Scriptural distinctions between the nation of Israel & the "Church"

[Covenanter]

Matthew:
Thank you for your posts Seth. Replacement theology is running rampant and it is important we counteract it with scripture.

More important that we study the questions raised.

S-D:
It [1/3 delivered] comes from Zechariah 13:8-9 and a understanding of the surrounding Chapters which contain prophecy both fulfilled in the time of Christ at his first coming(for example Zechariah 13:7 is explicitly quoted by Christ in relation to his death) and prophecy yet to be fulfilled. Prophecy frequently has a way of jumping around between the first and second coming of the Lord, sometimes even in mid verse.

Zec 13:7 ¶ Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man [that is] my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.
8 And it shall come to pass, [that] in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off [and] die; but the third shall be left therein.
9 And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It [is] my people: and they shall say, The LORD [is] my God.

A literal fulfilment of that prophecy is the deliverance of the Jewish Christians before the destruction - the symbolic 144,000 John sees sealed & delivered before the storm of judgment. (Rev. 7)

Certainly the fulfilment of I will say, It [is] my people: and they shall say, The LORD [is] my God. is evident in the church: 2Cr 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

[Seth Doty]

Zec 13:7 ¶ Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man [that is] my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.
8 And it shall come to pass, [that] in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off [and] die; but the third shall be left therein.
9 And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It [is] my people: and they shall say, The LORD [is] my God.

A literal fulfilment of that prophecy is the deliverance of the Jewish Christians before the destruction - the symbolic 144,000 John sees sealed & delivered before the storm of judgment. (Rev. 7)

Certainly the fulfilment of I will say, It [is] my people: and they shall say, The LORD [is] my God. is evident in the church: 2Cr 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

There are so many scriptures where God is promising to be "their God" I am quite sure it isn't reasonable to pull that one part out of Zechariah 13, point to 2nd Corinthians 6:16, and then apply the surrounding verses to the church age as you have done. In all actuality 2nd Corinthians 6:16 is most likely a reference to Leviticus 26: 11-12 anyway, not a reference to Zechariah 13:9. The wording in Leviticus is certainly much closer and the context fits better too. Not to mention that in order for your interpretation of the passage to be accurate one third of the Jewish population would have needed to be Christian, then the two thirds that were not Christian would have to be killed off, and the remaining one third Christian Jews(all that would be left) would have needed to remain in Israel. None of that happened. What happened in 70 AD was that the city and the temple were both pretty much totally destroyed and left in ruins with the surviving Jews that escaped dispersing into other cities. Then around 130 AD emperor Hadrian attempted to get rid of Jerusalem all together and build a roman city in its place with no Jews allowed resulting in yet another Jewish revolt since they hoped to re-build Jerusalem and the temple. Looking at how much stuff has happened since the destruction of the temple and how relatively insignificant that was in the scope of history and how little was solved by it, it always amazes me when people try to act as if it is somehow nearly the grande finale in bible prophecy. The destruction of the temple in 70 AD is more akin to what Churchill said after some victories in North Africa during WW2 " This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." Edited March 9, 2011 by Seth-Doty

[Covenanter]

There are so many scriptures where God is promising to be "their God" I am quite sure it isn't reasonable to pull that one part out of Zechariah 13, point to 2nd Corinthians 6:16, and then apply the surrounding verses to the church age as you have done. In all actuality 2nd Corinthians 6:16 is most likely a reference to Leviticus 26: 11-12 anyway, not a reference to Zechariah 13:9. The wording in Leviticus is certainly much closer and the context fits better too.

I agree that the "your God - my people" relationship occurs throughout Scripture. It is the everlasting covenant relationship that finds it's perfect fulfilment in the NH&NE. (Rev. 21)

I do not consider that I am misusing Scripture in seeing the Jews saved from the destruction in Zec. 13 as my people in the covenant relationship. The Jews who rejected Jesus were not children of Abraham - not my people.

[Covenanter]

Not to mention that in order for your interpretation of the passage to be accurate one third of the Jewish population would have needed to be Christian, then the two thirds that were not Christian would have to be killed off, and the remaining one third Christian Jews(all that would be left) would have needed to remain in Israel. None of that happened. What happened in 70 AD was that the city and the temple were both pretty much totally destroyed and left in ruins with the surviving Jews that escaped dispersing into other cities.

We know that there were many thousands of Jews there are which believe and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith. Also many Jews around the Empire were converted. That is likely to be a third part redeemed & delivered from Jerusalem & Judea. We need not argue about the LORD being mathematical. The 144,000 is obviously symbolic of a complete number being saved & delivered.


Then around 130 AD emperor Hadrian attempted to get rid of Jerusalem all together and build a roman city in its place with no Jews allowed resulting in yet another Jewish revolt since they hoped to re-build Jerusalem and the temple. Looking at how much stuff has happened since the destruction of the temple and how relatively insignificant that was in the scope of history and how little was solved by it, it always amazes me when people try to act as if it is somehow nearly the grande finale in bible prophecy. The destruction of the temple in 70 AD is more akin to what Churchill said after some victories in North Africa during WW2 " This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

I find that argument extraordinary. Jerusalem & the temple were the focus of the Jewish religion. Even the Apostles commented on the beauty of the temple before Jesus prophesied its destruction.

The end was the end of the old covenant. It ended with the new covenant in Jesus blood, but there was the 40 year transition period while God graciously called & forgave many who had rejected their Messiah.

Then the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

You cannot minimise the significance of the temple.

[Covenanter]

Exd 25:8 And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.

Mat 21:13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

Mat 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

[Invicta]

None of that happened. What happened in 70 AD was that the city and the temple were both pretty much totally destroyed Completly destoyed. One writer, who, I cannot remember, said: "Zion was ploughed like a field." Josephus wrote "Jerusalem ... was so thoroughly razed to the ground by those that demolished it to its foundations, that nothing was left that could ever persuade visitors that it had once been a place of habitation." and left in ruins with the surviving Jews that escaped dispersing into other cities. It was the believing Jews who escaped when they saw the Roman armies of Cestius. The only other Jews who escaped were those who went over to the Romans, accepting Titus offer of clemency, but most of those trying to defect were murdered by their own countrymen, as they often had swallowed their gold te be able to take it with them, but they were cut open and robbed and killed. Then around 130 AD emperor Hadrian attempted to get rid of Jerusalem all together and build a roman city in its place with no Jews allowed resulting in yet another Jewish revolt since they hoped to re-build Jerusalem and the temple. (I did read that the wailing wall dates from that time as previously not one stone was left upon another.) Hadrian aka Adrian then sent troops to put down the revolt. When they succeeded, he announced in the senate that "Jerusalem is fallen." or in latin, "Hierosylma Est Perdita" and the senators cried "Hurrah, Hurrah, Hurrah." We still celebrate that when we give three cheers, "Hep Hep Hurrah" or more commonly Hip, Hip, Hurray." Looking at how much stuff has happened since the destruction of the temple and how relatively insignificant that was in the scope of history and how little was solved by it, it always amazes me when people try to act as if it is somehow nearly the grande finale in bible prophecy. I sometimes wonder if some have ever read the scriptures, Did not Christ even weep over jerusalem and these things that were to overtake her. Did he not say to the Scibes and Pharicees "Your house is left unto you desolate", and all these things would come upon that generation? The tribulation of those days was truly "Such as never was." because it was the vengence of God on the unbelieving Jews who "Filled up the measure of their fathers" when they murdered their Messiah," Matt. 23:30-32, 36. Luke 21: 22, Isaiah 61:2. The destruction of the temple in 70 AD is more akin to what Churchill said after some victories in North Africa during WW2 " This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

[lettheredeemedsayso]

This thread is for the defining of Israel and the current position of NT believers and discussion of the scriptural passages dealing with each. In this opening post I hope to express some of the similarities, and yet point out that there are clear differences. I do not feel the scriptures support the idea that the church has "replaced" Israel.

First I will start with a couple of their similarities.

Israel is God's chosen people. NT believers are God's chosen people.
Specific promises were made to Israel. Specific promises have been made to NT believers.
Abraham was the physical father of the nation of Israel. Abraham is a spiritual father of NT Christianity.

Now for a couple differences.

The nation of Israel rejected Christ in unbelief. NT believers accept Christ in faith.
The fullness of God's blessing departed from Israel. The blessing came upon NT Christianity and Gentiles were "grafted in".
Blindness came upon Israel.(till the fullness of the gentiles come in) Any NT Christian has the opportunity for spiritual sight.

Now where the confusion starts for some is the many scriptural parallels drawn between the physical and the spiritual. For example lets take this passage:

Romans 9:1-8 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. 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. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.


Passages like this, when it is not compared to other scriptures, is where replacement theology comes from.

Here is another one that I will discuss a bit:

"Galatians 4:22- 31 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free."

Now before you decide this is proof that God is done with the nation of Israel lets look at what God said about the son of the bondwoman.


"Genesis 21:12-20 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called. And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed. And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba. And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs. And she went, and sat her down over against him a good way off, as it were a bowshot: for she said, Let me not see the death of the child. And she sat over against him, and lift up her voice, and wept. And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is. Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation. And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink. And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer."

The son of the bondwoman is still of the seed of Abraham in one sense, and God isn't finished with that son just because he has been cast out as can be seen here. The very name which God commanded he be given is a testament to that fact. The name "Ishmael" means essentially "God will hear". Notice that even while God is directing Ishmael to be cast out he is not sending him out to be destroyed or forgotten, and promises Abraham that he will make a nation out of Ishmael too even though Ishmael is the child of the flesh and Isaac is the child of the promise. Now we see from scripture that Abraham is a picture of faith, Hagar is a picture of the law, Ishmael is a picture of Israel after the flesh, and we know that bread is a picture of God's provision, and that water is a picture of the Word of God. Israel was cast out when they rejected Christ as the messiah, and metaphorically speaking they were sent forth with the Law, God's provision, and a limited amount of God's word. God's provision for Israel did not run out, but his word to Israel did, rather like the plumbline Amos saw the Lord set in the midst of the house of Israel in the seventh chapter of that book. As the water ran out Israel after the flesh withdrew from the law a certain distance, they are forced to ignore certain requirements like certain sacrifices because they have no temple. Nevertheless even though Israel after the flesh is nearly dead spiritually without the water of the Word of God one day the Lord God will hear their voice, the valley of dry bones will live, the angel of the Lord will bring back the Law to Israel after the flesh, for a season at least(the water was once again placed in a bottle), and once again they will have the water of the Word of God. God will be with them but they will be in the wilderness, which is a picture of solitude(post rapture), and they will be spiritually strong warriors for the Lord.


Of course that is just one passage of an OT "ensample" given unto us and scripture is full of teaching on the subject.

Isn't the Book of Hebrews written to the Hebrew believers? Edited May 23, 2011 by lettheredeemedsayso

[Covenanter]

lettheredeemedsayso
Isn't the Book of Hebrews written to the Hebrew believers?

Believers & waverers - there are plenty of warnings against unbelief, & encouragements to persevere.

The letter was written while the temple (tabernacle) still stood, so while Israel was still a nation rather than a scattered people.

The letter is relevant to all believers, Jew & Gentile, as it provides a key to understanding the OT.

Were you making a specific point relating to the thread?

[Wilchbla]

Isn't the Book of Hebrews written to the Hebrew believers?

Hebrews is written to Jews in the last days.

Hebrews 1:1-2

[1] God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
[2] Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

James is written to the twelve tribes scattered abroad.

James 1:1

[1]James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

There is a reason why these are called the Jewish Epistles.

We keep looking backwards in how these epistles may have been applied when they still have much prophetic relevance. You see this same thing in the OT.

The "last days" are the last days and not the last 2,000 years. So the writer of Hebrews may have been writing to a group of Jews in his day but the book still has prophetic significance for a Jewish renmant during the Tribulation who are waiting on the Second Coming of Christ. Edited May 19, 2011 by Wilchbla

[lettheredeemedsayso]

Hebrews is written to Jews in the last days.

Hebrews 1:1-2

[1] God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
[2] Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

James is written to the twelve tribes scattered abroad.

James 1:1

[1]James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

There is a reason why these are called the Jewish Epistles.

We keep looking backwards in how these epistles may have been applied when they still have much prophetic relevance. You see this same thing in the OT.

The "last days" are the last days and not the last 2,000 years. So the writer of Hebrews may have been writing to a group of Jews in his day but the book still has prophetic significance for a Jewish renmant during the Tribulation who are waiting on the Second Coming of Christ.

that being said wouldn't the book of Hebrews and Revelation be evidence that God is not finished with the nation of Israel?

[John81]

that being said wouldn't the book of Hebrews and Revelation be evidence that God is not finished with the nation of Israel?

God is not finished with anyone. All that God has spoken will come to pass.

Isaiah 40:8

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.



2 Timothy 3:16-17

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

[Covenanter]

My comments

Hebrews is written to Jews in the last days.

Hebrews 1:1-2

[1] God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
[2] Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;



James is written to the twelve tribes scattered abroad.

James 1:1

[1]James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

There is a reason why these are called the Jewish Epistles.

We keep looking backwards in how these epistles may have been applied when they still have much prophetic relevance. You see this same thing in the OT.

The "last days" are the last days and not the last 2,000 years. So the writer of Hebrews may have been writing to a group of Jews in his day but the book still has prophetic significance for a Jewish renmant during the Tribulation who are waiting on the Second Coming of Christ.

Why did you not embolden THESE last days ?

I am used to people arguing that the time indicators of Revelation do not have their obvious meaning, but never have I heard the suggestion that the last days were not these last days, i.e. the days the writer & his readers were living in.

Please note the urgency, the immediacy of his appeals. He is writing to "we" & "us" not some future dispensation.

Hbr 2:1 ¶ Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let [them] slip.
2 For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward;
3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard [him];

Hbr 3:12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.
13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

The prophetic 40 years, of the wilderness & Psalm 95, & in effect prophesied by the Lord (this generation) were fast running out.

[Covenanter]

Wilchbla:
The "last days" are the last days and not the last 2,000 years. So the writer of Hebrews may have been writing to a group of Jews in his day but the book still has prophetic significance for a Jewish renmant during the Tribulation who are waiting on the Second Coming of Christ.

That is a distortion of Scripture - Paul writes these last days & the straightforward meaning is the last days of the nation, before the destruction prophesied by the Lord. (Olivet prophecy.) Paul is writing to his readers - Jewish Christians & non-Christians.

I am not discussing disp'ism versus covenant theology, nor premil versus amil, but the simple meaning of Scripture.

John writes: 1Jo 2:18 ¶ Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

Peter quoted Joel when he preached: Act 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh:....
....
21 And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
....
40 ¶ And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

[Wilchbla]

That is a distortion of Scripture - Paul writes these last days & the straightforward meaning is the last days of the nation, before the destruction prophesied by the Lord. (Olivet prophecy.) Paul is writing to his readers - Jewish Christians & non-Christians.

I am not discussing disp'ism versus covenant theology, nor premil versus amil, but the simple meaning of Scripture.

John writes: 1Jo 2:18 ¶ Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

Peter quoted Joel when he preached: Act 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh:....
....
21 And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
....
40 ¶ And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

Where did Paul write "these last days"? You don't know who the writer of Hebrews is so don't go there. There's a good reason we don't know who the writer of Hebrews is. And the prophecy of Joel was never totally fulfilled. The sun didn't turn dark and the moon didn't change into blood. There was no fire, smoke, etc. before THE NOTABLE DAY OF THE LORD (i.e. the Second Coming of Christ). So either Peter was lying, being poetic or the whole deal was put on hold for a reason.

When will Hebrews 1:2 take place? In the "last days". The last days in scripture is ALWAYS the period of time just prior the Second Coming of Christ. Edited May 20, 2011 by Wilchbla

[Wilchbla]

My comments

Why did you not embolden THESE last days ?

These last days are yet future. Just as sure as the book of Revelation is yet future though it was written in the past so is the book of Hebrews.