Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Welcome to Christforums the Protestant Community. You'll need to register in order to post your comments on your favorite topics and subjects. You'll also enjoy sharing media across multiple platforms. We hope you enjoy your fellowship here! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Christforums

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy. God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now
NetChaplain

Israel’s Final Restoration

Recommended Posts

Note: Much of this article is still speculative with me and my hope in sharing it is that there might be more truth brought out concerning it. It is my belief that God has never “broken off” His union with Israel, just His fellowship, which will be reestablished during the final coming of the Lord Jesus.

 

 

Israel’s Final Restoration

 

One of the most important Biblical doctrines which has not been recovered, even within the Reformation is that which has to do with the dispensation of God’s people Israel. Scripture-obscurity is often the cause of misunderstanding various truths but nevertheless, God eventually reveals them to the persistent searcher.

 

Due to promises concerning Abraham’s grandson Israel (Jacob), God is going to “put My Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them” (Eze 36:27). It’s clear this prophecy relates directly to the lineage of Abraham by language such as “For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land” (v 24), which has been transpiring since the time of Israel’s rebirth as a nation in 1948.

 

It has yet to be seen concerning Eze 36:27, along with its companion-prophecy of Jer 31:31-33 which speaks of undeniable Jewish blood posterity concerning another but final law covenant “with the house of Israel” (v 33). The present position of Israel attests to the fact that these and all related prophecies (except the beginning of their present return to their land) are futuristic, and the Jews whom God will covenant with will be those who are still alive at Christ’s coming.

 

Those within the prior dispensation who believed (trusted) in God from Adam to Christ are in Heaven, but those who did not believe have perished (Heb 11:31). In the present dispensation since Christ’s coming, all who do not believe in Him perish, for they are “condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:18).

 

I consider dispensations as periods which have existed in the present life on the old earth, e.g. earthly dispensations, thus, in my opinion the final dispensation is from the initial transpiration of the occurrences within the prophecies of Revelation until the removal of the present old earth. I believe it is during this time period—and principally within the Millennium (Rev 20:4)—where most of the obscurities concerning Israel’s end-time prophecies exist and will then become clear.

 

My understanding is that it is during the Millennium (thousand years on this old earth) when God will bring to pass Israel’s end-time Scriptural prophecies and declarations, i.e. Eze/Jer, Luke 22:29, 30, etc. I strongly suspect that the remaining nation of Israel who will be alive at this time will not enter into these prophecies until they see the Lord Jesus at His return.

 

None of the Apostles and disciples were familiar enough with the concept concerning His resurrection to believe in it, that's why they couldn't believe in it until they saw Him (John 20:9, 20), even though this was foretold within the analogies of the OT sacrificial ordinances of the Law, and hinted of by Christ. I believe there is much instruction from what Jesus said, that “because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

 

The learning here is contained within the word “blessed,” which I believe designs the intention of a greater glory and position for those who learn to believe on Christ’s resurrection—after His ascension—in order that faith in His resurrection cannot be derived from physical proof. I also do not think the fact of Christ’s resurrection was intended to be clear enough to His followers to attribute fault as to their being dull of hearing concerning His resurrection, which shows me that God did not want to reveal this until ‘ex post facto’, e.g. after He was raised.

 

It must be realized that though the post-ascension believers did not have the opportunity to see the Lord Jesus in His resurrected body, they do have the advantage of the Spirit of God “confirming” (Rom 8:16; 1John 5:6) everything to them in their faith (which the disciples did not have until after His ascension). The remaining nation of Israel who believe in God but not in His Son (John 14:1) will be the recipients of God putting His “Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you shall keep My judgments, and do them” (Eze 36:27), which will finally bring them to faith in Christ, but the “blessing” of son-ship will not be known among them, only the position of being “people of God” (Jer 32:38-40; Heb 8:10).

 

This is unlike the position of son-ship and people of God for all who believe in Christ prior to His final return (Rom 9:24-26). He will be seen in the capacity of vengeance (Rev 19:16) but His final glory, which will bring again God’s fellowship with Israel forever will not occur until His final appearing at the “first resurrection.”

 

- NC

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is my belief that God has never “broken off” His union with Israel, just His fellowship, which will be reestablished during the final coming of the Lord Jesus.

Amen!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The remaining nation of Israel who believe in God but not in His Son (John 14:1) will be the recipients of God putting His “Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you shall keep My judgments, and do them” (Eze 36:27), which will finally bring them to faith in Christ, but the “blessing” of son-ship will not be known among them, only the position of being “people of God” (Jer 32:38-40; Heb 8:10).

 

This is unlike the position of son-ship and people of God for all who believe in Christ prior to His final return (Rom 9:24-26). He will be seen in the capacity of vengeance (Rev 19:16) but His final glory, which will bring again God’s fellowship with Israel forever will not occur until His final appearing at the “first resurrection.”

"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son." John 3;18

 

Are you saying Israel has a special exemption from unbelief in the son? I think not.

 

You have confounded the nation of Israel, with Israel the people of God. They are not the same. One is natural, the other is spiritual. As Paul says "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel." Rom 9;6.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son." John 3;18

 

Are you saying Israel has a special exemption from unbelief in the son? I think not.

 

You have confounded the nation of Israel, with Israel the people of God. They are not the same. One is natural, the other is spiritual. As Paul says "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel." Rom 9;6.

 

I understand the difficulties concerning Israel's eschatology, of which most are unfamiliar because of Scripture's teachings on it, but it's my understanding that God will yet receive the remaining nation of Israel after the Eze/Jer prophecies come to pass in the Millennium. I'm not one to spiritualize the Church for Israel though, which many are accustomed to do.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the rise of Messianic Jews is a good sign regarding the salvation of Israel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I understand the difficulties concerning Israel's eschatology, of which most are unfamiliar because of Scripture's teachings on it, but it's my understanding that God will yet receive the remaining nation of Israel after the Eze/Jer prophecies come to pass in the Millennium. I'm not one to spiritualize the Church for Israel though, which many are accustomed to do.

I am reasonably acquainted with dispensationalism, having suffered it in church for some years, but I deem it to be heretical (just my own view). The nation of Israel today is a secular outfit created pursuant to UN recognition, not God's recognition. There is nothing in the bible concerning a UN recognized state of Israel. The only Israel that exists is in prophecy as it denotes the people of God.

 

When Paul says that "all Israel will be saved" there was in those days a great part of the descendants of Abraham who were dispersed throughout the nations and living as gentiles. The gospel had to reach them, gentiles as they were, for them to be included in salvation. In this way the gospel came to all gentiles of whatever descent. It is futile to conjure up a natural nation of Israel any longer. The descendants of Abraham are everywhere.

 

And if what you really mean is anyone who is circumcized will be received or restored, well why should God pay any attention to that? Was it not the message of Galations that "circumcision is nothing"? 1 Cor 7;19. If it is nothing why are you paying any attention to it? Do you believe God has a special place for you, if you are circumcised?

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that we need to be cautious when it comes to Israel. I know that many believe the Church has replaced Israel, but this claim always reminds me of Paul's words on this very subject:

 

"Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved." - Romans 10:1

 

That should be our prayer as well.

 

"I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying, "Lord, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life”? But what does the divine response say to him? “I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

 

What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded. Just as it is written:

 

“God has given them a spirit of stupor,

 

Eyes that they should not see

And ears that they should not hear,

To this very day.”

 

And David says:

 

“Let their table become a snare and a trap,

 

A stumbling block and a recompense to them.

 

Let their eyes be darkened, so that they do not see,

 

And bow down their back always.”

 

I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!

 

For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

 

For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.

 

You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

 

For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

 

“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,

And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;

 

For this is My covenant with them,

When I take away their sins.”

 

Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.

 

Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!

 

"For who has known the mind of the Lord?

 

Or who has become His counselor?”

 

"Or who has first given to Him

And it shall be repaid to him?”

 

For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen. - Romans 11

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The nation of Israel today is a secular outfit created pursuant to UN recognition, not God's recognition. There is nothing in the bible concerning a UN recognized state of Israel. The only Israel that exists is in prophecy as it denotes the people of God.

 

The nation of Israel could not have come into existence unless God allowed it to happen. The UN was the instrument God used to bring about his will. God promised Abraham that his descendants would rule the land of Israel forever. The last part of Ezekiel, beginning at chapter 40, shows what this rule will be like. The church is not a fulfillment of these prophecies.

 

When the Jews rejected their Messiah God temporarily rejected them and formed the church to carry out his work. At the present time we are the spiritual Israel but a time is coming when the church will be removed from the earth and God will once again begin working through the Jewish nation. The prophecies relating to Christ's return show the Jews living in their own land, so the establishment of Israel may mean that the time of his return is near.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that we need to be cautious when it comes to Israel. I know that many believe the Church has replaced Israel, but this claim always reminds me of Paul's words on this very subject:

 

"Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved." - Romans 10:1

 

That should be our prayer as well.

There's a lot of unspoken assumptions built into your words.

 

Who was Israel? Those that had been led out of Egypt and made subject to a covenant based on the law. That they resided in the land of Israel was of secondary importance. For the first 40 years they did not live in the land of Israel. They got kicked out a few times too. In Jesus' day many lived outside Israel. Israel primarily denotes a people, who was given a "land of milk and honey." The land is of secondary importance. Thus any State of Israel that is primarily denoted by the land of Israel is of secondary importance. It is inconsequential to the existence of the people of Israel, who are the people of God, or the people of the law of God, or the people chosen by God to uphold his law.

 

The church is described in identical terms, "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." Rom 3;31.

 

Of course it is a somewhat maturer and more spiritual law, even the law of Christ, but it is the same spiritual law as the law upheld by Israel. There is only one law. Gnosticism often posits two deities in antagonism with one another. That is exactly what Darby did: make two deities out of one, with one deity and his people concerned with Old Testament law, and another deity and his people concerned with Christ. It is nonsense.

 

To try to make a distinction between the church and Israel is gnostic and heretical. You don't have to, because the apostle has said that those of Israel who do not obey the law of God are not the true Israel. There is a false or natural or unbelieving Israel, but it is not the true Israel, the real Israel. The apostle Paul has said that the false Israel had been "broken off or cut off." It is strictly not part of Israel, even if it is called Israel.

 

So what are you trying to say? The desire of the apostle was that the false or unbelieving Israel should be saved. But it does not and never did denote the true Israel who are members of the church.

 

What Dispensationalism does is substitute the false Israel for the true Israel, the natural Israel for the spiritual Israel, the people living in the land of Israel for the people of God.

 

Old Testament prophecies belong in the Old Testament. That is my rule, and I think that it is a good rule. There is an exception, where the literal fulfillment takes place in the Old Testament but there remains a spiritual or more maturer fulfillment in the new. The abomination of desolation is one, where the prophecy was fulfilled in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes IV but in a more mature and permanent way by the Romans.

 

I do not believe in the craft of manufacturing theories of end times by abusing hard to understand Old Testament prophecies. Nearly all of them have already been fulfilled. Those that appear unfulfilled often warrant a spiritual or allegorical meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a lot of unspoken assumptions built into your words.

 

Really? This is all I wrote:

 

I think that we need to be cautious when it comes to Israel. I know that many believe the Church has replaced Israel, but this claim always reminds me of Paul's words on this very subject.

 

I don't understand what "assumptions" you've taken from that. The rest of my post was Scripture.

 

Who was Israel? Those that had been led out of Egypt and made subject to a covenant based on the law. That they resided in the land of Israel was of secondary importance. For the first 40 years they did not live in the land of Israel. They got kicked out a few times too.

 

I don't think anything I wrote in that brief sentence contradicts any of that.

 

In Jesus' day many lived outside Israel. Israel primarily denotes a people, who was given a "land of milk and honey." The land is of secondary importance. Thus any State of Israel that is primarily denoted by the land of Israel is of secondary importance. It is inconsequential to the existence of the people of Israel, who are the people of God, or the people of the law of God, or the people chosen by God to uphold his law.

 

Again, I don't see how what I wrote contradicts what the Bible clearly says about Israel. Still not understanding the "unspoken assumptions" you read into the few words I wrote.

 

The church is described in identical terms, "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." Rom 3;31.

 

And yet Paul clearly warned the Gentiles not to boast in their salvation (their "grafting in") as though they had now replaced Israel.

 

Of course it is a somewhat maturer and more spiritual law, even the law of Christ, but it is the same spiritual law as the law upheld by Israel. There is only one law. Gnosticism often posits two deities in antagonism with one another. That is exactly what Darby did: make two deities out of one, with one deity and his people concerned with Old Testament law, and another deity and his people concerned with Christ. It is nonsense.

 

Indeed, and somehow you think this is what I was saying?

 

To try to make a distinction between the church and Israel is gnostic and heretical. You don't have to, because the apostle has said that those of Israel who do not obey the law of God are not the true Israel. There is a false or natural or unbelieving Israel, but it is not the true Israel, the real Israel. The apostle Paul has said that the false Israel had been "broken off or cut off." It is strictly not part of Israel, even if it is called Israel.

 

Why did Paul bother to pray for "unbelieving" Israel then? And why did he clearly say they could and would be "grafted in" again if they did not persist in "unbelief"? Clearly Paul would disagree with you. (And I don't at all understand how or why you're alluding to my short statement as being "Gnostic" or "heretical" in nature.)

 

So what are you trying to say?

 

I'm glad you asked. (Even if you have already made all kinds of assumptions). What I was saying is exactly what Paul said, which is why I quoted Scripture.

 

The desire of the apostle was that the false or unbelieving Israel should be saved. But it does not and never did denote the true Israel who are members of the church.

 

Your above statement doesn't really make sense. Paul desired that his fellow Israelites would not persist in unbelief and would be saved, and he cautioned believing Gentiles not to be arrogant or dismiss all the unbelieving Israelites as though God was finished with them.

 

What Dispensationalism does is substitute the false Israel for the true Israel, the natural Israel for the spiritual Israel, the people living in the land of Israel for the people of God.

 

I think you need to read Paul's words about the "natural branches" again. The Church has not replaced Israel, Paul was clear on that.

 

Old Testament prophecies belong in the Old Testament. That is my rule, and I think that it is a good rule.

 

Except there are Old Testament prophecies that have yet to be completely fulfilled.

 

There is an exception, where the literal fulfillment takes place in the Old Testament but there remains a spiritual or more maturer fulfillment in the new.

 

I'm sure you're aware that Jesus fulfilled many such prophecies.

 

The abomination of desolation is one, where the prophecy was fulfilled in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes IV but in a more mature and permanent way by the Romans.

 

I suppose that's what many believe. It's debatable however.

 

I do not believe in the craft of manufacturing theories of end times by abusing hard to understand Old Testament prophecies. Nearly all of them have already been fulfilled. Those that appear unfulfilled often warrant a spiritual or allegorical meaning.

 

And you're certainly free to believe that. I don't agree with you, but that is a subject for another thread. I am, however, confused as to how you got all of this from my one simple sentence, quoted above.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the current nation of Israel from 1948 fulfills Bible prophecy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the current nation of Israel from 1948 fulfills Bible prophecy.

 

It very well could, yes. All I know is that we should heed Paul's words in Scripture and not dismiss Israel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thank you. I'll have to check that out.

 

No problem.

 

Also, I agree we should heed Paul's words.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? This is all I wrote:

"I think that we need to be cautious when it comes to Israel. I know that many believe the Church has replaced Israel, but this claim always reminds me of Paul's words on this very subject."

 

Again, I don't see how what I wrote contradicts what the Bible clearly says about Israel.

 

I think you need to read Paul's words about the "natural branches" again. The Church has not replaced Israel, Paul was clear on that.

 

Paul desired that his fellow Israelites would not persist in unbelief and would be saved, and he cautioned believing Gentiles not to be arrogant or dismiss all the unbelieving Israelites as though God was finished with them.

Paul was speaking about the Israelites in a natural sense, as he did often, and as he was entitled to do. Yet he conceded that there was only one vine, one tree and that only believing Israel was the true Israel, the Israel of the promise, because the rest of Israel had been "cut off."

 

That does not mean to say that unbelievers are of no concern to God. Paul was saying, "Do not suppose that God has finished with the natural Israel" to stifle the pride of the Gentile believers. There is however a hierarchy at stake. Natural Israel is not classifiable as the children of the promise, even if they remain of concern to God, as do all men, even pagans. There is no equivalence between unbelievers and believers in the kingdom of God.

 

The church has not replaced Israel. Israel is the church, the heirs and inheritors of the promises. By this I mean spiritual Israel. The church is not distinguishable from spiritual Israel in any shape or form. Read Hebrews 10,11. "The just shall live by faith" was an Old Testament principle (Hab. 2:4) as much as a New Testament principle.

 

Natural Israel is subordinate, cast out, rejected. What plans God has for the future of them, is simply "repent or perish." If some will become converted due to God's choice, so what?

 

It was Darby who asserted that natural Israel will replace the church after the rapture. The heresy of Darbyism is to confound the natural with the spiritual, to create two Gods out of one. It is called Dualism. It is what people have been doing since time immemorial with the Old Testament. Darbyism is just a different variant of an old heresy.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul was speaking about the Israelites in a natural sense, as he did often, and as he was entitled to do. Yet he conceded that there was only one vine, one tree and that only believing Israel was the true Israel, the Israel of the promise, because the rest of Israel had been "cut off."

 

I don't recall any words written in Scripture to that effect. Paul clearly expressed his desire that those Israelites that did not believe would believe and be saved. He wrote of how much more of a blessing for all it would be if Israel believed and was "grafted in" again.

 

That does not mean to say that unbelievers are of no concern to God. Paul was saying, "Do not suppose that God has finished with the natural Israel" to stifle the pride of the Gentile believers.

 

Indeed, and Scripture clearly states that God desires that none should perish, but all come to repentance.

 

There is however a hierarchy at stake. Natural Israel is not classifiable as the children of the promise, even if they remain of concern to God, as do all men, even pagans.

 

Please refer me to the Scriptures that say that "Natural Israel is not classifiable as the children of the promise."

 

There is no equivalence between unbelievers and believers in the kingdom of God.

 

The point is that we, like Paul, should desire that Israel would recognize their Messiah and turn to Him in faith, that they might be "grafted in" again.

 

The church has not replaced Israel. Israel is the church, the heirs and inheritors of the promises. By this I mean spiritual Israel. The church is not distinguishable from spiritual Israel in any shape or form. Read Hebrews 10,11. "The just shall live by faith" was an Old Testament principle (Hab. 2:4) as much as a New Testament principle.

 

Again, it is by faith (belief) that Gentiles have been grafted in, and it is because of unbelief that Israel has been "cut off". The point is that the "natural branches" (Israel) can very much be "grafted in" again, if they turn to Christ in faith. This should be our hope and prayer for them, indeed for everyone.

 

"I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!"

 

"For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?"

 

"For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you."

 

"You will say then, 'Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.' Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

 

For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

 

“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,

And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; For this is My covenant with them,

When I take away their sins.” -Romans 11:11-27

 

Paul writes that there will come a day, after "the fullness of the Gentiles has come in", when the "blindness" Israel is experiencing will come to an end.

 

Natural Israel is subordinate, cast out, rejected.

 

Scripture reference?

 

What plans God has for the future of them, is simply "repent or perish." If some will become converted due to God's choice, so what?

 

That's clearly not what Paul was suggesting.

 

It was Darby who asserted that natural Israel will replace the church after the rapture. The heresy of Darbyism is to confound the natural with the spiritual, to create two Gods out of one. It is called Dualism. It is what people have been doing since time immemorial with the Old Testament. Darbyism is just a different variant of an old heresy.

 

And yet, that is not at all what I said, now is it? I don't believe in "two Gods". I have no idea what relevance Darby or his "heresy" has on this discussion or the Scripture I shared regarding Israel. Quite frankly, I don't understand why you brought him up at all, or why you've seemingly come to the conclusion that I agree with Darby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't recall any words written in Scripture to that effect. Paul clearly expressed his desire that those Israelites that did not believe would believe and be saved. He wrote of how much more of a blessing for all it would be if Israel believed and was "grafted in" again.

 

Please refer me to the Scriptures that say that "Natural Israel is not classifiable as the children of the promise."

Gal 4:28 - Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

 

The distinction between the children of the promise, and the children of the bondwoman, is clearly described in Gal 4.

 

Gal 4:30 - 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.

 

 

 

The point is that we, like Paul, should desire that Israel would recognize their Messiah and turn to Him in faith, that they might be "grafted in" again.

 

 

Again, it is by faith (belief) that Gentiles have been grafted in, and it is because of unbelief that Israel has been "cut off". The point is that the "natural branches" (Israel) can very much be "grafted in" again, if they turn to Christ in faith. This should be our hope and prayer for them, indeed for everyone.

 

"I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!"

 

"For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?"

 

"For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you."

 

"You will say then, 'Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.' Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

 

For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

 

“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,

And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; For this is My covenant with them,

When I take away their sins.” -Romans 11:11-27

 

Paul writes that there will come a day, after "the fullness of the Gentiles has come in", when the "blindness" Israel is experiencing will come to an end.

There may well be a re-awakening amongst the Jews. But it will be in the ordinary course of events, not a post-rapture, post-church thing.

 

Scripture reference?

You already gave it: "....And if some of the branches were broken off," Rom 11:19,20

 

That's clearly not what Paul was suggesting.

Why ever not? The gospel message is "repent or perish." John 3;15 "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."

 

Jesus and Paul preached the kingdom of God. As Jesus asked, "Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luk 18;8.

 

It is the children of faith that is Israel, the church, the people of God, the children of the promise &etc. They are all different names for the same thing.

 

And yet, that is not at all what I said, now is it? I don't believe in "two Gods". I have no idea what relevance Darby or his "heresy" has on this discussion or the Scripture I shared regarding Israel. Quite frankly, I don't understand why you brought him up at all, or why you've seemingly come to the conclusion that I agree with Darby.

If you are not a Darbyite, that is a good thing. However most of those concerned with the final restoration of the Jews are premillennialists, and the OP was talking about dispensations. Darby is the principle expounder of that theory, along with Scofield, which is bound up with premillennialism.

 

If you are merely talking in a conventional, covenantal manner about Jews being brought back to Christ in increasing numbers, I have no objections, but I will not allow that it has anything to do with the geographical political entity that is the nation state of Israel.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gal 4:28 - Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

 

The distinction between the children of the promise, and the children of the bondwoman, is clearly described in Gal 4.

 

Gal 4:30 - 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.

 

The "bondwoman" is a reference to Hagar and her son, Ishmael. The "children of promise" were the descendants of Issac, the Israelites. Believing Gentiles are "grafted in" to this promise. However this is not calling Israel children of the "bondwoman". Israel are descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not Ishmael. The "promise" of salvation has come to us through Israel, the "children of the promise." Gentiles can inherit that promise through faith, and be "grafted in."

 

There may well be a re-awakening amongst the Jews.

 

Paul clearly hoped for such.

 

But it will be in the ordinary course of events, not a post-rapture, post-church thing.

 

Well, I have no idea why you think I believe in any "post-rapture thing."

 

You already gave it: "....And if some of the branches were broken off," Rom 11:19,20

 

You need to read that entire chapter. It speaks of Israel being "grafted in" again.

 

Why ever not? The gospel message is "repent or perish." John 3;15 "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."

 

Indeed. My point is that there is absolute reason from Scripture to believe Israel will repent. You seem to think God is finished with them, I don't believe He is. I heed Paul's words (God's word) in that regard.

 

Jesus and Paul preached the kingdom of God. As Jesus asked, "Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luk 18;8.

 

God always has a "remnant", but that does not mean He's done with Israel.

 

It is the children of faith that is Israel, the church, the people of God, the children of the promise &etc. They are all different names for the same thing.

 

Gentiles have been "grafted in" to Israel. The unbelieving Israel has been cut off, but can indeed be "grafted in" again. They are the "natural branches."

 

If you are not a Darbyite, that is a good thing.

 

I think it's probably best you actually ask people what they believe before you put such labels on them. You got the idea I was a "Darbyite" from a single sentence I wrote. Pretty strange.

 

However most of those concerned with the final restoration of the Jews are premillennialists, and the OP was talking about dispensations. Darby is the principle expounder of that theory, along with Scofield, which is bound up with premillennialism.

 

I have not decided on a particular "millennialist" view, though, I would not agree with "post-millennialism."

 

If you are merely talking in a conventional, covenantal manner about Jews being brought back to Christ in increasing numbers, I have no objections, but I will not allow that it has anything to do with the geographical political entity that is the nation state of Israel.

 

"Allow" whatever you like. All I know is I'm going to remember what Scripture says on the subject.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However this is not calling Israel children of the "bondwoman". Israel are descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not Ishmael. The "promise" of salvation has come to us through Israel, the "children of the promise." Gentiles can inherit that promise through faith, and be "grafted in."

You've misunderstood what Paul was saying in Gal 4. He was using the bondwoman to illustrate those Israelites held captive by law without faith.

 

Gal 4:23 - But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

 

Gal 4:24 - Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

 

Gal 4:25 - For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

 

Paul is talking about the natural Israelites being in bondage under the law. They did not combine the law with faith.

 

Gal 4:26 - But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all

 

So he is saying that natural Israel is like the child of the bondwoman, and not a child of the promise.

 

Gal 4:30 - 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.

 

Natural Israel under the bondage of the law is not the heir.

 

You need to read that entire chapter. It speaks of Israel being "grafted in" again.

It speaks of God being able to graft Israel in again. But don't assume that means "every single Jew." It means, anyone whom God chooses.

 

 

My point is that there is absolute reason from Scripture to believe Israel will repent. You seem to think God is finished with them, I don't believe He is. I heed Paul's words (God's word) in that regard....God always has a "remnant", but that does not mean He's done with Israel....Gentiles have been "grafted in" to Israel. The unbelieving Israel has been cut off, but can indeed be "grafted in" again. They are the "natural branches."

I said that natural Israel is wholly subordinate to the true Israel. It can have no purpose other than repentance. In its unregenerate state it cannot be an heir.

 

I think it's probably best you actually ask people what they believe before you put such labels on them. You got the idea I was a "Darbyite" from a single sentence I wrote. Pretty strange.

A single sentence can convey a truth. I don't really know what you believe, but I think you are beginning to develop a more coherent view.

 

 

I have not decided on a particular "millennialist" view, though, I would not agree with "post-millennialism."...."Allow" whatever you like. All I know is I'm going to remember what Scripture says on the subject.

Agreed. Neither the UN recognized State of Israel nor the "the eschaton immanentized" (i.e. the millennium as interpreted by Post-millennialism, or perhaps Chiliasm as it relates to the same opinions held by some in the early church) are good interpretations.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've misunderstood what Paul was saying in Gal 4. He was using the bondwoman to illustrate those Israelites held captive by law without faith.

 

Gal 4:23 - But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

 

Gal 4:24 - Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

 

Gal 4:25 - For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

 

Paul is talking about the natural Israelites being in bondage under the law. They did not combine the law with faith.

 

Gal 4:26 - But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all

 

So he is saying that natural Israel is like the child of the bondwoman, and not a child of the promise.

 

Gal 4:30 - 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.

 

Natural Israel under the bondage of the law is not the heir.

 

It speaks of God being able to graft Israel in again. But don't assume that means "every single Jew." It means, anyone whom God chooses.

 

I said that natural Israel is wholly subordinate to the true Israel. It can have no purpose other than repentance. In its unregenerate state it cannot be an heir.

 

A single sentence can convey a truth. I don't really know what you believe, but I think you are beginning to develop a more coherent view.

 

Agreed. Neither the UN recognized State of Israel nor the "the eschaton immanentized" (i.e. the millennium as interpreted by Post-millennialism, or perhaps Chiliasm as it relates to the same opinions held by some in the early church) are good interpretations.

 

I understand we're not going to agree on this, so it is best to drop it.

 

God bless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to add that I believe Israel's eschatology is, for whatever God's reason, the most difficult to find clarity in. Presently, I see it that the "Israel of God" are Jews who are Messianic from the Apostles first and on through the descendants of Abraham. For example, "And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God." (Gal 6:16).

 

"As many," and "them" more than likely (IMO) refer to all in Christ that are not of Israel, because it shows distinction with the clause, "and upon Israel, which refers to Christian Jews; who are true Israelites (Jhn 1:47). Unbelieving Jews are not considered true Israel (Jhn 8:39; Rom 2:28, 29; Rom 9:6; Phl 3:3).

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just wanted to add that I believe Israel's eschatology is, for whatever God's reason, the most difficult to find clarity in. Presently, I see it that the "Israel of God" are Jews who are Messianic from the Apostles first and on through the descendants of Abraham. For example, "And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God." (Gal 6:16).

 

"As many," and "them" more than likely (IMO) refer to all in Christ that are not of Israel, because it shows distinction with the clause, "and upon Israel, which refers to Christian Jews; who are true Israelites (Jhn 1:47). Unbelieving Jews are not considered true Israel (Jhn 8:39; Rom 2:28, 29; Rom 9:6; Phl 3:3).

 

Yeah, it is good to see a rise in Messianic Jews, like Jews for Jesus, Rabbi Schneider,... Hopefully they are able to get other Jews to accept Jesus as their Messiah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see it that the "Israel of God" are Jews...

But surely you will acknowledge that the Gentile believers have been "grafted in", as per Romans, and as implied by Galatians too.

 

"Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule--to the Israel of God" Gal 6;16.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×