Israel has not been replaced by the church

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scott1

Puritanboard Commissioner
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?
 

Peairtach

Puritan Board Doctor
Quote from Scott
So, classically, both \"amills\" and \"postmills\" believe in a short apostasy before Christ's return?

Even \"optimistic amillennialists\" believe this?

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.


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)?

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

Out of curiosity, you say

Quote:
I would call myself an amil-postmil.

Why?

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"

The Puritan Hope: Revival and the Interpretation of Prophecy: Amazon.co.uk: Iain H. Murray: Books

-----Added 8/5/2009 at 08:04:54 EST-----

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?

Yes. We believe with Mr Robertson that there will always be a small number of believing Jews, but that at some point in the future (not at the end of history) there will be a national conversion of the Jews. Some of the reasons for that are given in my response to Palmer Robertson on Romans 11 on this site. See link in post above.
 

DonP

Puritan Board Junior
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.
 

DonP

Puritan Board Junior
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:-

http://www.puritanboard.com/f45/o-palmer-robertson-romans-11-a-51401/

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.
 
Last edited:

VilnaGaon

Puritan Board Sophomore
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)
 

Peairtach

Puritan Board Doctor
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!
 

DonP

Puritan Board Junior
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.
 

Peairtach

Puritan Board Doctor
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?
 

William Price

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 

Peairtach

Puritan Board Doctor
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.

If you're asking, I don't believe God has two peoples either. Nor did the Apostle Paul. But that didn't stop Paul from saying that God would always have Jews in His Church, and would also have a revival among the Jews in the future. That doesn't mean that God has two peoples any more than if Paul had said that God would always have a small number of Scots in His Church, and have a national revival among the Scots in the future.

Stick whatever nationality you want in there.

Paul views the reingrafting of the Jews as of inestimable benefit to the Church, as well as the Jews who believe. The Church is no parenthesis. Ordinarily, outwith the visible Church there has been no salvation.
 

William Price

Puritan Board Freshman
So, God does have preference in scripture towards one particular group of people? So, Christ's blood makes a Jew more important in Him, and with special privileges and blessings the rest do not have?
 

Peairtach

Puritan Board Doctor
So, God does have preference in scripture towards one particular group of people? So, Christ's blood makes a Jew more important in Him, and with special privileges and blessings the rest do not have?

No. A converted Jew isn't any better off than a converted Scotsman. Does the Apostle say that converted Jews are superior to converted Gentiles? Where do you get that from?

He does say that if the falling away of the Jews is the riches of the Gentiles, then how much more will be the receiving of them again be. That doesn't mean that when small or large numbers of Jews are converted they are inherently better Christians than other nationalities, nor does it mean they will make inferior Christians. It depends on how sanctified individual Jewish and other Christians become, regarding quality of Christians.
 

DonP

Puritan Board Junior
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.

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

Christians are not a nation as Israel was. They are of all nationalities. So this is meaningless.

I hope you can see this is not a logical conclusion.
Americans are not a religious group so there is no comparison at all. Ridiculous.

Jews, though not a race, were a nation. That nation ended. So there is no more national Jews.

If France had chosen the name Israel for their country would that make them Jews? The same is true for the new Israel.

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 ??

Rich said
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.

This is unresponsive and building a straw man.
You should notice how poorly you understand my question and consider if you also misunderstand scripture as poorly.

I said nothing of intentionally doing it to be saved. I didn;'t ask for you to try to advise ro convert them.
I simply said is any person who becomes a Jewish proselyte today going to be considered a Jew by God, should this later influx come in his lifetime? In other words who is a Jew in your mind now, or in God's mind?

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.

Rich said
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.

That is circular unresponsive reasoning. It points that there is no "Real Jew" anymore. They can't be real by keeping that which defined one as a Jew, the OT Law, nor can they be if they do not keep the law.


Rich said
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

No, I am saying you are misunderstanding the word fullness and making it say what it does not say. The word Fullness of Jews means no more than fullness of Gentiles. And that is them coming in over time.

I think you should stop arguing over the word fullness and argue for the word until. That is the important one. But a thorough study of that should expose it can as easily mean essentially, so that.

Consider this argument against Pretorism.
When Christ died, the temple left. The veil was rent, there is no more temple. Therefore the 70 AD temple was not a real temple. It had no significance.
Judaism and Jews as a religious order of many races ended. The nation ended, thus no more national Jews.

You can't just take a group of mix-breed people and start a new country 200 years later and call them Jews. To use your illustration more properly, you can't just take a bunch of Americans or a variety of races and go take over Egypt and say it is America and they are the religion of America or the Race of America or the religion of America. America is a national group, not a race or religion.
It is meaningless.

Are you a Partial Pretorist? Perhaps that forces you to not see this?

Paul could speak of Jews then, because he was in a transition time when they existed and were phasing out.
There has been no national Jew for 2000 years.
No one practicing consistently the OT Jewish religion for 2000 years.

So if there was a group of people who believed in Jesus but they did not believed they only had to keep the 1st table of the law and not the second, and they believed there was no judgment and eternal life was now and they would never die, would you call them Christians?

Well that is those who call themselves Jews today. They don't follow the Jewish religion. What would make them a Jew other than they say so?
 

Peairtach

Puritan Board Doctor
I am a partial preterist, more of a historical preterist actually, but I don't see how that is relevant.

How can you believe that the Apostle is talking about a small number of Jews being reingrafted until the fulness of the Gentiles if you don't believe that any Jews exist? Do you believe that the fulness of the Gentiles came in before the destruction of Jerusalem, and after that the Jews ceased to exist? You obviously disagree with Palmer Robertson, who believes Jews still exist. What Reformed commentator(s) teach that Paul is speaking about an ethnic group that doesn't exist?

This has got nothing to do with the land or nation of Israel.

Re races and nations, there is no American race. Their is also no Scottish race. We are both "mixed-breed" nations like the Jews. If God wanted to do a work among Americans or the Scots, would this make it difficult for Him? Is anything too hard for the Lord?
 

DonP

Puritan Board Junior
How can you believe that the Apostle is talking about a small number of Jews being reingrafted until the fulness of the Gentiles if you don't believe that any Jews exist? You obviously disagree with Palmer Robertson, who believes Jews still exist.

As I said, very clearly, because he was in a transition time where Jews still existed. the nation wasn't gone, completely at that point.

Point is even if there are Jews or people who call themselves that, who are the ones who God will do something with?
You refuse to define Jew. You don't know who they are. So what difference would it make and how would we know if God did something with them.
Is a Scotsman who converts to Judaism and goes to synagogue a potential candidate for one of your Jews who God will bring a bunch in, or do they have to be in the nation, or ethnic relative to Judah, and then 1/8 or 1/16th or 1/1000. How little blood of Judah can they have and still be one of these Jews. Who is a Jew today by your definition?
Will it include ethnic descendants of Easau or Ishmael or only Judah? Because we are told being a descendant of Abraham doesn't qualify you.

Thanks Professor Clark. Covenant theology is not replacement theology
A very clear concise explanation. I wouldn't even use the word addition though. I would say, continuation of, or fulfillment of Israel. But yes of course not a replacement.

And if the church is the continuation of Israel and the religion of Abraham, who are these who have started the new nation called Israel and Jews?

Maybe the synagogue of satan, but i doubt God will have any dealings with them other than judgment.
 

Peairtach

Puritan Board Doctor
So you believe that the fulness of the Gentiles came in before the destruction of Jerusalem? That must be what you believe, if you believe that the Jews ceased existing after AD 70.

Maybe the synagogue of satan, but i doubt God will have any dealings with them other than judgment.

If they don't repent, yes. If God is gracious to them He can reingraft them into the Church. There are some of this synagogue of Satan that have believed right down to this 21st century. God even gave grace to you and me to believe!

Is a Scotsman who converts to Judaism and goes to synagogue a potential candidate for one of your Jews who God will bring a bunch in, or do they have to be in the nation, or ethnic relative to Judah, and then 1/8 or 1/16th or 1/1000. How little blood of Judah can they have and still be one of these Jews. Who is a Jew today by your definition?

Who is a Jew by the Apostle Paul's definition? According to your treatment of the Jews, there is also no such thing as a Scotsman either, but we are a collection of Scottish, Pictish, Scandinavian, English and Brythonic mixed breeds. How does God know what to do when He blesses the Scots? Do you think the Lord has great difficulty knowing what to do?
 

DonP

Puritan Board Junior
So you believe that the fulness of the Gentiles came in before the destruction of Jerusalem? That must be what you believe, if you believe that the Jews ceased existing after AD 70.

Nope, wrong again.

Is a Scotsman who converts to Judaism and goes to synagogue a potential candidate for one of your Jews who God will bring a bunch in, or do they have to be in the nation, or ethnic relative to Judah, and then 1/8 or 1/16th or 1/1000. How little blood of Judah can they have and still be one of these Jews. Who is a Jew today by your definition?

Who is a Jew by the Apostle Paul's definition? According to your treatment of the Jews, there is also no such thing as a Scotsman either, but we are a collection of Scottish, Pictish, Scandinavian, English and Brythonic mixed breeds. How does God know what to do when He blesses the Scots? Do you think the Lord has great difficulty knowing what to do?[/QUOTE]

What do those have to do with the Bible?

So you don't know who a Jew is today. Then what purpose would there be in God "implying" He would do this?
Who would know if He had? How would we benefit. How would He be glorified if know one knew because no one knows who a Jew is.

The people Paul was referring to do not exist or are not visible to us at least.
And if they do, the scriptures have told us nothing concerning them.

My concern is only with the misinterpretation of scripture and God.

If someone wants to think God will save a bunch of people of some % relation to Judah, or who worship the kabbalah, or go to a synagogue, or learn a little yiddish from their grand parents, and He knows who they are, fine.

But when you think God has to do this to be fair, just or keep His promises then scripture is being handled errantly and God's hand is being forced to be faithful to some group of covenant breakers and general unregenerates.

Why would He love the unregenerate ?Jews more then he loves the unregenerate church members
They are both in the visible covenant? Why would He have to do something for the members of the one outward covenant members and not the other?
Does this even make sense?

We are to preach the gospel indiscriminately and if He told us this it might influence some. Which it has for many of those who think the word says this.

We are not to be respecters of persons and to think as though there is no Jew or Greek regarding God's plan of redemption. He has gone to all people of all nations. That is it.

I don't know what else to say. You don't know who a Jew is. Yet you hold to this until Fulness thing until it causes you to think strangely about the OT promises, but you are determined. So I say lets just end and think about all that has been said and Go to God for guidance.
Thanks for the peaceful interaction. It was helpful for me to see you would make the error of trying to define what a Jew is now. I applaud you for not falling into that trap and not thinking that way. If nothing else I hope it has helped you see that which many just take for granted.

If nothing else we have plunged into the word. And we agree the church is not a replacement ! Amen Praise God :encourage:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top