalists and sadly some reformed people hold to today.
He taught them that just as it had been said do not murder, this meant do not be angry, so also to be a son of Abraham did not mean be a fleshy descendant. It meant those of the faith of Abraham because the prophecies were all to the seed of faith, the seed of promise which is by The One Seed, being in Christ.

Only those Jews or gentile proselytes who are in the faith of Abraham were and are children of God and children of promise and heirs with Abraham.
Why, because it was always by faith, not by flesh or by law.

Don't get hung up on law. It is used in the same sense as flesh. Hear the word of this.
Gal 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar — 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children — 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. NKJV

God tells us plainly these things were symbolic. They correspond to the elect, salvation of all who will be saved. The true Children of God. And those in bondage were not and are not now the children of promise, prophecy or of God. They are the ones he did abandon. now there may be some of them who will be saved but no differently any one else today who is saved. Not on the basis if their being ethnic Jews but because they are part of the elect of all nations.


The ethnic Jews of those days who remained in the land or any who now form a new nation have no part in God's plan. No ethnic descendants, only the Jews of promise who are the Jews of faith and that by election just as it is with British, Italians, Canadians and French.

So All Israel will be saved. By the in-gathering of the nations, including any who might have some relations to Abraham, who are now just part of the nations, Gentiles.

There is nothing in the word that says after all Gentiles are in then more Jews will come in. There is no later, or after. This blindness happened until the Gentiles come in. IT says nothing about anything after, that is a filter that causes one to see it the other way.

It clearly says they were blinded so it could change, shift, stop, go to all nations. The only fullness is all the elect of all nations coming in.

Try reading "The Puritan Hope" Don, and you'll see that belief in a future national conversion of the Jews has been a Reformed "error" since at least the time of the Puritans.

This is one reason why Oliver Cromwell invited these "mixed-breeds" ,as you call them, back into England.

Also try answering my objections to Robertson's exegesis here:-

O. Palmer Robertson on Romans 11

Read it 30 years ago. Never was to wild about Ian Murray; Nice sentiments.
It was not all who held to this. It certainly did not hold the important place those who hold to it now days give it. Most of my thinking has been formed from the puritans and early reformers. I scarce come across any remarks about it from them. Ian really had to do some homework there to find it. Also read M. Kik and other Post-mil writings.

Its not a confessional issue

As for your Palmer Questions they have been answered in my previous posts like
Do you really think Fullness means 2 different things in the same passage?

Yes I disagree with those now or dead who think scripture teaches a future for ethnic Jews.

As far as one just thinking it might be so, fine. I have no problem with that
It may be so.

Just don't twist scripture to make them say that. If one infers it from general thoughts in scripture fine.
But don't force that meaning on scriptures that don't say it. That is my only concern. Just like We are never told angels have wings or that cherubs and seraphs and the 4 living creatures are angels.

Many like to believe this, they may be correct, just don't say scripture actually says it when it doesn't.

As Scott said in his linked outline for research. No inductive thinking. Just the facts. Then if you want to hold to some other inductively reasoned idea fine. But let scripture say what it does.
we can disagree here, I just wanted to know if you actually had any scripture that clearly taught it or just liked the idea or tried to make scripture say it that doesn't necessarily mean that.

There is no such thing as the Jewish race. Deut 26:5 refers to Abraham as an Aramean which today would make him an Iraqi. All Rabbinic authorities agree that he was the first convert to the Jewish Faith, which is why new converts to Judaism today are encouraged to change their names to Abraham.

There is no such thing as a racial or genetic Jew. According to Arthur Koestler(himself a ""Jew"") in his book ""The 13th Tribe"", modern European Jews and most North American Jews are descended from the Khazars, ---- a early medieval Turkish Kingdom which converted to Judaism and were later scattered in Europe. Likewise Yemenite Jews and North African Jews were descended from Yemenite and Berber Kingdoms which converted to Judaism. This accounts for the many different skin colours among the Jews in Modern Israel. This is not some Neo-Nazi nonsense, but the work of respected writers like Arthur Koestler and Paul Wexler(the latter published by SUNY)

Interesting. This could be said of many nationalities, including the Americans and British.

Who do you believe the Apostle Paul was speaking about in Romans 11 ?

E.g. When he said in Romans 11:12

Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

I.e. The fulness of these people would be of greater benefit to the Gentiles than their falling away has been!

The Jews were made from a variety of nations through intermarriage in Egypt. Moses married away from Egypt, they are a mixed race people.

The nation was based on circumcision and adherence to the worship of Jehovah, not a race.
So it was a nation, but never a race. It was a religious order.

Many prided themselves as being descendants of Abraham, but this was more ego than anything. So those adhering to the visible outward covenant were regarded as Jews or Israelites, whether they lived in the land or not. As Paul goes to synagogues all over outside Israel. The synagogue worship was what defined the Jew. Not a race or nation they lived in.

Paul faults the Jews wherever they lived if they did not accept Jesus as their Messiah.

Those who forsook their Jewish religion and its Messiah and continued in the old style worship actually apostated the religion.

So there is no more Jewish religion. There is an apostate group who continue in some of the outward aspects of old Judaism. But the were and are not true Jewish believers. Paul clarifies this. He is not a JEw who is one outwardly.

So there ceased to be Jews at that time.

Now in this transition period he referred to those who had not yet accepted Jesus as Messiah as Jews or Israelites, as an ethnic people or race because many were no doubt related. But he clearly tells them the promises as they understood them were never to all the jews who lived in the land or were ethnically related to Abraham, or who kept the law.

The promises in the Jewish religion had been only to those who were true believers, by faith. It was never to all the ethnic Jews or outward members of the religion and visible covenant

This is why they never got the promises of the land because there were so few to whom those promises were made, ie. so few faithful.

So if I convert to the religion of Judaism today, and become a Jewish proselyte like others and those of old testament times, is there some special work God will have for me ??


As we have asked over and over, What Jew?

There are none left. all true Jews converted and became Christians and we are excited by their fullness. The apostate side of the religion ended in the 1st century as all those died off.

Those who currently call themselves JEws, neither practice the whole law, or the sacrifices required in the OT religion. They are pretenders, mainly for political reasons, or culturally raised in it to one degree or other, and know no difference.

Since it never was a race, it was a religion of racially mix breed people and foreign proselytes who held to the outward aspects of the covenant, which contained some true believers, who are the Jews God will deal with? And how will we know, or they know?

The ones actually related by flesh to Abraham only? Who the promises were nto made to? Or anyone who sort of holds to some aspects of the religion, or those living in the new nation calling itself Israel who mostly do not follow the religion at all or as closely as the Orthodox Jews in New York who say the Israeli govt are not Jews but a group of people who illegally attacked some Arabs and are still trying to colonize and conquer their land?

Why , if God never made promises to them, and the way He had not cast off His people was to allow them to be converted like Paul, would He do something with whoever these people are later??

To what purpose? How would we know since we don't even know who a Jew is in God's mind if He still has a concept of Jew.
What would be the point of this or telling us it will happen?

Does this somehow justify God in our eyes?
Does it make us be nice to those who call themselves JEws so we dont' accuse them of killing Christ?

Of what use would it be?

Jews were not a race, were not just descendants of Abraham and being a child of Abraham was not a validation of being a Jew, at least not to Christ.

So His people He has not cast off, are only the ones like Paul who got converted.

That was His people He did not cast off and who the promises are eternal too.

Can you at least consider that this is possible and be open to seeing this is what is meant in scripture.

Don
So there ceased to be Jews at that time.

Your thesis that there are no Jews would make nonsense of what the Apostle is saying in Romans 11, even according to the exegesis of O. Palmer Robertson, who says that the Apostle is saying that there will always be a small number of Jewish believers. How could this be if there are no Jews?

The Jews are a nation and a religion, just as are the true people of God, Christians. The Jews are of mixed race, as are Americans and British.

Christians are characterised as a nation in the Bible, who have Christianity as there religion.

Don
So there is no more Jewish religion. There is an apostate group who continue in some of the outward aspects of old Judaism. But the were and are not true Jewish believers. Paul clarifies this. He is not a JEw who is one outwardly.

Did the Apostle or myself say that Jews who don't believe in Jesus are true believers? But in Romans 11, he clearly doesn't say that Jews who don't believe in Jesus don't exist.

Does the fact that Americans aren't one race mean that Americans don't exist?

Don
The promises in the Jewish religion had been only to those who were true believers, by faith. It was never to all the ethnic Jews or outward members of the religion and visible covenant

Then why does Paul make a special promise to the Jews in Romans 11 - according to O.Palmer Robertson's exegesis - that there will always be a small number of Jewish believers.

Don
So if I convert to the religion of Judaism today, and become a Jewish proselyte like others and those of old testament times, is there some special work God will have for me ??

I'd advise such a person not to convert to Judaism but believe in Christ. There's no guarantee of salvation for the individual even in the case of those who outwardly join the Christian Church. Paul says there will always be some Jews who will believe according to Palmer Robertson, and many other scholars believe in a future national conversion. Some Jews must exist for the first of these to be possible, and some Jews must exist for the first and second to be possible.

To deliberately convert to Judaism in order to get saved is tempting God and that would mean a lack of seeing the desired result there. Paul does not say which Jews will be saved, anyway, and doesn't say when there will be a national turning to Christ.

Don
Those who currently call themselves JEws, neither practice the whole law, or the sacrifices required in the OT religion. They are pretenders, mainly for political reasons, or culturally raised in it to one degree or other, and know no difference.

If they did practice the whole law they wouldn't be true Jews according to your reckoning because only those who believe in Christ are true Jews - and therefore ethnic Israel doesn't exist for you under any circumstances. Although the Apostle speaks of ethnic Israel in Romans 11.

Don
Can you at least consider that this is possible and be open to seeing this is what is meant in scripture.

Not really. Your thesis makes a nonsense of Romans 11, even according to an interpretation that would exclude a future national conversion. You're basically saying that Paul is talking about a "fulness" and "receiving of" a people that don't exist

Your thesis also proves too much. Your arguments for the non-existence of the Jews would be just as valid in the case of the Americans, the British and the Scots.

I wonder if you're reacting to the false teaching of dispensationalism. Were you brought up under dispensationalism?

How does God have two people? Is the church, as dispensationalism teaches, nothing more than a mere parenthesis in the plan of God? I do not believe so. When Jesus shed His blood, it had to be worth more than to bring forth a parenthesis in God's plan.