has the church replaced israel

im reading a book at the moment, called "our hands are stained with blood " by dr michael l brown.one of the comments which i have heard preached is that the church has replaced the jews as Gods chosen people, also called replacement theology.what are peoples ideas on this?its also about how & who of the church has persecuted the jews,some of the leading people are the churches heros,e.g martin luther, who hitler got his blue print to get rid of the jews.did anyone know that?also what are peoples ideas on praying for israel?

Two recent additions by Art Katz, among other Katz teachings, brings distinct answers to you questions:The Mystery of Israel (A 1999 convocation tape)The Holocaust and Christian ConscienceL. W.

"One of the comments which I have heard preached is that the church has replaced the Jews as Gods chosen people, also called replacement theology."Romans 9-11 and Ephesians 2 holds a thorough answer to the Replacement theology.L. W.

There is a thread in the church history folder call "The Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith." In that thread there are several articles that deal with the distinction between the Church and Israel. The question is loaded from the beginning, but the reality is that all of the covenants belonged to Israel and that we as Gentiles were essentially kept out until God broke down the middle wall of partition between us. There were proselytes into Judaism, but there were requirements for a Gentile to come into fellowship with the Jews. However, the same God of the Jews was always the God of the Gentiles. Jews must readily accept this or opt to suggest that there is more than one God- which most will not do. The problem arose in the first century when the leadership in Israel by and large rejected Christ as the Messiah. Keep in mind that the entire early church that we read about in the first Chapters of Acts were all Jews save very few proselytes. The question USED to be can a Gentile be a believer?- now the question is can a JEW be a believer? This is how twisted things have become. Peter was on the roof when he received that revelation. Even at that- he tended at times to struggle with this and even had to be confronted by Paul the Apostle. Paul used the illustration of an Olive Tree (Romans 11:13-24). The Olive Tree belonged to Israel as theirs are the covenants and theirs are the promise of a Messiah, etc. The branches of the tree represent individual people. Paul asks "What if some of the branches were broken off?" Some did not believe and were broken off. Some did believe and remained. The evidence of believe is 'good fruit' (i.e. ye shall know them by their fruits). Some Gentiles never believed and were not grafted in- some did believe and were (are). Herein is the issue at hand- the Jews naturally remain in the tree from birth so long as they believe in their Messiah and bring forth good fruit- if they do not they are broken off. If the Gentiles do not bring forth good fruit they are broken off and the Jew- if they continue NOT in unbelief, but genuinely believe in Christ they can be grafted back in. The question at hand is, "Did the Church replace Israel?" The word Church is ekklesia. The "called out" ones- the ones who are called out of the world. Israel was called out of the world. God invites Gentiles also in calling them out of the world into His ekklesia. Within the ekklesia is Israel who throughout the Book of Revelation maintains her identity. You read about the "twelve tribes of Israel." I like to think of the believing Gentiles and believing Israel as the Ekklesia- with Israel maintaining her distinction within the "called out ones." At first look this would seem to contradict "Their is neither Jew nor Greek, etc.", but the passage also says there is neither male nor female. In a unique way their is that 'calling' wherewith they were born and called as Isreal that is irrevokable. But, no one is saved by virtue of their blood line- ALL must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (Yeshua to the Messianic Jews) to be part of that Ekklesia. The greater question is WHY do not the Jews believe in the same proportion as they did in the first century. There are many reasons for this. The Jewish roots thread explores the issues. If I might recommend "Our Father Abraham" by Dr. Marvin Wilson. It is THE text book on Jewish Roots. Best Regards,-Robert

"One of the comments which I have heard preached is that the church has replaced the Jews as Gods chosen people, also called replacement theology."I have been debating with myself whether or not I ought to get involved with this thread, but have decided it would be dishonest and cowardly to stay silent. So in conscious defiance of Pro 17:28 here goes...I am a believer in, what opponents of the views I hold call, replacement theology, although I would prefer to call it fulfillment theology. This topic is probably the most sensitive we have touched here on sermonindex, so a gentle reminder for our need for patience and forebearance will not be amiss. Rather than launch into a full scale exposition of my views I'll just make a brief start.The word 'ekklesia' already had a history before it was used in our New Testament. It was used in the Greek version of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint (LXX). The letter to the Hebrews makes this link in the KJV. Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church (ekklesia) will I sing praise unto thee. (Heb 2:12 KJV) This is a quotation from Psalm 22 where the Hebrew has qâhâl and the LXX has ekklesia. There is another reference in Stephen's speech; This is he, that was in the church (ekklesia) 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: Act 7:38 KJV)qâhâl is used in the Old Testament more than 120 times and is frequently translated in the LXX by the word ekklesia. One of the significant places it is used is the the institution of the Passover; And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly (qâhâl) of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening. (Exo 12:6 KJV) Another key instance is in regard to sin offerings; And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly (qâhâl), and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty; (Lev 4:13 KJV)In fact, as a result of the covenant at Sinai a new entity came into being; the church (qâhâl) of Jehovah. [Nu 16:3 20:4 De 23:1,2,3,8 Jud 21:5 1Ch 28:8 Mic 2:5] A similar search would produce a another list for the phrase "qâhâl of Israel".The disciples of Jesus were all proficient in Greek and the LXX became the KJV of the early Christians. They would all, therefore, have had a clear concept of the qâhâl or ekklesia of Jehovah/Israel. They understood that entry to that body was by the Sinai Covenant. What can they have understood by the astonishing words of Christ; And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church (ekklesia); and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Mat 16:18 KJV)The disciples already knew themselves to be part of the 'ekklesia of God'. How could Jesus speak of the establishing of His own 'ekklesia' in the future tense? At the moment of His speaking His own 'ekklesia' had not come into being, and yet the 'ekklesia of God' was already in existence.Somehow we have to relate these two churches; the church of Jehovah and the church of Christ. Robert makes the first a subset of the second. Many make the second an extension of the first. I believe the intentions of God declared to the first find perfect fulfillment in the second. For this view I am branded a believer in 'replacement theology'.:-(As a further gentle provocation I came across this quotation in F F Bruce; ekklesia was used in the LXX to render the Hebrew word qahal, the congregation of Israel, the nation in its theocratic character, organized as a religious community. The choice of this term was a further indication of the early Christians' conviction that they were the legitimate successors of the true Israel, bound by God to Himself in covenant-relationship from the days when Israel first became a nation. The Spreading Flame. F.F.Bruce p.71 There are some very detailed notes on the word 'ekklesia' in Bullenger's Appendix 186 in the Companion Bible; not that I commend all his conclusions.

I am a complete idiot when it comes to theology but being childlike in my reading of the scriptures and with no outside influence (no other teachings) I just understood what Paul said to mean that Israel or His bride, or the church- to mean those who believed on the Lord Jesus- in the New testament after Jesus has come inthe flesh.It does even say in 1 John 2: 22-23 "22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also."This made me believe that anyone who denies Jesus is the Christ is of an antichrist spirit- including the Jews who deny Him.Romans 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.Just thoughts here.

Paul used the illustration of an Olive Tree (Romans 11:13-24). The Olive Tree belonged to Israel as theirs are the covenants and theirs are the promise of a Messiah, etc. The branches of the tree represent individual people. Paul asks "What if some of the branches were broken off?" Some did not believe and were broken off. Some did believe and remained. The evidence of believe is 'good fruit' (i.e. ye shall know them by their fruits). Some Gentiles never believed and were not grafted in- some did believe and were (are). Herein is the issue at hand- the Jews naturally remain in the tree from birth so long as they believe in their Messiah and bring forth good fruit- if they do not they are broken off.Hi RobertYou will recall we met here earlier. ;-) My question then was 'but what is the root?'. It clearly cannot be Israel in the flesh, as they are represented by the natural branches. Do you really mean to say that physical descendents of Abraham remain in the tree as long as they don't reject their Messiah, but that Gentiles need to actively believe to be grafted in? There is a letter-long theme in Romans; For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (Rom 1:16 KJV) It has an accompanying chorus that we hear twice; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; (Rom 3:22-23 KJV) and again in the heart of Rom 9-11; For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Rom 10:12-13 KJV).

Dear Robert,”Our Father Abraham” by Marvin R. Wilson is not that easy to read.Are there other books which you can recommend?Lars

I am a complete idiot when it comes to theology but being childlike in my reading of the scriptures and with no outside influence (no other teachings) I just understood what Paul said to mean that Israel or His bride, or the church- to mean those who believed on the Lord Jesus- in the New testament after Jesus has come inthe flesh.Hi ChaninI think pretty much the same (not as regards your theological skills ;-) ), but there was a 'church' before this one and the question I am asking is 'what has happened to it and what has happened to the promises that were made to it?'

Hi Bro Lars,Yes it is a bit tough to read bacause the terms are very foreign to us as we are pretty used to using our traditional words and phrases. There are other books that come to mind, but i would not want to send someone reading something that I think is out of step with what God is trying to do in the non-Jews of the Church- in trying to unnecessarily mold them into Messianic Jews. Some books speak of the Talmud and Mishna as though they were good things when in reality they were products of the Pharisees and are the very cause (lamp shade effect) that the scripture cannot be seen as it should be by the Jews. Fortunately we are likely to see some books written that give a balanced view of the issues that is a little less scholarly than Wilson's book. Gary Hedrick has some pretty good info on these topics as I have read his newsletter throughout the years. www.messianicspecialties.com God Bless,-Robert

but there was a 'church' before this one and the question I am asking is 'what has happened to it and what has happened to the promises that were made to it?' From reading what Pauls says in chapter 9:But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. For this is the word of promise: "At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son." And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. Doesn't this have something do do with pre-destination?Isaac was the seed of promise, wasn't Ishmael the seed of Flesh because they did not trust God for the promise. And through this seed of promise eventually came Jesus. Wasn't He the promise? And whoever rejects this promise, but instead makes "flesh" their's will not inherit the kingdom?So some jews still believed after Jesus did come(that Jesus was the promise) and some gentiles also. They became one church.Does this make any sense? :-o

Yes it is true that in Christ the 2 have become one, but God is still dealing with unsaved jews in a different way until the times of the gentiles is fulfilled. The passages in the later part of Romans go over this clearly. I do even believe thus far to the cringing of some of my evangelical fellows that people will be saved apart from Christ, in Romans it states it pretty clear that God will judge some by their consiences as a law against them.and you think I have some interesting ideas :-? I have a lot of sympathy with the latter part of this quote but you are assuming that God's election of Israel was for salvation. I don't believe it was; it was for a unique service which they forfeited as a nation as a result of their rejection of Christ. The nation's hedge was broken down and the kingdom given to another nation.I come pretty close to Campbell Morgan in my thinking of all this. Here is a selection of quotations from his letters. When I first read this book of quotations from his letters by his daughter in law I was amazed at how close;"Have the Jews a future? None whatever, save in Christ. The more I read the New Testament, and perhaps especially Paul, the clearer it becomes to me that all the promises made to them are fulfilled in Christ and the Church." Letters p289"I am quite convinced that Israel as a nation was excommunicated by our Lord from its official position (Matt 21:43) and that all the ultimate spiritual intentions of God are realized and will be fulfilled in and through the church." Letters p146"election is to service not to salvation" letters p211"There is no question whatever that all the promises of God are conditional. One has only to go over them carefully and study them to see that this is so. These conditions were not fulfilled by the Hebrew people, consequently for them, as a human race, the promises will never be fulfilled. On the other hand they will be fulfilled through Christ, who was the Seed of Abraham, and in His Church. I think a careful study of Romans 9,10,11 will show this." p291

Does this make any sense?Hi ChaninMakes sense to me. Are you sure you are a blonde? (just joking :-D )

Makes sense to me. Are you sure you are a blonde? (just joking )Ha ha. sure am! Can I just say that He uses the weak things to confound the wise. :-P

Hi Bro. Ron,My question then was 'but what is the root?'. It clearly cannot be Israel in the flesh, as they are represented by the natural branches. Do you really mean to say that physical descendents of Abraham remain in the tree as long as they don't reject their Messiah, but that Gentiles need to actively believe to be grafted in? This question is kind of a quantum leap into deep things of God. ;-) But I would first like to say that the root has to be Christ as He was promised to Adam and Eve and then to the patriarchs. “And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.” (Verse 7.) God also promised that he would make him the father of many nations and in him would all the families of the earth be blessed. But Isaac was the promised son, and God said unto Sarah, “and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.” The covenant and promises were unto Abraham and unto his seed after him. “He said not, And to seeds as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed which is Christ” (Galatians 3:16). Therefor the promise was made not unto seeds (plural)- but unto to His Seed, which was Christ. Moreover, we are all saved because we are in Christ and our life is hid with Christ in God. We are grafted into Christ and Christ is rooted in God as the second person of the Godhead.The Church as we know it is not the TRUE Israel and Israel is not the true Israel- Jesus Christ the eternal Son of the living God is the true Israel. Everyone else is an adopted 'son' - whether Jew, Greek, male, female. Christ is the only uniquely begotton Son of God. Therefor we are all in him by faith. He alone can be the root. In Him we live and move and have our being. IF any man be in Christ he is a new creature. I am the True Vine-, etc. Christ was born a Jew. God considers this lineage to be very important as was seen in His reaction to Esau despising His birthright. We can learn a lot from the 'begats'- but suffice it to say for now that God chose to reveal His Son through the Jewish people, His ekklesia (called out of the world ones). Many were and are still 'called' but few are chosen. God chose a people from which to demonstrate His goodness and ultimately bring forth His Son Jesus Christ. Those people were the Jews. It was done to provoke the goyim (nations) to jealousy- kind of like when you set one of your kids on your lap in the presence of the others. Naturally, all the kids should want to sit on Daddy's lap after Daddy lets Jacob sit on His lap. But Jacob didn't show that is was such a great thing to sit on Daddy's lap- and ultimately squirmed off His lap and was scattered among the nations. God then set "whoseoever would" on His lap in order to provoke to jealousy Jacob to want to come sit on ABBA's lap again. The question is- are we provoking Jacob to come sit with us on Daddy's lap- or are we mocking and jesting and making Jacob not want to sit with us on Daddy's lap. We are supposed to demonstrate the glory of being adopted as His son's and daughters by faith- for whether we are Jew or Gentile we are all His son's and daughters' by faith. Only Christ is worthy to Sit with His father in His throne- we are all their by invitation (ek). God Bless,-Robert

RobertLots of things here to talk about.The Church as we know it is not the TRUE Israel and Israel is not the true Israel- Jesus Christ the eternal Son of the living God is the true Israel. I am thrilled with this statement. I have long seen Christ's whole eartly ministry as establishing just this truth. He came from the wilderness, supported with the words of Deuteronomy in His heart, having been identified by the Dove; a symbol of Israel. I see Him establishing the rule of God in the land that Israel in the flesh never succeeded in doing. He fulfilled the Servant of the Jehovah witness that Israel after the flesh failed to do... and so on. But if He has fulfilled Israel role isn't that a kind of replacement theology?Christ was born a Jew. God considers this lineage to be very important as was seen in His reaction to Esau despising His birthright. We can learn a lot from the 'begats'- but suffice it to say for now that God chose to reveal His Son through the Jewish people, His ekklesia (called out of the world ones). Many were and are still 'called' but few are chosen.Not nearly so thrilled with this statement. ;-) This will not do. ekklesia does not mean people who have been called but not chosen. You will know the word 'eclectic' which means chosen-out-of, not potentially but in fact. You are making the word ekklesia mean the invitation; it isn't it is those who have been chosen and set apart into a body. You will know it is used of the town council in Acts 19; this is not the potential council but the elected. Is it time to examine the relationship between the words Jew, Israel as a people, Israel as a nation state? These words are not synonymous. Not all who were drawn into covenant at Sinai were blood descendents of Abraham; the classic example is Caleb. We need,surely to distinguish between the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic.

You are making the word ekklesia mean the invitation; it isn't it is those who have been chosen and set apart into a body. You will know it is used of the town council in Acts 19; this is not the potential council but the elected. Hi Bro. Ron,The statement does come off that way as I should have read it back again and clarified. Certainly I agree with your take on that.

Ron,Is your intent to discuss with one or two persons who already know the issue at hand or are others to profit from your insight?You need to take much less for granted as to ability to handle this subject to make it to be of any value for the larger group of readers – including me.Please, if possible, do correct - as this subject is of great interest and importance.Lars W.

Is it time to examine the relationship between the words Jew, Israel as a people, Israel as a nation state? These words are not synonymous. Not all who were drawn into covenant at Sinai were blood descendents of Abraham; the classic example is Caleb. We need,surely to distinguish between the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic.I think the issue at hand is one of God's intention and purpose in His revelation of salvation through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God set the descendants of Abraham apart by birthright and circumcision; but the birth and circumcision alone are not enough to constitute being "Of Israel." The just shall live by faith. Therefor those who "were of their father the Devil" had no right to say of themselves they had Abraham as their father even though they were a descendant of Abraham. In these things indeed we see a distinction between Israel as a nation (or a people) and Israel as the true sons and daughters of God. However, the part of Israel that rejected Christ as Messiah have maintained their identity throughout the centuries in identification as 'Jews' and have followed for near 2000 years a form of Judaism- which alledges to hope for the coming of a Messiah. Rabbinic Judaism is not the Judaism of the first century. there have been a lot of falsehood passed down and taught to children- butressed with the maltreatment of the Jews in nearly every land and age of recent history- and often in the name of Christ. We have to deal with the fact that there are Jews that exist because God has not cast away the people that He foreknew- else they had utterly had been assimilated within the nations of the diaspora. There are Jews today as there was in Paul's day and if he were here his attitude would be the same- wishing himself to be accursed from Christ for his people and kinsman according to the flesh. If that was Paul's feeling- should we not share that urgency? This issue is schrouded in mystery so it is easier to lay out the facts of what we know than to try to figure them all out. But suffice it to say that it is our responsibility to provoke the unbelieving Jews to jealousy and return to their God and His Christ. The Gospel is to the Jew first and also to the Greek. This must happen in every generation. Either chronologically or priori (depending on the translation of 'first') our priorty must be that they MUST hear the Gospel. Will Israel (the Jews) eventually be the people from which God exercises a theocratic government in the earth with Christ seated on the throne of David in Jerusalem- we shall see. I do not have a problem with this biblically at all. I agree with Art Katz that Israel (the Jews) are key to God working out His plan of redemption in the earth. The middle wall of partition (the law) has been broken down. God removed in Christ the enmity between the Jew and the Gentile by removing the laws that kept them seperated (i.e. what God hath cleansed- that call not thou common). The devil has turned this around and erected a wall of antagonism in the Gentiles against the Jews and have all but destroyed the peace that God intended to make between us. This is a tragedy of epoch proportions. There are distinctions and roles for Jew and Gentile just like there are for men and women. We must understand that there is equality among all of us- but difference in function and position. When we blur the distinction between Jew and Gentile it is no less than blurring it between men and women. The purpose and structure that God has set up- is thwarted (so it seems). The machine simply quits working and souls are lost. It has been my hope to see these issues resolved that God's people that He foreknew would have an opportunity to hear a pure Gospel message and a real opportunity to accept or reject their Messiah as He really is - as opposed to how the Church has represented Him for near 2000 years.God Bless,-Robert

Hi LarsMy intent is very much to have a public conversation with a consciousness that others are listening. I think I may have run on talking to Robert; my apologies. What part would you like me to take more time on?I began by trying to establish that there are two churches mentioned in scripture and that our task is to see how they relate to each other.Let me begin again at another point; Sinai and the word 'Israel'. It is important to remember that when the Bible speaks of the New Covenant it is comparing it with the Sinai Covenant; Abraham was not Old Covenant technically. We then need to understand the nature, purpose and duration of the Sinai (Old) Covenant. This is given plainly in Galatians; Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. (Gal 3:19 KJV) It was added to something that God had previously established with Abraham and was given because of sin. Its duration is clearly stated; until the Seed should come. That is to say the Old (Sinai) Covenant existed for approx 1300 years; from Sinai to Calvary and was sin focused. It was given in an integrated package with a priesthood. The nature of the priesthood and the nature of the law are inseparable; For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. (Heb 7:12 KJV) The Sinai (Old) Covenant cannot exist without its priesthood. The priesthood was with efficacy from Calvary and finally removed physically in AD 70.Let me say plainly, what I am doing here. I am eliminating Sinai from our discussion. It no longer has any relevancy to our topic; it ended over 19 centuries ago. But this has enormous significance because the Sinai Covenant was, among other things, a tenancy agreement for the land. It was on the basis of their obedience to the terms of the agreement that Israel kept her tenancy; when she broke the tenancy agreement she lost the land. This was the case effectively from 135 AD and the Bar Kochba Revolt. Israel was constituted as a nation state on the basis of the Sinai Covenant which is no longer operative. This has serious implications for the Partition of Palestine which the United Nations enacted in 1948. Its title deeds are to be found not in Abraham's purchase of Hebron but the Sinai Covenant. The nation's right to the right is dependent upon a lapsed legal agreement.Is modern Israel the legitimate successor to those who received the Old Covenant at Sinai? Is to be Israeli the same as being a Israelite? These are important contemporary implications to our topic.Perhaps just a single further comment on the Sinai Covenant. It is often assumed that all who were joined in that covenant were blood descendents of Abraham, but this is not the case. The most famour example is Caleb who was chosen as the Judah representative to spy out the promised land. Caleb is described as being 'of the tribe of Judah' [Num 13:6] and he was certainly 'part' of that clan but Caleb is described elsewhere as; ...Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenezite, and Joshua the son of Nun: for they have wholly followed the LORD. (Num 32:12 KJV). Kenaz was the grandson of Esau and as such not a 'son of Israel' at all. He had come into Israel at Sinai; others could become part of that covenant nation and would partake of the blessings of the covenant. The name Israel is used to describe God's people rather than God's people being Israel. Let me illustrate; Israel had meant 13 tribes (12+Levi)but during the divided monarchy Israel meant the 10 and a half tribes of Northern kingdom. In 722BC they passed from history into legend as prisoners of the Assyrians. That left 'Judah' which comprised Judah, Benjamin, and sprinklings of the other tribes who had moved south as 'Israel' became more pagan. In the 6th century BC the people of Judah were taken captive my the Babylonians. 70 years later the remnant returned; they numbered 42,360 + 7,337 male and female servants + 200 "singing men and singing women. [Ezra 2:64]. This is a tiny percentage of the 12 tribes who had gone into captivity. It is, in effect, the remnant of the remnant of the remnant. Yet this tiny remnant of Judah is referred to as 'all Israel'. [Ezra 2:70] It is 'all Israel' because it is all that is left of Israel; Israel is the name of the body of God's covenant people.I won't follow the word Israel into the New Testament at this point other than to draw attention to Paul's phrase; Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? (1Co 10:18 KJV) Why would Paul add the defining clause 'after the flesh'? Simply because there is another Israel which has now taken centre stage and he knew that if he had not said 'after the flesh' his readers would have thought that he was referring to the other Israel; the Israel of God, the church, the covenant people of God.

That is a statement of great truth and insight I echo Ron's statment but would add could not Christ have had a double fold fulfillment such as fulfilling the promises to the earthly Israel and then in turn opening the door to the heavenly Jerusalem?Yes. I was thinking about how I had not added a similar thought while at lunch. :-) I am trodding a fine line here. I must insist that Jesus was the true Israel, but that He was born a Jew in a Jewish culture and to a Jewish people. To them belonged the covenants, etc., and Christ is the 'who' of all those things. That is not to deminish my long standing belief that the roots of our Christian faith are Jewish- only that Jesus Christ (Yeshua) was the ultimate Jew. He was and is the personification of all that God intended them to be. God Bless,-Robert

AMEN count me as a blond thenI expect a little more sensitivity from sermonindexers. I think this flaunting of hair by people who have some should now stop.

A side-note question for you, Ron and others is it the weak things (as in people) or is it the message that is foolish .. and the vehicle can be weak or strong but the power is in the foolish message either way?Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.(1Co 1:25-29 KJV)I think the clear implication in this scripture is that it is people that Paul has in mind. The next chapter carries his unwitting illustration of the truth; And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.(1Co 2:3 KJV)

That is not to deminish my long standing belief that the roots of our Christian faith are Jewish- only that Jesus Christ (Yeshua) was the ultimate Jew.Hi RobertI would regard the foundation of our Christian faith as being Abrahamic, pre-circumcision Abrahamic.

but there is a fact that 'all Israel will be saved'The scripture says this, certainly. It all depends on what it means by 'all Israel'. It certainly can't include Judas. See my longer post to Lars on the meaning of Israel.Islam is a religion that teaches that vehemently that God has superceded Israel due to disobedience and has given the promise to the Christians (the people of the book) then in turn they were disobedient so he passed it onto Islam predominatly the messenger Muhammed as the last prophet.Islam would not have come up with this concept if 'Christendom' (I will not call it Christianity) had not become territorial. 'Sinaism' and 'Islam' are both territorial religions; when both claim the same territory we can expect problems. Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. (Mat 21:43 KJV) seems pretty straight forward to me as an ending of one nation's privilege and a determination to give it to another.

I don't disagree with that at all (hence "Our Father Abraham"). Certainly there is a lot since Abraham that God has revealed about Himself through the Mosaic system and the Prophets that lived under that system (including Christ). I would also contend that those who were never under the Law (as it were) upon hearing it are brought to understand aspects of God's holiness and righteousness which sheds much light on the purpose of sacrifice all the way back to Adam- and their great need of the cross. The Wilderness Tabernacle, the Temple, are all types and shadows of the real Temple in Heaven. We cannot divorce ourselves from these revelations as they are vital to our understanding of God and our growth in relationship with Him. I think the topic title should shift to ZIONISM- as it is the direction things seem to be going.God Bless,-Robert

The Wilderness Tabernacle, the Temple, are all types and shadows of the real Temple in Heaven. We cannot divorce ourselves from these revelations as they are vital to our understanding of God and our growth in relationship with Him.But we do need to remember that they are the shadows and the real is now available. I have a lot of time, over the years, in Hebrews; it is one of my favourite books. Any student of scripture will know the need to find definitions in history for terms and concepts, but the key to the Old Testament is the New Testament; this was Augustine's conviction, and Luthers...This is really where the difference lies. If I interpreted the New Testament in the light of the Old Testament I would come to your conclusions, but if you regarded the New Testament as the definitive exposition of the Old Testament I think you would arrive at my conclusions.

Though Luther certainly deserves his due, it is noteworthy that he rejected the apostolicity of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation which would have had a profound influence on his doctrine and would have contributed to a theology that gave birth to his sorely antisemetic "On the Jews and Their Lies." Think about the loss of light we had suffered had the AV been missing those books all together or had they been counted as apocraphal writings (Revelation as 4 Esdras, etc.). Hebrews is perhaps my favorite book along side Revelation (if its ok to have favorites :-) ). James was seen as a thorn in the side of sola feday for years as many viewed him as a Judaizer. He was the half brother of our Lord and the first President of the Church at Jerusalem. My question in all this is what is the 'root' of all this antisemitism over the centuries? We seemed to go from a group of Gentiles that Paul had to convince was part of God's eternally elect to an almost emperialism of sorts. Talk about turning the tables. Art Katz once noted that the frustration of being unable to reach them created a platform for Luther to write that tractate. Why was one not written about the non-Jews that could not be reached? See what I mean. There is a sinister inconsistency here that is bent against the Jewish people. Its the Spirit of antichrist. We must not yield to its influence. We must do all we can to show the Jews their Messiah as He truly is.God Bless,-Robert

James was seen as a thorn in the side of sola feday for years as many viewed him as a Judaizer. He was the half brother of our Lord and the first President of the Church at Jerusalem.You are usually pretty precise about your use of biblical language so this surprised me. The church in Jerusalem had no presidents, nor is there biblical evidence that James even held a first among equals role. My question in all this is what is the 'root' of all this antisemitism over the centuries? We seemed to go from a group of Gentiles that Paul had to convince was part of God's eternally elect to an almost emperialism of sorts. Talk about turning the tables. Art Katz once noted that the frustration of being unable to reach them created a platform for Luther to write that tractate. Why was one not written about the non-Jews that could not be reached? See what I mean. There is a sinister inconsistency here that is bent against the Jewish people. Its the Spirit of antichrist. We must not yield to its influence. We must do all we can to show the Jews their Messiah as He truly is.Wow, there are a some rather large steps taken here. How did we get from 'replacement theology' to anti-semitism. I think Art Katz speculations are pretty unlikely, although I don't need any persuasion of Luther's ferocious later years. Art's views on the church's need to specifically target/evangelise the 'Jews' are pretty well known; I don't share them. If your reference to a group of Gentiles that Paul had to convince was part of God's eternally elect is your interpretation of Romans 9-11, we are a long way apart. Here is my own scenario for Rom 9-11. Rome was a unique setting for this letter. At its beginning it would have been predominantly 'Jewish', but at a point in its history all the 'Jews' were expelled from Rome leaving the church there predominantly 'Gentile'. Later some 'Jews' such as Priscilla and Aquila filtered back. By this time 'Jewish' opposition to the gospel had become institutionalised. Fewer and fewer 'Jews' would give the gospel an honest hearing. Consequently fewer and fewer converts. This, combined, with the well known prophesies of removed branches [John 15], broken down hedges and disinheritance led the 'Gentiles' to the conclusion that God had closed the door to them, and 'cast away his people'. The contrary was true He had held our His arms to them all day long, but they had rejected Him. The door was not closed to 'Jews' as individuals and Romans 9-11 expounds the reasons for this. Romans 9-11 must not be treated as a separate section of Romans. It is part of the same initial thrust that salvation is by faith through God's grace; and that God is no respector of persons.

In regards to "has the church replaced Israel"? ... this is my understanding ...First that Israel and the Church are two different Brides, of two different husbands in the Godhead ...Jehovah, the Father is married to Israel, although adulterous as she may be (Hosea), thru which He birthed His Son, then His Son's Bride, in fulfilment of His promise to Abraham's seed being as of the stars of heaven in number.And Jesus Christ is of course betrothed to us, His Church/Bride, as we are the branches from the true vine (Jesus Christ), and the grafted into the promises of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the olive tree, actual Israel herself because she turned her back on, and killed the son of her Husbandman ... John.15[1] I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.[2] Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.[3] Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.[4] Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.[5] I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.Rev.5[5] And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.Rom.11[17] And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; [19] Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.[23] And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.[24] For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?i for one am not as judgmental of modern Israel, the nation, as some of you may be, for in between the time of it's diaspora in 70 AD, it's regathering in 1948, up till present, i haven't the slightest idea which modern day Israelite is of what tribe, or what their heart condition is, but i know Jehovah does, for in the Revelation He chooses to Himself 12,000 from each tribe = 144,000 as His own first fruits offering from amongst the Israelites ...Rev.7[1] And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.[2] And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea,[3] Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.[4] And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.[5] Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand.[6] Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nepthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand.[7] Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand.[8] Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand.Rev.14[1] And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.[2] And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:[3] And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.[4] These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.[5] And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.The final, and most important reasoning i see for the Church not being a replacement for Israel is that the Revelation lets us know that Jehovah, even after the rapture of the Church, is still concerned with Hisfickle Bride, to the point of protecting her from the anti-christ in the last 3 1/2 years of the great tribulation, and then ultimately wipes out the nations arrayed against her in the valley of Meggido ... God never breaks His covenants with us, even tho we break that same covenant with Him ... He's faithful ... we're not ...The Church is the apple of Christ eye, but Israel STILL is the apple of the eye of His Father ...

You are usually pretty precise about your use of biblical language so this surprised me. The church in Jerusalem had no presidents, nor is there biblical evidence that James even held a first among equals role. Hi Bro. Ron, That would be Eusebius Book II chapter 23 (I think). I have another source from Dr. Ron Moseley where he writes in his book, "Yeshua: A Guide to the Real Jesus and the Original church"- In his second-century historical work, Hegesippus describes the rivalry between a man named Thebouthis and others, seeking the position of bishop after the death of James, who was said to be the first pastor at Jerusalem.(2) According to Hegesippus, the Hebrew Christians finally chose Simeon, who was a cousin of the Lord, to succeed James. Epiphanius lists the remaining thirteen Jewish pastors of the Jerusalem Church as Justus, Zaccheus, Tobias, Benjamin, John, Mathias, Philip, Seneca, Justus, Levi, Ephrem, Joseph, and Jude, completing the historical record all the way up to the Bar Kochba Revolt (A.D. 132-135)..Sorry, I'll try to get back later for further discussion. But I was referring not to Romans in my suggestion about Paul convincing the gentiles- but Ephesians Chapter 1. God Bless,-Robert

That would be Eusebius Book II chapter 23 (I think). I have another source from Dr. Ron Moseley where he writes in his book, "Yeshua: A Guide to the Real Jesus and the Original church"- In his second-century historical work, Hegesippus describes the rivalry between a man named Thebouthis and others, seeking the position of bishop after the death of James, who was said to be the first pastor at Jerusalem.(2) According to Hegesippus, the Hebrew Christians finally chose Simeon, who was a cousin of the Lord, to succeed James. Epiphanius lists the remaining thirteen Jewish pastors of the Jerusalem Church as Justus, Zaccheus, Tobias, Benjamin, John, Mathias, Philip, Seneca, Justus, Levi, Ephrem, Joseph, and Jude, completing the historical record all the way up to the Bar Kochba Revolt (A.D. 132-135)..Hi RobertThis is all speculation and an anachronistic imposition of later monarchical church governance on the biblical period. There is no biblical evidence of anyone using the 'title' of pastor in a local church setting.Church governance was never like this in the biblical record. There were no 'pastors', no 'bishops', no 'first presidents'. Just 'beloved brethren'.

For those interested, you might want to check out Steve Gregg's four-part teaching on this topic at www.thenarrowpath.com You can find it in the Tape Download page ... "What Are We To Make Of Israel?"

Church governance was never like this in the biblical record. There were no 'pastors', no 'bishops', no 'first presidents'. Just 'beloved brethren'. You know I wanted to site James in Acts 15 taking charge and all- but I will succumb to this for now. :-) I am not so quick though to discard what little history we do have- because we simply don't know for sure. If we were to discover a motherload of 1st century church documents- like the Jews found of the Essenes in Qumran we would have a measuring rod- but we are at the mercy of the unknown. I have been dealing with this whole topic of church governance on a different front. If the reality of this is true then we are way off track in the current structure of things to say the least. The term Shepherds certainly has come up in my studies of this topic- though I don't want to say without looking at it again. I also recall that the letters to the 7 Churches were written to the "Angel's" - which could have been the Shepherds I suppose (God's messengers to the Churches). Without being able to site extra-biblical historical references we have really narrowed the field in terms of what is fair play for this discussion. :-( God Bless,-Robert

You know I wanted to site James in Acts 15 taking charge and all- but I will succumb to this for now.I reject this interpretation of Acts 15. Rather that chapter is a wonderful account of the church finding a unanimous voice with which to address Gentile converts. James did not convene this conference. It seems that it was the request of Paul and Barnabas to address the elders and apostles in Jerusalem. There is no sense of priority of role here.There was 'much disputing' as the elders and apostles came together to consider this matter. [Acts 15:6,7] and Peter stood up to remind the conference of God's dealings with Cornelius. This was not Peter 'taking charge' but simply contributing to the conference.At this the 'multitude kept silence' [Acts 15:12] while Barnabas and Paul shared their testimony. This was not P & B 'taking charge' but simple contributing to the conference.When they had finished James made his contribution. This was not James 'taking charge' but simply contributing to the conference.The key verse that you have in mind is probably verse 19 where the KJV uses the word 'sentence' which makes it sound as though James is bringing an authoratitive end to the discussion. But the word is simply 'krinO' which means to make an assessment/judgment. The Good News Bible paraphrase has caught the sense of this; "It is my opinion," James went on, "that we should not trouble the Gentiles who are turning to God. (Act 15:19 GNB) In the Greek the word 'I' is emphasised as in Darby; Wherefore *I* judge, not to trouble those who from the nations turn to God; (Act 15:19 Darby) Liddell and Scott give some fascinating uses of the word 'krino' which include 'opinion', 'estimate', 'choice'... James offered this as his considered opinion not as a 'final decision' or even a 'summing up' from the chairman. The wonder is that the whole conference recognised the wisdom of God in the statement.I believe this was a manifestation of 'a word of wisdom' and the whole conference recognised its source; not James but the Head of the Church. The following verses recount a miracle of unity.Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: (Act 15:22 KJV) This is not James' imposition but the response of the whole conference. The 'it' which pleased the whole church was not 'James taking charge' but the gentle wisdom that had proceeded from his lips. You will remember he had something to say on this topic in his letter; But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace. (Jam 3:17-18 KJV) Acts 15 is a thrilling demonstration of such 'wisdom from above'.It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, (Act 15:25 KJV) This letter was not 'signed' by James but by the 'whole church'. This is 1st century church life in all its pristine power. This conference did not begin 'with one accord'; it began with 'much disputing'. The One Spirit had brought them all to one mind. To give James the authority to do this is unreasonable and contrary to the mood of the whole passage.For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; (Act 15:28 KJV) This was the result, not of compromise or submission to a 'first president' of the church in Jerusalem, but of submission to the working of the Spirit in their conferece....those were the days... O Lord, revive thy church.

By this time 'Jewish' opposition to the gospel had become institutionalised. Fewer and fewer 'Jews' would give the gospel an honest hearing. Consequently fewer and fewer converts. This, combined, with the well known prophesies of removed branches [John 15], broken down hedges and disinheritance led the 'Gentiles' to the conclusion that God had closed the door to them, and 'cast away his people'. The contrary was true He had held our His arms to them all day long, but they had rejected Him. The door was not closed to 'Jews' as individuals and Romans 9-11 expounds the reasons for this. Romans 9-11 must not be treated as a separate section of Romans. It is part of the same initial thrust that salvation is by faith through God's grace; and that God is no respector of persons.The atmosphere in those day was certainly volitile. But if we might rewind the tape a bit I want to establish something that the Gentiles in that generation would have known and experienced- that we today have no real sense of. The Jews believed that by virtue of birthright they were God's elect. They had Abraham to their father and anyone who wanted to be a part of the Commonwealth of Israel had to undergo various rites of passage. There were a few different levels of fellowship- but suffice it to say that the regular Gentiles were considered as and treated as outsiders. they were utterly unclean to a Jew and a Samaritan was called a dog. The Gentiles were aliens and strangers to the covenants and without hope (Ephesians 2). Paul was accused once of taking a Gentile into the Temple and had to deal with that. Many believing Jews remained under certain aspects of the law in Acts. This is evident all the way up into Acts 21:21-26 when Paul actually took a vow to keep the believing Jews who were jealous for the law from believing he had taught the Jews of the diaspora to forsake their customs. that was James 'suggestion' (I suppose) that Paul should do. He shaved his head, paid the tax, and all that. This would be in keeping with abiding in his calling as part of the circumcision. As all this filtered out and the revelation of God's working in the New Covenant became understood and accepted- the believing Jews became two major groups: the Nazarenes (Notzrim) and the Ebionites. The Nazarenes maintained many of their cultural customs and kept the feasts (as we see Paul in Acts 20:16 and I Corinthians 16:8). He leveled no obligation upon the Gentiles in keeping with the first counsel meeting (Acts 15). Nonetheless it was no small task for God to convince the Disciples that he had broken down the middle wall of partition. There is not a single Gentile in the church until Acts 10. They were ALL Jews. Peter was sent into a serious vision as a revelation that God was no respector of persons- before this- Peter evidently believed God was a respector of persons and that the Jews were the focal point. Then the gift of tongues was God's affirmation to them as there was no way they could have faked that phenomena. Peter still struggles with this later and was confronted by Paul. He apparently was compelling the Gentiles to live as did the Jews. Yet, Paul made it quite clear that he (Paul) was NOT compelling the Jews of the diaspora to live as did the Gentiles by his actions in Acts 21. I have to regard this whole incident as an act of sincerity, or else his rebuke of Peter is blatant hypocrisy (which it is not). Ephesians 1 comes center stage in my mind at this point. God convinced the Jews that the Gentiles could be part of the commonwealth of Israel by faith- now it was time to convince the Gentiles. We see words used such as -"Even as He hath chosen us in Him from the foundation of the world that we should be HOLY and without blame before Him in love, having PREDESTINATED US..." (my emphasis). Paul in my thinking used the term we translate as Predestinated to reveal and elevate the position of the Gentiles with the Jews as God's elect. BUT, because the foundation of what I previously mentioned was not in place- for the Augustinian's they were already equal with the Jews- so the election doctrine went haywire and suddenly you have God reprobating men to damnation apart from any other thing than His Divine decree. I do not believe that was Paul intention in writing these things. He was simply establishing the equality of Jew and Gentile and showing the Gentiles they were not an adendum to God's plan- they were part of it from the foundation of the World- which He goes on and explains in Romans 9-11. That would have been comforting to the Gentiles of that day. But the gamut has shifted. And anytime the place of original reference is compromised the end result will be off. So here we are.God Bless,-Robert

Peter evidently believed God was a respector of persons and that the Jews were the focal point... Peter still struggles with this later and was confronted by Paul. He apparently was compelling the Gentiles to live as did the Jews.I don't think that is what Galatians is saying otherwise Paul could not have called Peter's action hypocrisy. He began a pattern of life in which he was 'withdrawing and separating' himself from the Gentiles. (the verbs are in the imperfect tense. It had become his pattern of behaviour) He was to be blamed not because he did not see the truth but that he did see it, but allowed fear of others' opinions to shape his behaviour. God never blames a man for not seeing the revelation, but He does hold a man responsible for his actions when he has seen the revelation; and Peter was to be blamed. [Gal 2:11]There is an important verse in Eph 2:19. The KJV has; Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; (Eph 2:19 KJV) This gives the impression that Gentile believers have been added to the saints which were Jewish, but this is a misleading translation.συμπολῖται τῶν ἁγίων - sumpolitai tOn agiOn: fellow-citizens of the saints not that Gentile believers are now privileged with Jewish saints, as a distinct class, but that all saints (whether Jew or Gentile formerly) are together privileged as being possessed of the same heavenly citizenship. this is not 'with' the saints but a simple genetive.. of the saints.Youngs Literal captures the sense; Then, therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens of the saints, and of the household of God, (Eph 2:19 YLT) The thrust of this passage is that He has made 'of twain, one new man'. This is not that the new man is Jewish with some Gentile additions; this is no weld but something quite new/fresh man. God has begun 'afresh' in the Church of Christ. This is a new body and members must be joined to it through the baptising work of the Spirit; irrespective of whether or not they were Jews or Gentiles in the past.

i could be spitting into the wind on this topic, but spit i will ...First off i thank God for SI because it has made me aware of so many heresies i never knew existed, this "replacement theology" being another, and what i've really found mind blowing is that most, if not all of these heresies began early in Church history ... Satan certainly wasted no time did he? ... So last night i did some research and this is what i found ... The Error Of Replacement TheologyBy Clarence H. Wagner, Jr.http://www.therefinersfire.org/replacement_theology.htmPerhaps you have heard of the term Replacement Theology. However, if you look it up in a dictionary of Church history, you will not find it listed as a systematic study. Rather, it is a doctrinal teaching that originated in the early Church. It became the fertile soil from which Christian anti-Semitism grew and has infected the Church for nearly 1,900 years.What Is Replacement Theology?Replacement Theology was introduced to the Church shortly after Gentile leadership took over from Jewish leadership. What are its premises? 1. Israel (the Jewish people and the land) has been replaced by the Christian Church in the purposes of God, or, more precisely, the Church is the historic continuation of Israel to the exclusion of the former. 2. The Jewish people are now no longer a "chosen people." In fact, they are no different from any other group, such as the English, Spanish, or Africans. 3. Apart from repentance, the new birth, and incorporation into the Church, the Jewish people have no future, no hope, and no calling in the plan of God. The same is true for every other nation and group. 4. Since Pentecost of Acts 2, the term "Israel," as found in the Bible, now refers to the Church. 5. The promises, covenants and blessings ascribed to Israel in the Bible have been taken away from the Jews and given to the Church, which has superseded them. However, the Jews are subject to the curses found in the Bible, as a result of their rejection of Christ.How Do Replacement Theologians Argue Their Case? They Say: 1. To be a son of Abraham is to have faith in Jesus Christ. For them, Galatians 3:29 shows that sonship to Abraham is seen only in spiritual, not national terms: "And if you be Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Rebuttal: While this is a wonderful inclusionary promise for Gentiles, this verse does not exclude the Jewish people from their original covenant, promise and blessing as the natural seed of Abraham. This verse simply joins us Gentile Christians to what God had already started with Israel. 2. The promise of the land of Canaan to Abraham was only a "starter." The real Promised Land is the whole world. They use Romans 4:13 to claim it will be the Church that inherits the world, not Israel. "For the promise that he should be the heir of the world was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith." Rebuttal: Where does this verse exclude Abraham and His natural prodigy, the Jews? It simply says that through the law, they would not inherit the world, but this would be acquired through faith. This is also true of the Church. 3. The nation of Israel was only the seed of the future Church, which would arise and incorporate people of all nations (Mal. 1:11): "For from the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the same, My Name shall be great among the nations, and in every place, incense shall be offered to My Name, and a pure offering for My Name shall be great among the nations, says the Lord of Hosts." Rebuttal: This is great, and shows that the Jewish people and Israel fulfilled one of their callings to be "a light to the nations," so that God's Word has gone around the world. It does not suggest God's dealing with Israel was negated because His Name spread around the world. 4. Jesus taught that the Jews would lose their spiritual privileges, and be replaced by another people (Matt. 21:43): "Therefore I am saying to you, 'The kingdom of God will be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits of it.'" Rebuttal: In this passage, Jesus was talking about the priests and Pharisees, who failed as leaders of the people. This passage is not talking about the Jewish people or nation of Israel. See Teaching Letter #770008, "Did God Break His Covenant With the Jews?" 5. A true Jew is anyone born of the Spirit, whether he is racially Gentile or Jewish (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 and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." Rebuttal: This argument does not support the notion that the Church replaced Israel. Rather, it simply reinforces what had been said throughout the Hebrew Scriptures [the Old Testament], and it certainly qualifies the spiritual qualifications for Jews or anyone who professes to be a follower of the God of Israel. 6. Paul shows that the Church is really the same "olive tree" as was Israel, and the Church is now the tree. Therefore, to distinguish between Israel and the Church is, strictly speaking, false. Indeed, people of Jewish origin need to be grafted back into the Church (Rom 11:17-23). Rebuttal: This claim is the most outrageous because this passage clearly shows that we Gentiles are the "wild olive branches," who get our life from being grafted into the olive tree. The tree represents the covenants, promises and hopes of Israel (Eph. 2:12), rooted in the Messiah and fed by the sap, which represents the Holy Spirit, giving life to the Jews (the "natural branches") and Gentile alike. We Gentiles are told to remember that the olive tree holds us up and NOT to be arrogant or boast against the "natural branches" because they can be grafted in again. The olive tree is NOT the Church. We are simply grafted into God's plan that preceded us for over 2,000 years. 7. All the promises made to Israel in the Old Testament, unless they were historically fulfilled before the coming of Jesus Christ, are now the property of the Christian Church. These promises should not be interpreted literally or carnally, but spiritually and symbolically, so that references to Israel, Jerusalem, Zion and the Temple, when they are prophetic, really refer to the Church (II Cor. 1:20). "For all the promises of God in Him (Jesus) are Yea, and in Him, Amen, unto the glory of God by us." Therefore, they teach that the New Testament needs to be taught figuratively, not literally. Rebuttal: Later, in this Teaching Letter, we will look at the fact that the New Testament references to Israel clearly pertain to Israel, not the Church. Therefore, no promise to Israel and the Jewish people in the Bible is figurative, nor can they be relegated to the Church alone. The promises and covenants are literal, many of them are everlasting, and we Christians can participate in them as part of our rebirth, not in that we took them over to the exclusion of Israel. The New Testament speaks of the Church's relationship to Israel and her covenants as being "grafted in" (Rom. 11:17), "brought near" (Eph. 2:13), "Abraham's offspring (by faith)" (Rom. 4:16), and "partakers" (Rom. 15:27), NOT as usurpers of the covenant and a replacer of physical Israel. We Gentile Christians joined into what God had been doing in Israel, and God did not break His covenant promises with Israel (Rom. 11:29).You know i'll give those saints back in the day the benefit of the doubt regarding how they ever came to the conclusion that God was thru with Israel, for they didn't have the benefit of a completed canon, or 2,000 years of subsequent history to look back on in regards Israel and Church ... But i do suspect such a misguided conclusion to have stemed from satan, via self righteous judgment from those early gentile saints ... But If anyone TODAY truly understands blood covenant, which God has with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and thereby their descendants both corporeal and spiritual, this would be an impossibility, not withstanding that God's regathering of Israel in 1948, in fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy, is modern day proof that apparently they, 1900 years ago, were wrong, for He's still got His eye on Jacob clear to the end of the Revelation ...

First off i thank God for SI because it has made me aware of so many heresies i never knew existed, this "replacement theology" being another, and what i've really found mind blowing is that most, if not all of these heresies began early in Church history ... Satan certainly wasted no time did he? ...The opening reminds me of the testimony which begins "I never knew what sin was till I started to attend this church..." :-D I think I prefer Greg's 'interesting ideas' to the word 'heresy'. it is a doctrinal teaching that originated in the early Church. It became the fertile soil from which Christian anti-Semitism grew and has infected the Church for nearly 1,900 years.This statement is just not true. Unless the early church reaches to Chrysostom. I see that replacement theologians are now responsible for anti-semitism; I must have missed some steps in this argument.You know i'll give those saints back in the day the benefit of the doubt regarding how they ever came to the conclusion that God was thru with Israel, for they didn't have the benefit of a completed canon, or 2,000 years of subsequent history to look back on in regards Israel and Church ... But i do suspect such a misguided conclusion to have stemed from satan, via self righteous judgment from those early gentile saints ... But If anyone TODAY truly understands blood covenant, which God has with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and thereby their descendants both corporeal and spiritual, this would be an impossibility, not withstanding that God's regathering of Israel in 1948, in fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy, is modern day proof that apparently they, 1900 years ago, were wrong, for He's still got His eye on Jacob clear to the end of the Revelation ...I had hoped we might have had a sensible discussion rather than this rabid demonising of people with a different opinion. I am surprised that you don't tremble to look back to those days and pour such condemnation on men and women who sealed their faith with their blood.

This statement is just not true. Unless the early church reaches to Chrysostom. I see that replacement theologians are now responsible for anti-semitism; I must have missed some steps in this argument.The sheer volume of persecution of the Jews by the Church either directly, indirectly, or by implication throughout the last 1700+ years is so staggering that I had a hard time accepting it when I first started studying Jewish Roots. The amount of antsemetic writing and behavior is absolutely enormous. it cannot be overstated. The early writers did not even bother to try to cover their views or even schroud them in any way. They are clear to read for all who want to read them. These things were not done in a corner. I was so troubled at this writing that it has influenced me to this day. the Church not only has bosated against the broken branches, they have burned and bled them. This is not sharp speech- this is reality.Dear reader I beseech you to do you history on this. Read the writings of Justin Martyr (CE-135-160 ?) and Origen. Justin Martyr wrote an apology in which he was having a dialogue with a Jew named Trypho. He blasted the Jews for rejecting Jesus, for killing Jesus, etc.. He gloated over the destruction of the Temple as being just punishment for Jewish rebellion. Justin Martyr's writings along with Origen's allegorical method of bible hermeneutic opened the door for replacement theology. If I might so say, Justin Martyr laid the egg and Origen hatched it.

The sheer volume of persecution of the Jews by the Church either directly, indirectly, or by implication throughout the last 1700+ years is so staggering that I had a hard time accepting it when I first started studying Jewish Roots.What do you mean by the church; Roman Catholocism?Dear reader I beseech you to do you history on this. Read the writings of Justin Martyr (CE-135-160 ?) and Origen. Justin Martyr wrote an apology in which he was having a dialogue with a Jew named Trypho. He blasted the Jews for rejecting Jesus, for killing Jesus, etc.. He gloated over the destruction of the Temple as being just punishment for Jewish rebellion. Justin Martyr's writings along with Origen's allegorical method of bible hermeneutic opened the door for replacement theology. If I might so say, Justin Martyr laid the egg and Origen hatched it.By the early church I mean the biblical period. You have moved into the Apostolic Fathers. Anti-semitism originated with Antiochus Epiphanes and his determination to produce a uniform Greek world. It was Israel's 'studied difference' and their refusal to conform to his universal norms that attracted his fury. I do not defend anti-semites and I am not one. I have wept my way through Auschwitz and Maidenek on more than one occasion.There was certainly an increase in contention as the Jewish leaders opted for destruction rather than peaceful coexistence. It is seen in John's gospel which has been described as anti-semetic by some. If John's gospel is anti-semetic, so am I. You will recall that Gibson's Passion was given the same condemnation. The reason was 'if it is true to the biblical records it will be anti-semetic'.

What do you mean by the church; Roman Catholocism?Hi Bro Ron,I tried desperately to hold onto that reasoning until I reached "On the Jews and their Lies" by Luther. I then realized why the Jews make no real distinction between Catholicism and Protestantism as pertains to persecution. They see the Cross as a sword dipped in 2000 years of Jewish blood. With Luther my mind reasoned that it was odd that he discarded the books of Hebrews (Jews) and Jude (Ya- hoo- dah or Jew) and then James (which was written to the 12 tribes scattered abroad) and then Revelation which identifies the new city Jerusalem as having gates named after the 12 Tribes, etc. He had to discard it because not even a preterest view of the former chapters could do away with that. Who knows what he was thinking, but the tractate gives us a little insight. Even though Katz levels boldly upon the Jews their guilt and God's judgment (which is unlike anything I have heard in Messianic circles) we as the Church have inherited a similar fate in that our 'father's' smote the Jews on the right hand and the left. To me it is no different than when Babylon was judged for beating down Jerusalem. What will God say to us on that day for not doing what we can to reach the Jews in spite of these things with understanding and great compassion? To accept Christianity is almost unthinkable to most of them. How can we as the Church seek to heal this situation by God's grace that our generation will get a chance to hear the pure Gospel free from stigma as much as possible.God Bless,-Robert

Brother Ron, i get such a kick outta reading your posts ... Quote;The opening reminds me of the testimony which begins "I never knew what sin was till I started to attend this church..."Ha! ... Ha! ... No i knew what sin was before i started attending church, but what i didn't know was how cleverly creative some in the Church could be in covering sin up ... '0) ... i certainly do now!Quote;I think I prefer Greg's 'interesting ideas' to the word 'heresy'.i can certainly see your point, and my reply to this is in love ... But perhaps if someone with enough guts had of called this "replacement doctrine" a heresy (against God's covenant Word) back then, we wouldn't be discussing it as an "interesting idea" today ... Frankly i find it dangerously dark idea, straight from the pit of hell ... Of course this is my opinion, and i certainly do respect your right to think otherwise ... i looked up the meaning of her·e·sy;a : adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma b : denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church c : an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogmaa : dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice b : an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standardsSo since the term "heresy" seems to be inclusive of man's determinings on the word of God, particularly that of the RCC (which is the epitome of heresy) in this Webster's definition, i wouldn't be adverse in replacing "heresy" with the phrase "gross error" ...Quote:I had hoped we might have had a sensible discussion rather than this rabid demonising of people with a different opinion. I am surprised that you don't tremble to look back to those days and pour such condemnation on men and women who sealed their faith with their blood.It certainly is not my intent to do what you've suggested in the first part of your above quote, and i have no idea what you mean by the second part ... But i've learned that when our Lord dresses one in camel's hair, a leathern girdle about ones loins; and feeds one via ravens, locusts and wild honey, appreciation, and the welcome wagon, should not be expected of the staus quo ... i do have a tendency to be black and white, call it like i see it, and speak it too, which is why God uses me as He does ... Emperors with no clothes on hate me! ...i just pray that His grooming of me in His love to utilize my traits, personality and characteristics is showing thru ... i have nothing but love for you, and pray that we're all open to ALL lessons that He wants to teach us via this forum ... Amen

I tried desperately to hold onto that reasoning until I reached "On the Jews and their Lies" by Luther. I then realized why the Jews make no real distinction between Catholicism and Protestantism as pertains to persecution.Robertin many ways there is little difference between the two. I know Luther's atrocities. I am not defending him. But to say Luther rejected Revelation because it had reference to the 12 tribes in it is, to my mind, unlikely. Luther's attitude to the canon of scripture was erratic; he picked and chose as they supported his central truth of justification by faith. He did not believe in the verbal inspiration of scripture in the way that doctrine was subsequently developed. For all his raging at 'harlot wisdom' it was his own logical thought processes which led him to these conclusions. If that was the inevitable conclusion of his interpretation of Revelation why haven't I rejected Revelation? Why did he not reject 1 Peter with its reference to the diaspora?Your concept of collective responsibility for all the 'church's' sins down the centuries is one I cannot share, unless I find the same sins in myself. Then I can identify and bring a confession that has a corporate element. The fact that God commissioned Ezra and Nehemiah to do so does not mean that I can do the same.

So since the term "heresy" seems to be inclusive of man's determinings on the word of God, particularly that of the RCC (which is the epitome of heresy) in this Webster's definition, i wouldn't be adverse in replacing "heresy" with the phrase "gross error" ...Gee, I feel better already!!!Not all emperors have no clothes, and just because they wear different ones to you doesn't mean they are naked.

Your concept of collective responsibility for all the 'church's' sins down the centuries is one I cannot share, unless I find the same sins in myself. Then I can identify and bring a confession that has a corporate element. The fact that God commissioned Ezra and Nehemiah to do so does not mean that I can do the same.Hi Bro. Ron,I really don't know what the answer is. I was hoping this thread could maybe bring out some direction. The situation is as it is. But there has to be a remedy. I cannot feel that I must confess sins that were not my own either- though I have confessed the sins of people around me as to be in agreement with God about it and not condone it- but rather to agree with God's justice to condemn them. I have to believe that there is an answer to this. God Bless,-Robert

I really don't know what the answer is. I was hoping this thread could maybe bring out some direction. The situation is as it is. But there has to be a remedy. I cannot feel that I must confess sins that were not my own either- though I have confessed the sins of people around me as to be in agreement with God about it and not condone it- but rather to agree with God's justice to condemn them. I have to believe that there is an answer to this.Rivers of waters run down mine eyes, because they keep not thy law. (Psa 119:136 KJV) I think the essence of prophecy or revelation is to see as God sees, and sometimes to feel as God feels. It's not just an idiom that the prophets speak of the 'burden of the Lord'. Moses was the mediator of the Old Covenant; And I will come down and talk with thee there: and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone. (Num 11:17 KJV) The mediator of the New Covenant shares His burden too; Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church: (Col 1:24 KJV)I don't think we can 'confess' the sins of our nation, as a prayer technique. However, I am sure that there are times when God brings into our consciousness the sense that I am my brother's keeper and our world's keeper too. I often say 'I'm sorry' to dead birds and animals or to a damaged landscape. (when Greg sees that he will definitely include it among my 'interesting ideas'.) When I am conscious of 'our' failing it is with the sense of Elijah's strange confession; I am not better than my fathers (1 Kings 19:4 KJV) I think this is the feeling behind Nehemiah's prayer too; Let thine ear now be attentive, and thine eyes open, that thou mayest hear the prayer of thy servant, which I pray before thee now, day and night, for the children of Israel thy servants, and confess the sins of the children of Israel, which we have sinned against thee: both I and my father's house have sinned. (Neh 1:6 KJV) May the Lord lead us aright in all these things. Keeping us from human method and technique. The wonderful thing is that our inability to understand is not a disqualification to prayer; Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. (Rom 8:26-27 KJV)

Ok Brother Ron, You've already deemed me rabid, so you won't mind my further foaming of the mouth, and sinking in of the teeth a little deeper ... '0) ... Man i've got to learn how to use those little emoticons ...Anywho, first let me quote;Gen.17[1] And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.[2] And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.[3] And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,[4] As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.[5] Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.[6] And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.[7] And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.[8] And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.Notice God said an "everlasting covenant" in regards to Abraham, all his seed, and the land ...Second, let me say that God sure did waste a lot of prophets, prophetic messages, and the entire future filled events of the Revelation on Israel, if she was indeed superceeded by the Christian Church ... Israel is Jehovah's woman, we are Christ's, two seperate and distinct brides ...Below are just a few examples ... Zechariah's prophecy of Israel in the far future (tribulation, and/or beyond the 1,000 year reign)Zech.8[1] Again the word of the LORD of hosts came to me, saying,[2] Thus saith the LORD of hosts; I was jealous for Zion with great jealousy, and I was jealous for her with great fury.[3] Thus saith the LORD; I am returned unto Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and Jerusalem shall be called a city of truth; and the mountain of the LORD of hosts the holy mountain.[4] Thus saith the LORD of hosts; There shall yet old men and old women dwell in the streets of Jerusalem, and every man with his staff in his hand for very age.[5] And the streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in the streets thereof.[6] Thus saith the LORD of hosts; If it be marvellous in the eyes of the remnant of this people in these days, should it also be marvellous in mine eyes? saith the LORD of hosts.[7] Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Behold, I will save my people from the east country, and from the west country;[8] And I will bring them, and they shall dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God, in truth and in righteousness.[9] Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Let your hands be strong, ye that hear in these days these words by the mouth of the prophets, which were in the day that the foundation of the house of the LORD of hosts was laid, that the temple might be built.[10] For before these days there was no hire for man, nor any hire for beast; neither was there any peace to him that went out or came in because of the affliction: for I set all men every one against his neighbour.[11] But now I will not be unto the residue of this people as in the former days, saith the LORD of hosts.[12] For the seed shall be prosperous; the vine shall give her fruit, and the ground shall give her increase, and the heavens shall give their dew; and I will cause the remnant of this people to possess all these things.[13] And it shall come to pass, that as ye were a curse among the heathen, O house of Judah, and house of Israel; so will I save you, and ye shall be a blessing: fear not, but let your hands be strong.[14] For thus saith the LORD of hosts; As I thought to punish you, when your fathers provoked me to wrath, saith the LORD of hosts, and I repented not:[15] So again have I thought in these days to do well unto Jerusalem and to the house of Judah: fear ye not.[16] These are the things that ye shall do; Speak ye every man the truth to his neighbour; execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates:[17] And let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbour; and love no false oath: for all these are things that I hate, saith the LORD.[18] And the word of the LORD of hosts came unto me, saying,[19] Thus saith the LORD of hosts; The fast of the fourth month, and the fast of the fifth, and the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth, shall be to the house of Judah joy and gladness, and cheerful feasts; therefore love the truth and peace.[20] Thus saith the LORD of hosts; It shall yet come to pass, that there shall come people, and the inhabitants of many cities:[21] And the inhabitants of one city shall go to another, saying, Let us go speedily to pray before the LORD, and to seek the LORD of hosts: I will go also.[22] Yea, many people and strong nations shall come to seek the LORD of hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray before the LORD.[23] Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.Israel in the future tribulation period, after the rebuilding of her third and final temple ...Rev.11[1] And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.[2] But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.Israel in the great tribulation period ...Rev.12[1] And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:[2] And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.[3] And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.[4] And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.[5] And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.[6] And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.[7] And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,[8] And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.[9] And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.[10] And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.[11] And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.[12] Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.[13] And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.[14] And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.[15] And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.[16] And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.[17] And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.Rev.7[1] And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.[2] And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea,[3] Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.[4] And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.[5] Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand.[6] Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nepthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand.[7] Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand.[8] Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand.Rev.14[1] And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.[2] And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:[3] And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.[4] These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.[5] And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.Rev.21[1] And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.[2] And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.[3] And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.[4] And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.[5] And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.[6] And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.[7] He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.[8] But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.[9] And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.[10] And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,[11] Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;[12] And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:

You've already deemed me rabid, so you won't mind my further foaming of the mouth, and sinking in of the teeth a little deeper ... '0) ... Man i've got to learn how to use those little emoticons ...For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. (Gal 5:13-15 KJV)

Rahman, You say at the start of your last post, Israel is Jehovah's woman, we are Christ's, two seperate and distinct brides ...How can this be?God married to 2 women so to speak!maybe i've missed your point :-( I've never heard this statement in all my years as a christian :-)

The sheer volume of persecution of the Jews by the Church either directly, indirectly, or by implication throughout the last 1700+ years is so staggering that I had a hard time accepting it when I first started studying Jewish Roots.Hi RobertThis current post may not be wise, but I am going to risk it all the same. I know you will believe me when I say that I am not in the least anti-semitic. Indeed antisemitism would be an acknowledgement that there is a continuing link of entity between the 'Jews' of Christ's day and the 'Jews' of our own; and I am not at all convinced that there is such a continuing link. I am posting this as a honest admission that there is an implied question in your statement to which I have no adequate answer. The question is 'why have the Jews been persecuted so consistently for so long?' I know, of coure, that many would say it is the dragon persecuting the woman which brought forth the man child. [Rev 12:13] But that answer presumes a particular interpretation philosophy of the Revelation which I do not share. I wonder if your studies and associations have given you an idea of any Jewish answers to this question? I have tried to research this question for, literaly, decades and still have no satisfactory answer. My researches have taken me in the writings of secular historians. One such British Author is Paul Johnson; a noted academic and scholarly writer who produced 'A History of the Jews' (Weidenfield & Nicolson 1987 isbn 0-297-79091.) This is a mega tome written by a right wing historian and a practising Catholic who writes with great sympathy about the Jewish people. He is not uncritical but his overall position is very supportive of Jew, Jewishness and the nation state of Israel. He makes some interesting comments which I would appreciate your views on. For example, Zionists, both religious and secular, interpret the Holocaust as a consequence of, or a divine punishment for, the unwillingness of European Jewry to leave the Diaspora and settle in Palestine when they had the opportunity early in the 20th century. p89Some ultra orthodox see it as a divine retribution for Zionist attempts to bring about the ingathering of the exiles to the Holy Land rather than wait for God to send the Messiah. p89I have heard 'Christian Zionists' who hold a version of the first of these views. Saying that every time the Jews attempt assimilation God brings persecution to emphasise their 'difference' and to draw them to Eritz Israel.Personally I will not use the term 'holocaust' for the atrocities of Nazism's genocide. I don't question the fact of the atrocities; I have seen them. I only question the use of the term 'holocaust'. 'holocaust' is of course, the Greek translation for the whole burnt offering; the burnt-offering type of sacrifices were referred to as sweet aroma offerings. The whole animal, except for its skin, was given to God through fire. The Greek word for the whole-burnt-offering is holocaust. Many traditional Jews regarded the Nazi extermination camps as a time when the nation was suffering vicariously for mankind. They regard the prophecies of Isaiah 53 as referring to themselves. The suffering Servant of Isaiah was interpreted as being the Jewish nation. The gassing and burning of millions of their people was seen as a holocaust; a whole burnt offering for God. This is why I cannot use the term holocaust; the ovens at Auschwitz did not cause a sweet aroma to rise to God. They were the expression of man's insane wickedness not of free-will givenness to a loving God. The word holocaust has now passed into modern language and I am not going to try to change history. My refusal to use it is simply that it enshrines a biblical misappropriation of a beautiful type.You know from previous posts that I am uncomfortable with the whole idea of God's continuing contemporary judgements upon peoples and nation states, so I certainly don't think that God is punishing the Jews. It may be that God 'has' punished them in their forfeiture of their original destiny, but while Auschwitz was most certainly demonic I would reject even the possibility that God had scripted this.You said in an earlier post that you had hoped this thread would lead to a discussion of Zionism. I think Zionism, as a territorial concept, is very much part of this whole discussion. Islam's quarrel, of course, is with Zionism rather than Judaism or even 'The Jews'. In fact, historically, Islam has been much kinder to Jews and Judaism than has Christendom; generally speaking, Jews fared considerably worse in Christian countries than they did in Moslem ones.Well, that's enough for one posting. I would genuinely like to hear your comments on any of this.

I am sorry for going back to the beginning of this thread, I have much catching up to do. I too am basically clueless in this part of Scripture. I just parrot what those around me have said. Ron wrote in the beginning:The word 'ekklesia' already had a history before it was used in our New Testament. It was used in the Greek version of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint (LXX). The letter to the Hebrews makes this link in the KJV. Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church (ekklesia) will I sing praise unto thee. (Heb 2:12 KJV) This is a quotation from Psalm 22 where the Hebrew has qâhâl and the LXX has ekklesia. There is another reference in Stephen's speech; This is he, that was in the church (ekklesia) 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: Act 7:38 KJV)Thankyou for your explaination and insight. This question will not surprise you concerning you and I. Brother Ron, you have brought insight into the ekklesia existing in the OT. Don't you see the faithful saints throughout the generations? If the Church existed in the OT doesn't that mean that the Saints of the OT were born of above. Doesn't that mean that the Holy Spirit dwelled in them? Doesn't that mean our High Priest was also the OT saints High Priest? Sorry again, but I get excited by the Scripture and the possible treasures that come to light.God Bless you brother,In Christ Jeff

Ron wrote in the beginning:I am getting on a bit now, but even I wasn't around then :-D This question will not surprise you concerning you and I. Brother Ron, you have brought insight into the ekklesia existing in the OT. Don't you see the faithful saints throughout the generations? If the Church existed in the OT doesn't that mean that the Saints of the OT were born of above.JeffI think you need to read through the thread. It is not 'the' ekklesia that we discover in the OT but 'an' ekklesia. Christ's words spoke of a coming ekklesia that was not in existence when He spoke otherwise there would have been not point in using the future tense. The whole point of my contributions was to draw attention to the fact that there are two ekklesia mentioned in scripture and our need to discover how these two indentifiable ekklesia relate to each other, if at all....and just to add fuel to the fire... your old friend Melchizedek was not a member of either! ;-)

Zionists, both religious and secular, interpret the Holocaust as a consequence of, or a divine punishment for, the unwillingness of European Jewry to leave the Diaspora and settle in Palestine when they had the opportunity early in the 20th century. p89Some ultra orthodox see it as a divine retribution for Zionist attempts to bring about the ingathering of the exiles to the Holy Land rather than wait for God to send the Messiah. p89Hi Brother Ron,My first thought is to answer with what I heard so often, "Ask two Jews and get three opinions." :-) The flavor of the classes I attended was thoroughly Zionist. The prevailing belief among those I attended was that much of the loss of life could have been prevented if the Jews would have been allowed into the land at a rate that they were desiring. Because of the bottlenecking of politics that existed in that time many hundreds of thousands unnecessarily died.As for the land itself in the late 1800's and early 1900's I have heard a lot of talk about broken promises and agreements such as the Balfour Declaration and others. I have read some of these documents and the arguments. I have sat in on debates and discussions that were quite lively. But the bottom line in my view based upon what I have seen and heard and researched is that many Jews feel an internal connection with the Land of Israel and have a heart felt desire to return to the land. This was true before the rise of Hitler even- and gave birth to the Zionist movement. There is a sense of belonging (I suppose) that drives much of the zeal for the land. It also is a great portion of their ultimate identity as the "people of the land." For some it is stronger than others- but those whom I have heard speak- talk as if it would be one of their greatest desires. Why Couldn't They Go Into The Land?The time would fail me to tell of stories of how the land didn't have a single tree anywhere when they started pouring back into the land. Mark Twain said the land looked absolutely horrible and desolate in his day (paraphrased). Much of it was uninhabitable and swamps had to be drained. It seemed that no one wanted the property until the Jews showed up as most of the owners of property were absentee owners. Now that there are vineyards and orchards and development suddenly everyone is staking a claim, etc. When they bought property it was often at outrageous prices- and that all of the property on which they now reside has been purchased with cold hard cash. There are stories abounding of the wild circumstances in which they would win battles- that are almost Biblical in proportion. Whose Land is it Anyway?Apart from a mass of stuff we could discuss there- it comes down to God's promise to Abraham. Isaac and Ishmael believe that they both have the right to the land. However, a quick glimpse at a map quickly reveals the amount of land the Arab's have in comparison to the Jews. Israel is about the size of New Jersey give or take and the Arab's have countless square miles of oil rich property. However, in Islam, as I'm sure you know (but for the sake of other readers), once Islam has controlled a parcel of land it must never be surrendered or Allah and Mohammed are deminished. When the enemy is weak they must be attacked and the land retaken. This is one reason why there will never be peace in Israel before the return of Christ. So long as Jews occupy the land- Allah is deminished and that cannot be allowed to go on. There can only be peace for the Jews if they are kept stronger than their neighbors- elsewise they will be attacked. To say something to them like- "Well, God has a plan for Israel and His plan will prevail"- would invoke a response sort of like, "That's all fine and good- now pass the ammo!" As for the extermination of the Jews in the 30's and 40's under Hitler and Stalin the land was central because nearly no nation on earth would accept the Jewish refugees that were trying to flee the areas of persecution. This is an indictment on every nation that rejected them in my mind. There was also a limit placed on the number of Jews that could immigrate based upon arm twisting that the Arab's was allegedly applying to the British in those local governments. These are but a few of the topics I heard discussed and read about. Sorry I left out details and sources- there's just too much to do it. But at least we have some issues to grapple with. :-)God Bless,-Robert

Delboy you wrote;Quote;Rahman, You say at the start of your last post,Quote:Israel is Jehovah's woman, we are Christ's, two seperate and distinct brides ...How can this be?God married to 2 women so to speak!maybe i've missed your pointI've never heard this statement in all my years as a christianNo, you didn't miss my point ... God is the Almighty title of the trinity of Father (YHWH), Son (Jesus Christ) and Holy Ghost (Lord Creator Spirit), One in Three, Three in One, distinct in their seperate operations in the Godhead, but together in all executions of the Godhead ... He that is the will (Father) ... He that speaks the will of the Father, His Word (the Son), and He that does the will of the Father, via the Word of the Son (The Lord Creator Spirit or Holy Ghost) ... That is why you will find this same triuneness is His Bible ... OT = Dispensation of the Father, married to His chosen but hard headed people Israel, via His old covenant promise to Abraham about both his earthly seed, actual Israel becoming as the sands of the seas, and a coming new covenant promise, whose fulfilment would be in our Lord Jesus Christ, toward the even greater spiritual promise to Abraham of his being the vehicle in which all nations would be blessed, thus his spiritual descendants being in number as the stars of heaven ... It was thru Jehovah's woman Israel (that same one spoken of in the book of Revelation with the crown of 12 stars) that He birthed His Son, His Word and salvation unto men, and His Son's woman, or Bride, we the Church, who Christ Himself acknowledges in scripture was given to Him by His Father, who although Christ is the exact reflection of, said was greater than Himself ... Remember when Christ said that He was sent by His Father, to do the will of His Father ... John.6[36] But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.[37] All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.[38] For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.[39] And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.[40] And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.... And remember when Christ left, He sent the Holy Ghost 120 days after His departure ... To acknowledge God as one is a good thing, but to know Him Father, Son and Holy Ghost is true intimacy with Him, and He's opened Himself up to us for just such intimacy ...NT/Gospels = Dispensation of Jesus Christ the Son, the Way, the Truth, the Light, and the Life, who comes at first to the Jews, then unto the Gentiles, toward the way and promise of being grafted into the olive tree, the Fathers Bride Israel, because they for the most part rejected Christ, that Gentiles may also be inheiritors of the old covenant, via Christ the fulfiller of the old and bringer on of the new covenant, in which we, His Church, are bought and paid for by the price of His blood, and sealed into unto the day of redemption ... We, by His Father's decree, belong to Him, as His own seperate Bride ... If you look into the book of Revelation God the Father partakes to Himself of His remaining earthly woman Israel, a final first fruit offering of 12,000 souls from each tribe of Israel = 144,000 ... Rev.7[2] And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea,[3] Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.[4] And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.[5] Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand.[6] Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nepthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand.[7] Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand.[8] Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand.Rev.14[1] And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.[2] And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:[3] And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.[4] These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.[5] And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.This is what i was attempting to get brother Ron to see, that God the Father is not thru with His rebellious Bride Israel, that's what the entire book of Hosea is about ...God does not believe in divorce for mankind, so how can we think He'd ever divorce Israel, just as Christ would never divorce His Church ... The gates of hell will not prevail against either Bride! We, Christ woman is still being added to, is still in operation right now, as is Jehovah's woman Israel, but now in a completely adulterous condition, and if you read the Revelation, even after Christ has come and raptured His Church/Bride/Woman, Jehovah the Father is still dealing with His ... The book of Revelation deals with the Church only up to chapter three, then all the rest is primarily about the anti-christ, Israel, it's final reconciliation with the Father, the marriage feast of the Lamb, New Jerusalem coming down to earth, the abysing of satan, the first judgment, the 1,000 year reign of Christ, the second death judgment, restoration of all power being restored back to the Father for all is now holy again, and the ending of the crack in infinity that we call time ...NT/Acts to Revelation chapter 3 = Dispensation of the Holy Spirit, the enabler of Christ Bride to get from His first coming to His second ...

Bro Ron,First off let me apologize if i've offended you ... that's the last thing i want to do ... So i humbly ask you forgiveness if i have ... i was at home last night thinking about you, and the replacement doctrine, reading this portion of scripture over, and over, and over ...Rom. 11[18] Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.[19] Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.[20] Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:[21] For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.[25] For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.[27] For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.[28] As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.[32] For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.... all the while thinking, "Lord, why can't Brother Ron see this"? ... Then our Lord reminded me of when i first came to Him, and a Baptist preacher kept trying to get me to see that God was triune, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and most difficult for Him was attempting to make me see the Holy Ghost as a person, and not just some active force as was taught me by JW's ... Our Lord also brought back to me how frustrated that preacher got with me, before he blurted out this small prayer of desperation ... "Holy Spirit, in Jesus name, reveal your truth to him"! ... And in no more than a minute it seemed like scales fell off my eyes and i had an epiphany of the Godhead, and the Holy Spirit as who He really is ... It was an amazing experience, and thru His causing me to remember that He has subsequently given me my rabies shot ... '0) ...So i'm no longer barking and foaming at the mouth, but have just simply asked him in regards you and the replacement doctrine, "Holy Spirit, in Jesus name, reveal your truth to him" .PS - If you'll share with me, can i ask how you became to believe in the "replacement doctrine"? ... i'd really be interested to know.

First off let me apologize if i've offended you ... that's the last thing i want to do ... So i humbly ask you forgiveness if i have ...You didn't. I never defend myself, only my reasoning. You couln't offend me, even if you tried.If you'll share with me, can i ask how you became to believe in the "replacement doctrine"? ... i'd really be interested to know. I stopped listening to what men had told me and began to read the Bible itself.

Thanks Brother Ron! ... '0) ... God bless, and have a great weekend!

They regard the prophecies of Isaiah 53 as referring to themselves. The suffering Servant of Isaiah was interpreted as being the Jewish nation.This is true as I have heard this myself. I was stunned by it at the time and was actually thinking about it earlier in the week. It is one of the reasons why you need to be able to preach the Gospel and the crucifixion from the other books of the Old Testament and not reley on Isaiah 53. I was once challenged in a class to come up with other passages that deal with a suffering Messiah. If ever asked- of coarse, Psalm 22 is optimal. Remember, Paul didn't have the book of Romans- they were using the Old Testament to win folks to Christ (with the Gospel accounts). :-o God Bless,-Robert

philologos wrote:The whole point of my contributions was to draw attention to the fact that there are two ekklesia mentioned in scripture and our need to discover how these two indentifiable ekklesia relate to each other, if at all.To be simplistic about I would say the cross. The scripture has been used elsewhere.When I was reading through the posts the scripture that came to mind was Heb 11:29,30.39These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. 40God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.There are many things within the culture of observant jews that have implications to the way individuals live there lives. The Jews had the lifestyle and patterns of living that the gentiles did not and still do not have. Their insights into the nature of man and his position before God shows in there regard for human relationships and the practical outworking of those relationships in the light of being Gods people. That call was made to Abraham to reach every nation group on the planet, with the Jews being the ones to show the way of what a community under God looks like when it lives together, namely the church.I have the view that it is more got to do with Gods revelation of himself to all mankind and his salvation of the whole, than with his dealings with one particular group. It is not about God replacing Israel as his chosen it is about Jesus and his church, it has been so from before the foundation of the world. To take a replacement view in my mind indicates a limiting to Gods total purpose. TO say that God has replaced Israel means by implication that Israel was Gods ultimate plan for the world. Gods over all plan has been that there would be a community of called out ones that would be his very own. The name that is given in the New Testament is 'church', not restricted by cultural and ethnic names, but a statement, adjective, noun of what has always had in mind, a community of called out ones that are his very own. The Jewish failure to recognise that what they had was totally inadequate to fulfill Gods requirements is summed up in their rejection of the messiah. That they stopped at the stumbling stone does not mean that was said to them falls away, rather it makes us as being part of GOds original plan stand on tip toes to see how he will gather those that opened the way to his ultimate plan. If I man was a devout Jew he would be in the church if he followed Gods flow to 'His'tory. I believe the temple was destroyed to show that there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins. Jesus was the end to the temple, he became that temple, which was raised in three days. That offering of his blood still speaks to this day before the throne of God, the eternal covenant. There was something better and greater than rituals that could never cleanse a guilty consciounce, or take a mans sin away. The fact that it does not stand to this day means that there has been no sin offering for them for all these years. When they see that Jesus is the temple, he is the sacrifice, he is the culmanation of everything GOd spoke to them, then they will be part of his church, the bride of Christ.

Whose Land is it Anyway?Following the First World War the British occupation of Palestine. It trully became the promised land in that Britain promised it to everyone; Jews and Arabs. I have studied the history of this time quite a bit; I have a copy of the Balfour Declaration if you are interested.Have you ever read "Whose promised land?" Colin Chapman (isbn 0-85648-956-5) It begins with the sad tale of Christendom's attitude to the Jewish people and asks some very provoking questions. Amazon.com have some second hand copies. When I read it the writer's views confirmed so many of my own thoughts that it was startling.Thanks for your thoughts anyway. Why do you think God allows the persecution of the Jewish people?

I stopped listening to what men had told me and began to read the Bible itself.This is the best! Yes and a thousand times yes! When I came out of the last church I was in after my big "awakening" or whatever you want to call it. I began to read the bible like it was new. Like i had never been taught anything by man (any theories, etc...) and things like the rapture and Israel and many other things came through so perfectly clear and simple.It was like the Lord was taking away my old foundation- built much by men, and was replacing it with Himself, His word alone. I feel full of joy even thinking about it now. Can you imagine if we all did that? Just threw all the teachings and theories of man out the window and read for ourselves and let the Holy Spirit be our teacher. Just started fresh with only Jesus as the foundation and let HIM build up from there? :-) Praise God even a blonde like me can gain wisdom and understanding! :-P

To take a replacement view in my mind indicates a limiting to Gods total purpose. TO say that God has replaced Israel means by implication that Israel was Gods ultimate plan for the world. Gods over all plan has been that there would be a community of called out ones that would be his very own.Hi zekeOI raise a hearty amen to your post. To my view it is clearly thought out and clearly expressed. Your Hebrews quote would be one of my central scriptures on this topic. Perhaps I should remind readers of this thread that I do not call myself a believer in 'replacement theology'; that is what the opponents to my view call my theology. I believe in fulfillment theology.

It trully became the promised land in that Britain promised it to everyone; Jews and Arabs.That's a good one. I'll have to use it. I have a copy of the Balfour Declaration if you are interested.It's been a long time since I read it. Can you put up a link?Have you ever read "Whose promised land?" Colin Chapman (isbn 0-85648-956-5) It begins with the sad tale of Christendom's attitude to the Jewish people and asks some very provoking questions. Amazon.com have some second hand copies. When I read it the writer's views confirmed so many of my own thoughts that it was startling.I have not read that one. I will if I can get it reasonably.Thanks for your thoughts anyway. Why do you think God allows the persecution of the Jewish people?That one is a little deeper than I could assemble my thoughts all at once. I'll try to put something together over the weekend. God Bless!-Robert

The Balfour DeclarationForeign OfficeNovember 2nd 1917Dear Lord Rothschild\tI have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.\t\tHis Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civic and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.\tI would be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.\tYours,\t\tArthur James Balfour

Rahman,thanks for clarifieing,I think i agree with what zekeO posted in that It has always been God's heart to have 'called out' ones and looking at the Hebrews quote in his post its clear about Fullfillment theology,from eager to learn :-)

Why do you think God allows the persecution of the Jewish people?Hi Bro. Ron,I put together a long tractate on this last night and then thought, "this will not do." So I'll offer some thoughts based upon the specific question from my heart. I don't really plan to defend these positions as they are really the bubblings of my heart. Its what I feel and observe. I took no real time to concern myself with doctrinal positions. All of those aside- here goes.When as human beings we think of suffering it is important to realize that no suffering in this life is worthy to be compared to the sufferings of hell should a person fail to come to saving faith in Jesus Christ. I was in a class once and heard the Jewish instructor say that apart from Jews believing on Jesus Christ in this life there is no hope for them based upon the New Testament scriptures. He lowered his head slowly as he said it and looked away as though near to crying. Had he said one more word there would have been a deep crackle in his voice- yet he turned his head- walked away- and gathered himself. You have been to the death camps and seen firsthand what once was there. I have heard the stories of those who were there at the time. I have seen the pictures and videos. Warehouses of boxes of false teeth, eyeglasses, skin lamp shades, etc. I was about 16 years old when I talked to a survivor of Hitler's "final solution"; in ignorance I asked him, "What was it like to be in that situation?" This was a question that I would had never asked today- unless he would have volunteered the information. His reply, "Young man, there are not enough pens and there are not enough paper." That was all he said. My great uncle was in WWII and went in to where the death camps were to see the situation there. I am told a hardness came over the soldiers who saw this- and an angry resentment and bitterness that resulted in an almost merciless approach to the German soldiers after that. I also once knew real well a German Storm Trooper who became a POW in 3 camps in around 1944 (France, America, ?) who told me his perspective on these things. To my utter shock- he did not believe that the suffering was near as great as they made it out to be. He was in the mountains away from these things perhaps. I have always wondered at his denial. He passed away in 1993.If anything could be a foretaste of hell I suppose this would be a start. If anything would cause a person to search out their life and beg God to show them truth I suppose this should. Do we realize that had God taken the breath of the Jews who died in the death camps before hand that their torments in hell would have been greater than the torments of the death camps? Do we realize that though they were horrendous and unexcusable on mans behalf in a way that forever taints humanity as wretches worse than animals and near to the demonic- and demonstrates the utter depravity of man devoid from God- man still could not level on man the judgments of hell? Do we realize that not even Hitler's twisted mind in the worse states of a fevered night could NOT dream up a punishment likened to a devil's hell? The greatest indictment I could level on myself at this moment is that I have been guilty on an ongoing basis of being more concerned and upset about the suffering the Jews have suffered in this life than I have the suffering that the Jews have suffered after it. Oh, how many Jew and Gentile alike have lifted up their eyes in hell? How many have called the name of Abraham over the centuries being in torments? How many have felt the scorching of their parched tongue as it clave to the roof of their mouth? Oh, how much greater are the screams of hell than the screams of the torments of this life? Do we realize that those Jews who stepped upon the bodies reaching for the ceiling to get the last breath of oxygen in this life slipped out of one 'hell' into the real HELL if they did not know Christ? Their throats went from breathing the stinch of the death of this life to the poisonous fume of eternal death throughout all eternity. They will never breath a breath of fresh air again. And if there is anyone more merciless than Hitler it is the demons of hell, that, symbolized by the fierce insects of this planet (scorpions, locusts, etc.) offer up their violence at the least in the fearsomeness of beholding them. There is none to pity in hell, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. I must say that their burning in the death camps was not an offering of a sweet smelling savor- it was the kindlings of the beginnings of the smoke of their torments that now ascendeth up forever and ever before our God and His throne of those who rejected Jesus Christ. In a strange way I see it as a foretaste of what the Gentiles are going to get according to the Revelation. What words are more fearsome than those of that book? A voice cries out from the very presence of the throne, "WHO WILL NOT FEAR THEE OH GOD?!" Yet in the midst of tribulations greater than any that will ever come upon the earth- the sodding of children in Lamentations will not compare to what God will unleash upon this earth as the 7 seals unfold. The virgin Jews are sealed- 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes. And those who have not the seal of God in there forehead will suffer calamnities that will make every other generation including the 'world that then was' look like kindergarten. To the Jew first and also to the Greek? I suppose for 2000 years the unbelieving Jews have been getting theirs, and it won't be long now until the unbelieving Gentiles get theirs to the next level. Yet have the unbelieving Jews turned to Christ from all these things? Some did. What do we read of those who in the end suffer direct judgments from God? Yet they repented not! They even blasphemed the God of Heaven who had power over these plagues! The gnawed their tongues for pain- but yet could not muster out enough humility to merely call on the name of the Lord and be saved. Like the robber on the cross and Judas Iscariot- they will 'kiss the door of heaven' and plunge into the gates of hell. Why does God let the Jews suffer? We must also ask, "Why does he let Gentiles suffer?" Could it not be at least in part that He loves the people enough that perchance in their suffering they will come to themselves and call upon His name? Is God not willing that all come to repentance? Would He who spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for our offenses not also deliver man up to the full weight of the finality of the sin they love so much? Maybe we need to ask a different question all together, "Why has God not just simply consumed all of us and smitten the Earth with a curse?" It is because to whatever extent we enjoy anything in this life- it is His mercy and any calamity we suffer could not in the least atone for a single offense againt Him. God has not revealed Himself to us as He did to Moses on the Mount that might be touched that burned with fire, and unto blackness and darkness and temptest, and the sound of a trumpet and the voice of words intreating that the word should not be spoken to them anymore...- but we have come to Mount Zion and the City of the Living God and a Heavenly Jerusalem. God has revealed Himself in both ways- a God of wrath and one of mercy and the impenitent rejected both of them. As Finney says, "God Cannot Please Sinners." What more can He do? What more can be done to stop man from being cast into this Hell and eternally away from God and from all things good? He's tried everything. What will come of anyone who does not obey the Gospel after He has used such a multitude of means with which to reach a wicked and gainsaying people, to the Jew first and also to the Greek?God Bless,-Robert

In the book of Romans, Paul seems to make a distinction between Israel and the church;Romans 11:25-27 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.I'm curious, if there is neither Jew nor Greek, why does Paul continue to speak about this covenant with Israel that is unfulfilled "until the fulness of the Gentiles is come in"? In Christ,Ron

Hi Bro Ron,If you don't mind reading a work that is a bit scholarly I would recommend the book "The Church and the Jews" by Daniel Gruber. I don't agree with all of it- but that is generally the nature of these things- but towards the end he gives a illustration of the relationship between Isreal and the Church that I am pretty near to agreement with. It is a vast resource of material relating to the subject.There was a question earlier to the connection between the Jews of today and the Jews of the 1st century. Though Rabbinic Judaism has taken the Jews far from the Judaism that existed in the time of Christ- it has in no wise white washed the people from their identity. The Jews see their identity sitting on 4 pillars:1) God (The God of Israel)2) People (The Children of Israel)3) Torah (The Law of God)4) Land (The promised Land)They do have a great role to play in these last days. Have you ever noticed how radical a believing Jew is? It is life from the dead just as Paul said it would be!God Bless,-Robert

Why does God let the Jews suffer? We must also ask, "Why does he let Gentiles suffer?" Could it not be at least in part that He loves the people enough that perchance in their suffering they will come to themselves and call upon His name? Is God not willing that all come to repentance? Would He who spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for our offenses not also deliver man up to the full weight of the finality of the sin they love so much?Hi RobertThis is really a different question ie why does a loving God allow evil? I was pursuing your comment that the persecutions that the Jews had suffered somehow marked them out as special. I was really asking what special purpose of God was being fulfilled in allowing the rise of Nazism and it ethnic cleansing of Europe's Jewry. (of course, I know that gypsies, homosexuals and the mentally handicapped were also exterminated and the Slavs used as a slave race). Othodox Judaism (or the ultar othodox, at least) have a theology (or two) for this. I was interested to hear yours.

Romans 11:25-27 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.I'm curious, if there is neither Jew nor Greek, why does Paul continue to speak about this covenant with Israel that is unfulfilled "until the fulness of the Gentiles is come in"?Hi Ronisn't this the New Covenant? It is partly because I don't believe that the Old Covenant and the New Covenant can co-exist, having different law and priesthood etc that I am unconvinced of the general end time scenario for Jews. My understanding of the New Covenant is that it is brand new and not an add-on to the old. Jer 31 says quite specifically that the New Covenant will not be like the Old.The word translated 'so' in the your quotation is important. Does it mean subsequently or consequently? ie does it mean 'then',happening later or does it mean the 'result' is... I think an examination of Pauls use of this word in Romans and in the rest of the NT will make it clear that he does not use it in the sense of 'next event'.I believe, with all my heart, that 'all Israel shall be saved'; the question is 'what does Paul mean by Israel in this context?' That is consequently not subsequently.The NASB has seen this and translates; For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB." (Rom 11:25-26 NASB)Pauls use of 'houtos' meaning 'so' or 'thus' rather than 'then' can be seen in 3779 (thus) Paul's use of (houtOs) in Romans 1:15,4:18,5:12,15,18-19,21,6:4,11,19,9:20,10:6, 11:5,26,31,12:5,15:20I have heard very well versed bible student say "Romans says 'and then all Israel shall be saved' but it doesn't. It says and 'so' ie consequently 'all Israel shall be saved'. This is not a time line we are following but an all embracing spiritual truth. We need to keep in mind Paul's opening statements on this issue; Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: (Rom 9:6 KJV) To understand the implications of an "houtOs" we must examine what has already preceded it. An "houtOs" does not add new information, but draws a conclusion from information already previously given. This "houtOs" introduces the conculsion to all that has been said in Ro 9-11, the burden of which is that there is "no difference" between Jew and Gentiles as regards their acceptance with God. Jews would be rejected because of unbelief. Gentiles would be accepted through their faith. If a Jew repents, and believes he will be grafted in again to God's original root. A Gentile who has believed should not be highminded. If he does not continue in God's prescribed way he "also" will be cut off"but whatever happens to an individual from either group... all Israel shall be saved.

This is really a different question ie why does a loving God allow evil? I was pursuing your comment that the persecutions that the Jews had suffered somehow marked them out as special.Hi Bro. Ron,What I see in the treatment of the Jews in terms of God's permissiveness is simply Romans 1 & 2. In Romans 2:9-10, Paul writes, "There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." So we see then that the priority that the Jews have, if the Gospel is (was) rejected will result in a priority in judgment. And if they were to respond rightly for their priority and trust in their Messiah, then they would go first into the covenant and blessing of God. There are dangers in being in the Jews place in hearing the Gospel 'priori' because of the responsibility for the great light upon you. "From everyone who has been given much, much will be required." (Luke 12:48)This would be my theology in the matter. They are made a specticle in the matter of the rejection of Christ for all the world to see- as the judgment for rejecting Him is to the "Jew First." As the Gentiles begin their wholesale falling away as to meet the same level of rejection of light as the Jews have rejected they will begin suffering a similar fate. God's wrath will come upon the to the uttermost- and hence will be fulfilled the second half of that prophecy, "And also to the Greek." God Bless,-Robert

Ron, thanks for the info on the word "houtOs" , however I am still a bit confused. but whatever happens to an individual from either group... all Israel shall be saved.I don't have a firm grasp on this yet so please bear with me and correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding of your statement quoted above is that you are implying that all true believers (jew and greek alike) make up the Israel Paul is talking about in verse 26. In my understanding Romans 2:28-29 and 9:6 seem to support this view, but then I come to 11:25 it seems Paul is clearly distinguishing between the nation Israel and Gentiles. If we take Israel in verse 25 to mean all believing jews and greeks alike it doesn't make much sense. So is Paul using Israel in one sense in verse 25 and another in verse 26? Thanks for your help.In Christ,Ron

What I see in the treatment of the Jews in terms of God's permissiveness is simply Romans 1 & 2. In Romans 2:9-10, Paul writes, "There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek."Hi Robertbut surely this section relates to future judgment and future reward, particularly as the future reward includes 'eternal life'. The section continues 'for as many as have sinned without law...' It is all moving in its argument to the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel. I don't see this section as relating to present judgments at all.

but surely this section relates to future judgment and future reward, particularly as the future reward includes 'eternal life'.Hi Bro. Ron,I would say ultimately that the rewards and punishments will be in eternity- however, Hebrews uses the analogy of people dying without mercy under two or three witnesses who despised Moses' law- this was a judgment in the here and now. It was physical death. On the flip side God promised blessings in the city, etc. for those who observed all those things to do them. This was also in the here and now. Sin brings with it certain troubles by virtue of how so many sins kick against God's natural laws- but it is certain that God chastises and brings judgment in this life or else the laws of sowing and reaping would be null and void, etc..God Bless,-Robert

Sin brings with it certain troubles by virtue of how so many sins kick against God's natural laws- but it is certain that God chastises and brings judgment in this life or else the laws of sowing and reaping would be null and void, etc..Hi Robert WE have discussed this at length elsewhere I think. There are certainly consequences to sin just as there would be consequences to me walking off the roof of my house, but it that the same as judgment? The laws of sowing and reaping are absolute; the question is 'when is the harvest? The Romans reference refers to 'treasuring up'. So are they getting in now or treasuring it up?

Hi Bro. Ron,It makes me think of Ephesians when Paul talked about the Holy Spirit being the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession. Whatever an unbeliever suffers in this life is the earnest of their destruction- a sample of what will someday be- to which I have to believe that it is merely for the purpose of turning them to Christ. There is really no other reason to level it upon them I suppose. God Bless,-Robert

In my understanding Romans 2:28-29 and 9:6 seem to support this view, but then I come to 11:25 it seems Paul is clearly distinguishing between the nation Israel and Gentiles. If we take Israel in verse 25 to mean all believing jews and greeks alike it doesn't make much sense. So is Paul using Israel in one sense in verse 25 and another in verse 26?Hi RonI think he is. I think v26 is a summary to some degree not just of the immediate preceeding verses but from the beginning of Chap 9.Remembering that it is only men who divided this up into chapters and verses... there are some interesting statements in Romans.1. 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 KJV)This redefines the word 'Jew'.2. Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. (Rom 9:6-7 KJV)This redefines the word 'Israel'.3. Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. (Rom 9:24-26 KJV)'my people' is now Jew and Gentile, indistinguishably the 'children of the living God'4. Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: (Rom 9:27 KJV)Introduces the concept of the remnant who become the carriers of the seed and promise.5. Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. (Rom 10:1 KJV)Although he has redefined Israel, he is using Israel here as of 'Israel ...according to the flesh.6. That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Rom 10:9-13 KJV)Salvation is by faith without distinction.7. I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew... (Rom 11:1-2 KJV)This is almost ironic in that it was the opposite way around as was seen in the previous verses 10:21. 8. But I speak to you that are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I glorify my ministry; if by any means I may provoke to jealousy them that are my flesh, and may save some of them. (Rom 11:13-14 ASV)still labouring for the salvation of Israel, who are my flesh.9. The vine, roots and branches,section.. is a familiar theme throughout the scripture and was surely in Paul's mind as he wrote these things;Isaiah 5:1-7, 27:6-11Ezek 15Matt 21:28-45John 15:1-7all these passages are behind Romans 11.Matt 21:33, Mark 12:1 speak of a hedge around the vineyard. The greek is the word 'φραγμόςphragmos; from G5420; a fencing in, a fence: - barrier (1), hedges (1), wall (2). It is the word used by Paul in Ephesians; For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;(Eph 2:14 KJV) The dividing wall which designated Israel as separate has gone.I think the Rom 11:27 'and consequently all Israel shall be saved' is the summary of the whole of this theme in Romans, and in some senses to the whole theme throughout the Bible.Paul's thought begins be redefining Jew and Israel. It is not the outward, flesh and blood descendent but an inner quality which 'all Israel' have in common. Of natural Israel a remnant has been saved and Paul is praying and labouring for there to be more, so should be all be. Reading Ezra and noting the switching between Jew, Judah and Benhjamin, and all Israel is, I think, very illuminating. They are synonyms. the remnant has become 'all Israel'. (although the remnant that become the restoration were themselves a remnant of a remnant of a remnant. The remnant is 'all Israel' [Ezra 2:70]They are not 'all Israel' which are 'out of Israel'. But there is a remnant out of Israel down through the ages which is 'Israel'. added to this are grafted in 'Gentile' branches and the result is a 'whole' tree; all Israel.

I have labored threw this thread, and have seen that many of the post deal with results of doctrine rather than pinpointing the cause of this discussion. I ask this, to what time period is Jesus refering too, when He cries over Jerusalem? "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!"In ChristJeffP.S. Brother Ron, I was hoping that you would continue to develop your idea of two churches, one under the covenant of Mount Sinai and the other under the heavenly Jerusalem.

I ask this, to what time period is Jesus refering too, when He cries over Jerusalem?"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!"I'm not sure what you mean by this. As the Son made flesh the time period would include his several visits to Jerusalem; those before his public ministry and those after it. As God Himself his longings for Jerusalem were from its very beginnings. [Ezek 16]P.S. Brother Ron, I was hoping that you would continue to develop your idea of two churches, one under the covenant of Mount Sinai and the other under the heavenly Jerusalem.There are many aspects of this which could be developed. The fact that each church had a unique mediator and a single high priest are examples. The Jews believe that Pentecost was anniversary of the giving of the law; the first came with fire and a law written on stone. The second came with fire and a law written in hearts. Natural Israel's church was an external entity and everything about it was external; laws written on stone, water used in ablutions, blood sprinkled externally, [Moses word's are amazing in Ex 24:8 'behold the blood of the covenant'. Surely this was in Christ's mind in the upper room, the Spirit's anointing externally on God's servants. Then compare the New Covenant in its internal nature; a law written on hearts, water to drink, blood to drink, the Spirit indwelling and even the anointing in now on the inside; But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. (1Jo 2:27 KJV)The Jews saw Christ as a contender with Moses; Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples. (Joh 9:28 KJV). The early Christians saw Christ as the fulfillment of Moses own prophecy; This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. (Act 7:37 KJV) And in many ways the most amazing is a contrast found in 1 Corinthians...For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; (1Co 10:1-2 NASB)in contrast to...For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (1Co 12:13 KJV)There are many more... these are just off the top of my head, as they say over here...

Brother Ron wrote:"I'm not sure what you mean by this. As the Son made flesh the time period would include his several visits to Jerusalem; those before his public ministry and those after it. As God Himself his longings for Jerusalem were from its very beginnings. [Ezek 16]"I believe Jesus was refering to Israel from the time of Moses to the time He said this prior to His death on the cross. Jesus speaks of the children of Israel, those who rejected the prophets. The children of Israel speaks of the generations that lived over the span of 1300 years. Jesus says in this verse, that He had often sought to gather them under his care. Yet most were not willing. But we also know that there were some that were faithful. Do you believe that the church you spoke of that existed in the OT were the faithful and thus not those who Jesus lamented over when He cried, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem...In ChristJeff

Do you believe that the church you spoke of that existed in the OT were the faithful and thus not those who Jesus lamented over when He cried, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem...The church of Israel/Jehovah was a visible congregation of people bound together by the mutual covenant of Sinai. Within this there was a remnant who who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. (Rom 4:12 KJV) These were the unbroken off branches and at the last are found to be part of 'all Israel' who shall be saved.I think the Jerusalem that Christ wept over was the chief city of those who began well as the Sinai people; Moreover the word of the LORD came to me, saying, Go and cry in the ears of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; I remember thee, the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals, when thou wentest after me in the wilderness, in a land that was not sown. Israel was holiness unto the LORD, and the firstfruits of his increase: all that devour him shall offend; evil shall come upon them, saith the LORD. Hear ye the word of the LORD, O house of Jacob, and all the families of the house of Israel: Thus saith the LORD, What iniquity have your fathers found in me, that they are gone far from me, and have walked after vanity, and are become vain? (Jer 2:1-5 KJV) Here Jerusalem is plainly the same as the Sinai people.I think Jerusalem is sometimes used in the way of our modern usage when we say 'Washington and London are of one mind on the invasion of Iraq'. We are not just talking of the capital cities but the 'head' determines the stance of the body. Hence, His weeping was not for the city alone but for the whole people whose head it was. I think the Jer 2 and Ezek 16 are to be understood in this way.Lars has just begun a T Austin-Sparkes series called The Holy City. I know the piece and I think it will be very relevant to this theme as it progresses. Austin Sparkes regarded the Church as God's New Israel.

I've begun reading the T Austin-Sparkes, The Holy City. This is a quote in the beginning:The judgment upon this world began at Jerusalem, and then it came upon the Roman Empire, and upon Rome itself. The time was not far ahead when great and wonderful imperial Rome would be devastated. From all its wealth, its luxury and its plenty it was reduced to famine and pestilence, and the economic situation became so bad that the most wealthy people were begging for food. And so you read in this book of these pestilences, famines and wars, and all these conditions which were coming upon the world. The judgments of God upon this world were beginning - and who shall say that those judgments are not beginning in our world today? We leave that for the present. We see the judgements all around us. The Scripture comes to mind where Paul refers to the Jew first and then the gentile. Likewise as Sparks comments, Jerusalem was destroyed around 70 AD. Yet look back, Jerusalem was destroyed in the OT as well. Afterward, the gentile nation also were judged. See the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Now look to today. Yesterday I saw an article on the Paralympics. Israel has dominated the olympic games which are set aside for those with physical infirminties. Jews who have lost arms and legs as soldiers now compete in these paralympics. I say all of this to say that Scripture repeats the ordinances and precepts of God. What we sometimes label as a shadow and apply the thought that this precept did not exist at some point in time but was foretelling of something to come, I believe this may be in most cases be an error on our part. I believe the Scriptures point to an ongoing work of God which is repeated generation after generation. So I believe God will judge Israel again along with the gentiles. If one holds to the thought that the gentile church has replaced Israel, then one must also hold to the thought that God will bring judgement down upon the gentile church. If one concludes this then there is a conflict with God's promise that the true believer is saved from the wrath of God through salvation that comes through Jesus Christ.In ChristJeff

If one holds to the thought that the gentile church has replaced Israel, then one must also hold to the thought that God will bring judgement down upon the gentile church.Hi JeffJust thought I'd comment that I have never met or read of anyone who thinks that the 'gentile church has replaced Israel'. It's a new concept for me, as indeed is the whole idea of a 'gentile church'. ;-)

Brother Ron,Your right, that whole thought I wrote was garbage.In ChristJeff