SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Looking for free sermon messages?
Sermon Podcast | Audio | Video

Discussion Forum : General Topics : has the church replaced israel

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 Next Page )
PosterThread
sermonindex
Moderator



Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 37032
"Pilgrim and Sojourner." - 1 Peter 2:11

Online!
 Re:

Quote:
"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


I respect campbell morgan tremendously but im abit scared at that saying. Islam is a religion that teaches that vehemently that God has superceded Israel due to disobedience and has given the promise to the Christians (the people of the book) then in turn they were disobedient so he passed it onto Islam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. Theres a trend in the prophets in the Old testamant that really point to a summation that includes Israel as a major hub or center of Gods dealings. true it will be established with Messiah as the head, but there is a fact that 'all Israel will be saved'

Quote:
These conditions were not fulfilled by the Hebrew people, consequently for them, as a human race, the promises will never be fulfilled.


I disagree to agree. The promises where fulfilled to Israel and Christ earthly ministry was a summation of the law and much of the promises of God to Isreal, but all those promises were a type which the church is the reality. Israel's type is not finished thats what I believe.


_________________
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon

 2004/9/1 13:35Profile
sermonindex
Moderator



Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 37032
"Pilgrim and Sojourner." - 1 Peter 2:11

Online!
 Re:

Quote:
Ha ha. sure am! Can I just say that He uses the weak things to confound the wise.


AMEN count me as a blond then. 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?

Quote:
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.


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?


_________________
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon

 2004/9/1 13:49Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Hi Lars
My 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.






_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/9/1 14:08Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
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


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/9/1 14:09Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
AMEN count me as a blond then


I expect a little more sensitivity from sermonindexers. I think this flaunting of hair by people who have some should now stop.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/9/1 14:12Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
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)


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/9/1 14:17Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
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 Robert
I would regard the foundation of our Christian faith as being Abrahamic, pre-circumcision Abrahamic.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/9/1 14:19Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/9/1 14:27Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

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


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/9/1 14:37Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
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.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/9/1 14:57Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy