| Poster | Thread |
formidable
Member
Joined: 2004/7/3
Posts: 77
Perth, Australia
| | 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?
_________________
scot
|
|
 2004/8/30 9:09 | Profile |
lwpray
Member
Joined: 2003/6/22
Posts: 3318
Sweden
| | Re: has the church replaced israel | |
Two recent additions by Art Katz, among other Katz teachings, brings distinct answers to you questions:
[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=3318]
The Mystery of Israel (A 1999 convocation tape)[/url]
[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=3309]
The Holocaust and Christian Conscience[/url]
L. W.
_________________
Lars Widerberg
|
|
| 2004/8/30 9:25 | Profile |
lwpray
Member
Joined: 2003/6/22
Posts: 3318
Sweden
| | Re: has the church replaced israel | |
"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.
_________________
Lars Widerberg
|
|
| 2004/8/30 9:44 | Profile |
RobertW
Member
Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri
| | Re: has the church replaced israel | | 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
_________________
Robert Wurtz II
|
|
| 2004/8/30 11:19 | Profile |
philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: Has the church replaced the church? | | Quote:
"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.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
|
| 2004/9/1 9:04 | Profile |
moreofHim
Member
Joined: 2003/10/15
Posts: 1632
| | Re: israel | | 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.
_________________
Chanin
|
|
| 2004/9/1 9:36 | Profile |
philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re:there is no difference | | Quote:
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 Robert
You 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 [color=0033FF]to every one that believeth[/color]; 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 [color=0033FF]there is no difference[/color]: 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 [color=0033FF]there is no difference[/color] 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).
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
|
| 2004/9/1 9:47 | Profile |
lwpray
Member
Joined: 2003/6/22
Posts: 3318
Sweden
| | Our Father Abraham | |
Dear Robert,
Our Father Abraham by Marvin R. Wilson is not that easy to read.
Are there other books which you can recommend?
Lars
_________________
Lars Widerberg
|
|
| 2004/9/1 9:51 | Profile |
philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
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 Chanin
I 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?'
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
|
| 2004/9/1 10:05 | Profile |
RobertW
Member
Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri
| | Re: Our Father Abraham | | 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
_________________
Robert Wurtz II
|
|
| 2004/9/1 10:23 | Profile |
