# “Replacement Theology”?



## sovereigngrace (Feb 25, 2019)

Dispensationalists are quick to speak on behalf of their opponents and slow to listen how their brethren actually understand the whole dynamic between Israel and the Church. They commonly throw the “Replacement Theology” charge at those they disagree with. This is also deemed as ‘supersessionism theology’ (from the Latin _supersedere_: ‘to be superior to’). Dispensationalists allege that their evangelical opponents believe (1) the Church has replaced ethnic Israel and that (2) God has no further future plans for the nation of Israel. They claim such without any factual or fair basis for doing so.

Dispensationalists create a straw man either through genuine ignorance, because they don’t really get what Covenant Theology teaches, or as a deliberate willful attempt to twist, smear and discredit their brethren who believe that God has only ever had one people from the beginning. Regardless, their charge is a logical fallacy. Despite being robustly challenged and repeatedly corrected, many continue to hurl this depreciatory slur in an attempt to justify their own questionable teaching. It is employed by most to intentionally misrepresent their opponent’s position. When all is said and done, this only serves to expose the weakness of the Dispensational position rather than carry any real, valid or accurate theological credence.

A strawman argument occurs when ‘one misrepresents another’s argument in order to make it easier to discredit it. By exaggerating, distorting, or fabricating someone’s position, it makes it much easier to present your own position as plausible and logical’. But this type of underhand tactic only serves to prevent open, honest, profitable, rational and objective discussion.

Kim Riddlebarger cuts across John MacArthur’s ad-hoc use of this charge, and ably responds: “this is a label slapped on us by those who disagree with our eschatology. But this is not (and never has been) how we identify ourselves.”

Those who believe there has only ever been one spiritual people from the start do not hold to “Replacement Theology,” but rather ‘Remnant Theology’ meaning there is a continuity between God’s people in the Old and New Testament. Other terms describe the same reality like ‘Inclusion Theology’ and ‘Expansion Theology’. Some use comparable expressions like ‘Addition Theology’ or ‘Fulfilment Theology’. Some term it ‘Messianic Fulfillment Theology’. They believe the Church is not a replacement of Israel, neither is it a new Israel, but it is an extension and continuation of true faithful Israel. This is supported by the fact that the inception of the new covenant didn’t mark the end of the Abrahamic lineage of faith but rather the enlargement of the same. Romans 11:17 tells us that God has incorporated the Gentiles into the people of God. This integration is clearly not replacement, it is addition. It is a combining of peoples. There is manifestly one unbroken unitary spiritual line of elect from Adam right up until today.

David B. Woods puts it like this: “Israel is renewed in Christ, not replaced by the Church, but expanded to encompass Gentile Christians as co-citizens” (Jews And Gentiles in the Ecclesia: Evaluating the Theory of Intra-Ecclesial Jew Gentile Distinction, p.137).

Under the new covenant, Gentile believers are being integrated into the citizenship of Israel. They are being grafted into the good Israeli olive tree upon salvation. They are being added to the household of Israel through faith in Israel’s Messiah. They are now living stones in the New Testament temple. This renewed and expanded Israel includes countless Gentiles from all the nations of the world. The elect of God has grown from one single small physical nation in the Old Testament to incorporating millions of believers throughout the world today.

Mark S. Kinzer highlights the connection between the Old Testament people of God and those in the New Testament by contending that the Jewish believers serve “the (Gentile) Christian church by linking it to the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, thereby confirming its identity as a multinational extension of the people of Israel.” (Postmissionary Messianic Judaism: Redefining Christian Engagement with the Jewish People).

This geographical expansion to the nations was not some innovative New Testament revelation but was foretold to Abraham (the father of the faithful) right back in the book of Genesis (12:1-3, 17:3-8, 18:18 and 22:16-18). That revelation is found throughout the Old Testament narrative. Prophet after prophet foreseen this impending global expanse. When we get into the New Testament, we see its maturity and realization. That growth continues until today.

We have to ask the Dispensationalists: who has the New Testament Church supposedly replaced? (1) “Natural Israel”? No, natural Israel is still natural Israel. We natural Gentiles are still natural Gentiles. God’s grace was never experienced on the sole grounds of race. (2) “Spiritual Israel”? Definitely not. After all, we are part of spiritual Israel today. We have not replaced them; we have been integrated into it. We have joined the believing remnant of natural Israel (true Israel) in the spiritual lineage of Abraham “by faith.” The New Testament Church is the historic continuation of the believing element within natural Israel. God has not replaced Israel with the Church, because both entities are broadly synonymous in a spiritual sense and refer to the same unitary people of God – those who believe in both testaments.

So, the New Testament Church has not replaced anybody. “Replacement Theology” is a moot term that Dispensationalists have invented to falsify the position of those who believe God has only ever had one elect people. Dispensationalists invented the phrase as an intended slur against those that believe God’s chosen people are those alone that possess the Spirit of Christ (Old Testament and New Testament). Dispensationalists created this bogus term in an attempt to stem the growing rejection of Dispensationalism. That is why it is used pejoratively. However, this term does not fit. It is inappropriate, offensive and misleading.

Dispensationalists would be better advised to stop hurling this deceptive and illusionary charge against brethren who by conviction oppose the very concept alleged.

Some more extreme elements within Premillennialism have even accused those who believe that the New Testament Church is the sole continuation of the Israel of Israel in the Old Testament as being anti-Semitic. When they hurl such a grave charge, they instantly lose the debate. No one is going to seriously engage with a fellow believer who is determined to deliberately misrepresent and unfairly insult them.

We should remember, the Bible teaches that Jew and Gentile alike who trust Christ are completely equal today, being part of the one unitary trans-national body. The saints in the New Testament are therefore harmoniously connected to the saints in the Old Testament. This is the only people that carry the favor and blessing of the Lord. The term “Replacement Theology” is therefore plainly a misnomer, and should be rejected by all fair-minded Bible-believing students.

Contrary to what Dispensationalists argue, the New Testament Church is not a Gentile organization. The Church is a multi-national spiritual community of believers which embraces all nationalities equally, both Jew and Gentile. Remember, our Savior was Jewish. His mission was focused on “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:5-6 and 15:24). Christ’s first followers were all Jewish. His apostles were all Jewish. The early move of God in the gospels and the book of Acts was among the Jewish people. The New Testament was then written by Jews.

For “Replacement Theology” to be a valid charge against those who believe Christ has only ever had one elect people, Israel would have to be God’s chosen people in their current rebellious state. This is a scriptural impossibility. God's blessings have never been tied to a people of unbelief but rather to a people of faith. So, when we look at both the faithful in the Old and New Testaments we are looking at the same unitary people, only larger in scale.

There is undoubtedly a strong common thread and a unitary bond that ties the elect of God of all time together. They are all born sinners. They are all saved by God’s “grace” through “faith” in Christ and His shed blood at Calvary. Keeping this cohesive feature in mind, we should note the development of this redeemed people of God from a small insignificant people largely within the small nation of natural Israel into a strong global people today from every nation, color and creed on the earth.

R. Scott Clark wrote, “the very category of ‘replacement’ is foreign to Reformed theology because it assumes a dispensational, Israeleo-centric way of thinking. It assumes that the temporary, national people were, in fact, intended to be the permanent arrangement. Such a way of thinking is contrary to the promise in Gen. 3:15. The promise was that there would be a Savior. The national people were only a means to that end, not an end in itself.”

In stark contrast to Bible-believing Amillennialists and Postmillennialists, Dispensationalists preaches separation and division theology. They place a sharp demarcation line between God’s people in the Old Testament and them in the New Testament. This is religious apartheid. This leads to a discontinuity between both testaments rather than a continuation of God’s plan for man. They end up ignoring or rejecting the unifying effect of the cross. The Gospel message that Christ preached and which He bequeathed to His disciples is not just for Israel today. It is for all nations. Dispensationalists fail to see that the Gospel was intended, as Paul testifies in Romans 1:16 “to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.”

Whatever angle you look at Dispensationalism, it contradicts Holy Writ and doesn’t add up.

The real “Replacement Theology” within professing Christendom is actually that of Roman Catholicism, the “Jehovah’s” Witnesses and British-Israelism (Anglo-Israelism). These all believe that the Jews forfeited their covenantal relationship with God by rejecting Christ and that God therefore turned His back completely on the Jews and replaced them with the devotees of each respective group. In the case of British-Israelism, they hold that the white Anglo-Saxon Protestants have literally become physical Israel today. The error of these groups is refuted by repeated Scripture.

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 25, 2019)

When the "replacement theology" canard is raised I generally point folks here:
https://rscottclark.org/2003/09/the-israel-of-god/ to get everyone on the same page such that fruitful discussion may proceed.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## J.L. Allen (Feb 25, 2019)

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

I get this a lot at Moody. Some folks aren’t as bad with it, but if you hold to CT, you will receive the wrath of the diehards. One of my best friends is ethnically Jewish and is Dutch Reformed (adopted by people straight from Holland). People don’t know what to do with him. I’m Jewish on my dad’s side. They get confused with this.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Feb 25, 2019)

@sovereigngrace,

Thanks for this post.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 26, 2019)

Dispensational "theology" has an agenda which is tied up with justifying the existence of modern-day Israel, which has no relation to Israel of old. The true believers of old Israel were justified by faith in the promised Messiah, just as true believers today. We should be wary of anyone who promotes a "theology" which seeks to separate new and old testament believers in that way.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## sovereigngrace (Feb 26, 2019)

I agree Alexander

A lot of Christians seem to get confused by what happened with faithful Israel at the time of Christ’s earthly ministry. Did this spiritual remnant finally disappear when Christ came on the scene? Or, did it continue, but lose its purpose and identity with the first advent? Was remnant Israel replaced by the New Testament Gentile Church? Was it merged into the New Testament Church or was the New Testament believers merged into faithful Israel?

True Israel did not go away. It recognized Israel’s Messiah and embraced Him as Lord. After the cross, the congregation (or Church or _ekklesia_) of faithful old covenant Israel became the new covenant congregation (or Church or _ekklesia_). While overlapping two different eras, it was the exact same developing spiritual organism containing the exact same elect remnant, and more. The New Testament Church grew into a larger broader global entity.

Let us then have no doubt, the faithful remnant of Israel continued. What is more, God remained faithful to His covenantal obligations to Israel during the transition from the old covenant to the new covenant through His preservation of an elect remnant within that overall nation. This was true believing Israel. This was God’s chosen people. God was as bound to them as He was any previous generation of believing Israel.

When Jesus sent the 12 disciples out in Matthew 10:5-6, He declared: *“Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”*

Here we are confronted in the New Testament with the Hebraic shepherd/sheep symbolism. The same germane imagery carries over. This reinforces the continuity of thought, faith, people and God. While the Messiah came to usher in a new economy, nothing changed in regard to the intimacy God shares with His true people. Our Lord’s earthly mission was initially and primarily (but not exclusively) concentrated upon the lost sheep of the house of Israel. His attention and principal mission was to firstly evangelize them before reaching out to the Gentiles. God in His infinite wisdom chose to work through one lone nation before the cross. That was His divine will. We see that in His earthly mission (which was still under the old covenant). Nevertheless, that focus was broadened out after His death to embrace all nations.

As in the Old Testament, there was the sporadic Gentile conversion before the cross. But they were the exception rather than the rule. When a Gentile “woman of Canaan” approached Him in Matthew 15:22-28, He explained: *“I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel”* (v24). Not taking no for an answer, she continued to beseech Him for mercy. Finally, in verse 28 Jesus said to the woman, *“O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.”*

While Dispensationalists are fixated with all things biologically Jewish, they seem blind to the fact that the infant New Testament Church was indeed faithful Israel. Christ’s early followers consisted of the elect remnant of Israel. This was the enlightened congregation of Jewish believers from among wider national Israel. They were the Israeli community who believed that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah.

This company contained people like Mary and Joseph, John the Baptist and his parents Zechariah and Elizabeth, Simeon and Anna who were waiting faithfully in the temple for Jesus, and early disciples like Peter, James and John. Both Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were both believed to be members of the ruling body of the Jews —the Sanhedrin. It also included that Hebrew of the Hebrews the apostle Paul. The fledgling early New Testament Church overwhelmingly consisted of true believing Israelites. This was the ongoing faithful remnant of Israel. Those Jews who rejected Jesus were apostate Israel.

The 12 apostles were Jewish. The New Testament writers were Jewish. The 70 disciples that were sent out to evangelize Israel were likewise. The true Israel of the Old Testament became the nucleus of the new covenant Church. That small faithful band of Israelis that existed after the death, burial and resurrection of Christ became the New Testament Church, and became later known as Christians (Acts 11:26). It was that faithful number who Jesus used to make disciples of all the nations (Matthew 28:19).

The 120, who met on the Jewish festival of Pentecost, were of similarly Israeli stock. When Peter preached on the day of Pentecost after the Holy Spirit had fell, his audience was devout Jews “out of every nation under heaven” who had gathered in Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost. That is why he addressed them as “Ye men of Israel” (Acts 2:5). Three thousand of them experience salvation. Not long after that God saved five thousand Jews in Jerusalem (Acts 4:4). Following that, there was “multitudes both of men and women” who “were the more added to the Lord” in Acts 5:14. There was a mighty ingathering of Jews in the early New Testament Church.

There is no doubt that the Jews were Christ’s main focus during our Savior’s earthly ministry. But salvation didn’t stop there. His sheep were not limited to the house of Israel. His heart for Israel did not in any way diminish His intention to reach the Gentile nations with salvation. Jesus said prior to the cross, speaking to His Jewish converts, in John 10:14-16, *“I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. *As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And *other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.”*

The same shepherd/sheep metaphor that marked the true Israel of God in the Old Testament is continued into the New Testament by Christ to represent God’s ongoing relationship with the trans-national New Testament congregation. This reinforces the Israeli identify of the new covenant people of God and demonstrates the sense of continuity that exists between both covenant eras. Gentiles were now to be corralled into faithful Israel in extraordinary numbers. This was a radical overhaul for even the most open-minded of Christ’s disciples. We saw that in their parochial response to Christ’s kingdom teaching (Acts 1:6) and with their struggle in the book of Acts to come to terms with accommodating Gentiles joining the congregation (_ekklesia_) on an equal basis to that of Jews.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 26, 2019)

I agree with a lot of what you say. However I think we should avoid this emphasising the "Jewishness" of the early converts. I think this distorts the picture and allows for the deviant theology we have today. The religion of the Old Testament is not Judaism. Judaism is the traditions of the elders which Christ condemns in the strongest of terms. And it's worth noting that Christ never ascribes to Himself the title "King of the Jews". The early converts were Jews by their being of the kingdom of Judah (or Judea). But Paul was not a Jew in this sense, he was born in Tarsus and was of the tribe of Benjamin and in that verse you alluded to conspicuously does not refer to himself as a Jew.

So we should avoid any suggestion that Christianity "came out of" Judaism or that the only difference between the two religions is the position on Christ (as is maintained by some).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Von (Feb 27, 2019)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> When the "replacement theology" canard is raised I generally point folks here:
> https://rscottclark.org/2003/09/the-israel-of-god/ to get everyone on the same page such that fruitful discussion may proceed.


Do you mean getting dispensationals and the reformed on the same page? Because I struggle to see how the article would do that. in my opinion you already lost them with "_It was not, as some might have it, that *the timing was off*,..._".


----------



## Von (Feb 27, 2019)

An article that did put things in perspective for me - as someone who is attending a dispensational church - UNDERSTANDING DISPENSATIONALISTS


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 27, 2019)

Von said:


> Do you mean getting dispensationals and the reformed on the same page? Because I struggle to see how the article would do that. in my opinion you already lost them with "_It was not, as some might have it, that *the timing was off*,..._".


The item in question as recommended was in the vein of hoping to move the dispensationalist from the usual canards to an actual understanding of his covenantal interlocutors. One cannot effectively disagree with another unless one is willing to walk in his opponent's shoes a wee bit. The "_replacement theology_" canard demonstrates ignorance of the covenantal aspects of _grafted in theology_...not replacement theology. The article goes a long way towards dispelling that error.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## sovereigngrace (Feb 28, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> I agree with a lot of what you say. However I think we should avoid this emphasising the "Jewishness" of the early converts. I think this distorts the picture and allows for the deviant theology we have today. The religion of the Old Testament is not Judaism. Judaism is the traditions of the elders which Christ condemns in the strongest of terms. And it's worth noting that Christ never ascribes to Himself the title "King of the Jews". The early converts were Jews by their being of the kingdom of Judah (or Judea). But Paul was not a Jew in this sense, he was born in Tarsus and was of the tribe of Benjamin and in that verse you alluded to conspicuously does not refer to himself as a Jew.
> 
> So we should avoid any suggestion that Christianity "came out of" Judaism or that the only difference between the two religions is the position on Christ (as is maintained by some).



Thanks for your response. In one sense I believe you are right, in another wrong.

Names evolve over time. I recognize that the title “Jew” in its original and literal sense related exclusively to the offspring of Jacob’s son Judah. The first time we encounter the word in Scripture is 2 Kings 16:6. But the term evolved in Scripture. The name Jew actually was broadened out in scriptural times as a designation to describe the offspring of Abraham. The Holy Spirit uses it as such also. That likely came from every true Israelite aligning themselves with faithful Judah, once Israel apostatized. Paul used the phrases Jew and Greek to indicate Israeli and Gentile. Jew equated in the NT to circumcision (Abraham's progeny).

Paul actually did call himself a Jew:

Act 22:3  I am verily a man _which am_ a Jew, born in Tarsus, _a city _in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, _and _taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

What is more, Revelation 5:5 shows how Christ is “the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David.”


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens. (Feb 28, 2019)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> The item in question as recommended was in the vein of hoping to move the dispensationalist from the usual canards to an actual understanding of his covenantal interlocutors. One cannot effectively disagree with another unless one is willing to walk in his opponent's shoes a wee bit. The "_replacement theology_" canard demonstrates ignorance of the covenantal aspects of _grafted in theology_...not replacement theology. The article goes a long way towards dispelling that error.




My mother is a staunch Calvary Chapel style Dispensationalist. Dr. Clark's article while good, has left me explaining and defending predestination and election more often than not.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 28, 2019)

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> My mother is a staunch Calvary Chapel style Dispensationalist. Dr. Clark's article while good, has left me explaining and defending predestination and election more often than not.


In that case, I recommend you review the following on the appropriate specific topics:
https://www.agradio.org/on-the-canons-of-dort

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 28, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Dispensational "theology" has an agenda which is tied up with justifying the existence of modern-day Israel, which has no relation to Israel of old.



Historically, that isn't true. Dispensationalists were around long before 1948 Israel.


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens. (Feb 28, 2019)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> In that case, I recommend you review the following on the appropriate specific topics:
> https://www.agradio.org/on-the-canons-of-dort



Thanks for the link! I'll give that a read!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## J.L. Allen (Feb 28, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Historically, that isn't true. Dispensationalists were around long before 1948 Israel.


Has that switched post 1948?


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 28, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Historically, that isn't true. Dispensationalists were around long before 1948 Israel.



That's kinda my point...


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 28, 2019)

Johnathan Lee Allen said:


> Has that switched post 1948?



No, but dispensationalism was able to do theology without the state of Israel existing. Which means that Israel doesn't have to currently exist. It just needs to exist right when Antichrist arises for dispensationalism to work.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 28, 2019)

Dispensationalism accomplished its goal when modern day Israel was founded. Now it's all about maintaining support for it.

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 1


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens. (Feb 28, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Dispensationalism accomplished its goal when modern day Israel was founded. Now it's all about maintaining support for it.



Hence why Progressive Dispensationalism became a thing in my opinion

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 28, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Dispensationalism accomplished its goal when modern day Israel was founded. Now it's all about maintaining support for it.



Not entirely. Dispensationalism simply needs to demonstrate that the church and Israel can't coexist at the same time (a fallacious assumption, I grant).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 28, 2019)

sovereigngrace said:


> Thanks for your response. In one sense I believe you are right, in another wrong.
> 
> Names evolve over time. I recognize that the title “Jew” in its original and literal sense related exclusively to the offspring of Jacob’s son Judah. The first time we encounter the word in Scripture is 2 Kings 16:6. But the term evolved in Scripture. The name Jew actually was broadened out in scriptural times as a designation to describe the offspring of Abraham. The Holy Spirit uses it as such also. That likely came from every true Israelite aligning themselves with faithful Judah, once Israel apostatized. Paul used the phrases Jew and Greek to indicate Israeli and Gentile. Jew equated in the NT to circumcision (Abraham's progeny).
> 
> ...



Good call on that verse. I would take that as Paul being of the Jewish religion. Ethnically I would still stand by what I said, along with the rest. He was a Hebrew but that's not quite the same thing. I accept that the term became broader over the generations but Paul makes a point of describing himself as a Hebrew rather than a Jew (Philippians 3:5 and 2 Corinthians 11:22). But certainly he was a religious Jew, a zealous one at that.


----------



## arapahoepark (Feb 28, 2019)

> Dispensationalists create a straw man either through genuine ignorance, because they don’t really get what Covenant Theology teaches, or as a deliberate willful attempt to twist, smear and discredit their brethren who believe that God has only ever had one people from the beginning.


I have seen it from both; willful ignorance.

At base, they honestly believe Jews are saved a different way; through all the ceremonial laws. It's no strawman. Logically, it all follows even if they claim it not to be so. Otherwise, their trash arguments couldn't hold. They just do not follow the trail.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## sovereigngrace (Feb 28, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Good call on that verse. I would take that as Paul being of the Jewish religion. Ethnically I would still stand by what I said, along with the rest. He was a Hebrew but that's not quite the same thing. I accept that the term became broader over the generations but Paul makes a point of describing himself as a Hebrew rather than a Jew (Philippians 3:5 and 2 Corinthians 11:22). But certainly he was a religious Jew, a zealous one at that.




But one name does not negate another. It is widely accepted in scholarly circles that the term Jew became a general designation for Abraham's offspring. It essentially correlates with the terms ‘Israelite’ and ‘Hebrew’. It was used as the antithesis of a Gentile.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 1, 2019)

sovereigngrace said:


> But one name does not negate another. It is widely accepted in scholarly circles that the term Jew became a general designation for Abraham's offspring. It essentially correlates with the terms ‘Israelite’ and ‘Hebrew’. It was used as the antithesis of a Gentile.



Well by the time of Christ there really was only the southern kingdom left who could in any way trace their lineage back to Abraham, so by default that woud be true. However it's technically not true. The Jews did not come out Egypt, Israel came out of Egypt; the Jews did not wander the wilderness, Israel wandered the wilderness; the promises were not given to the Jews, they were given to the seed of Abraham. That is clear in the Bible.

We use "Jew" as a broad term today because it's a convenient shorthand but it's not Biblically precise and it has allowed the development of a theology which unbiblically divides the Old and New Testaments and allows people to go around sayind that the only difference between Christianity and Judaism is Christ.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 1, 2019)

sovereigngrace said:


> I agree Alexander
> 
> A lot of Christians seem to get confused by what happened with faithful Israel at the time of Christ’s earthly ministry. Did this spiritual remnant finally disappear when Christ came on the scene? Or, did it continue, but lose its purpose and identity with the first advent? Was remnant Israel replaced by the New Testament Gentile Church? Was it merged into the New Testament Church or was the New Testament believers merged into faithful Israel?
> 
> ...


Coming out from that Theology myself, I would say that some of their viewpoints are an overreaction towards preterism theology that gets encountered at times, and also that they do see a tension in CT circles between those of us who see no future for national Israel, and those of us who do see some type of future for them in the Second Coming of Christ.


----------



## sovereigngrace (Mar 1, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Well by the time of Christ there really was only the southern kingdom left who could in any way trace their lineage back to Abraham, so by default that woud be true. However it's technically not true. The Jews did not come out Egypt, Israel came out of Egypt; the Jews did not wander the wilderness, Israel wandered the wilderness; the promises were not given to the Jews, they were given to the seed of Abraham. That is clear in the Bible.
> 
> We use "Jew" as a broad term today because it's a convenient shorthand but it's not Biblically precise and it has allowed the development of a theology which unbiblically divides the Old and New Testaments and allows people to go around sayind that the only difference between Christianity and Judaism is Christ.



First, I agree with your concerns with those who suggest Christ is the only difference between Christianity and Judaism. This is not true. He was the central figure of both testaments. 

The Scriptures are God revealing Himself to mankind through the communication of knowledge. As we analyze the ancient Hebrew text we see a notable and central theme pointing forward to the coming Messiah. This came in the form of direct prophecies, ceremonial typology and a tapestry of unfolding preparation. The old covenant prophets were preoccupied with Christ’s person, His appearance and His ministry. The Old Testament text gradually and assuredly steered history onward to the fulfillment of every ancient promise. 

Throughout the New Testament we repeatedly see it stated that Christ was here to fulfil a foreordained plan. He was indeed a man on a mission. Our Lord’s whole life from the cradle to the cross, and thereafter, was a catalogue of confirmation of Old Testament truth. Jesus continually emphasized the importance of accomplished prophecy, by stating “It is written” or asking “Have ye not read?” He would then follow this preamble with a quote from the Hebrew text in order to explain a truth, reinforce a point or prove a fulfilment.

Jesus famously rebuked the two downcast disciples on the road to Emmaus on resurrection day, stating: “O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?” (Luke 24:25-26). After this, he began to open their eyes to the meaning of the sacred pages. Luke 24:25 records: “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.”

His intent was confirming to the letter every demand that was made of Him from the ancient inspired pages. His life was the perfect realization of predicted Old Testament prophecy.

The New Testament writers were equally aware of the importance of Old Testament prophecy and its focus on the life and ministry of Christ. They were always referencing the Hebrew Bible to reinforce the fulfillment of numerous Old Testament Scripture through the life of Jesus.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## sovereigngrace (Mar 1, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Well by the time of Christ there really was only the southern kingdom left who could in any way trace their lineage back to Abraham, so by default that woud be true. However it's technically not true. The Jews did not come out Egypt, Israel came out of Egypt; the Jews did not wander the wilderness, Israel wandered the wilderness; the promises were not given to the Jews, they were given to the seed of Abraham. That is clear in the Bible.
> 
> We use "Jew" as a broad term today because it's a convenient shorthand but it's not Biblically precise and it has allowed the development of a theology which unbiblically divides the Old and New Testaments and allows people to go around sayind that the only difference between Christianity and Judaism is Christ.



It IS biblical to refer to the 12 tribes as Jews because it progressively took on a broader meaning in Holy Writ. I told you why. The faithful of all Israel coalesced
around the tribe of Judah. This is not a man-made modern-day concept. It didn't merely take on a general meaning after the completion of the NT text. The sacred writers consistently used it to describe the offspring of Abraham throughout the NT.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 1, 2019)

In your post about the old testament prophecies of Christ? I don't see anything in that post about the word Jew. I just don't accept that the term Jew can be applied to the descendants of Abraham en masse. Modern day Jews do not have an exclusive claim to Abraham or to Israel of old, for a number of reasons. In fact most of them have no claim whatsoever.

If your argument is that at the time of Christ the people to whom Christ came were Jews then fine. Of course He was himself a Jew. But equally what Christ condemned in the Pharisees, the scribes, the lawyers was Judaism, which was a man-made religion that had been grafted on to the teaching of the Scriptures. The faithful amongst the Jewish nation were those who were faithful to the religion of Israel, given by God.

Referring to Israel of old (in the OT) as the "Jewish nation", to people like David as Jewish, to the OT as the "Hebrew Bible" is misleading. There is one faith, there is one election, there is one salvation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## sovereigngrace (Mar 1, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> In your post about the old testament prophecies of Christ? I don't see anything in that post about the word Jew. I just don't accept that the term Jew can be applied to the descendants of Abraham en masse. Modern day Jews do not have an exclusive claim to Abraham or to Israel of old, for a number of reasons. In fact most of them have no claim whatsoever.
> 
> If your argument is that at the time of Christ the people to whom Christ came were Jews then fine. Of course He was himself a Jew. But equally what Christ condemned in the Pharisees, the scribes, the lawyers was Judaism, which was a man-made religion that had been grafted on to the teaching of the Scriptures. The faithful amongst the Jewish nation were those who were faithful to the religion of Israel, given by God.
> 
> Referring to Israel of old (in the OT) as the "Jewish nation", to people like David as Jewish, to the OT as the "Hebrew Bible" is misleading. There is one faith, there is one election, there is one salvation.



My whole thesis was that there is one God, one Gospel, one faith, one election, one salvation and one people of God. Sorry you missed that.

When have I said anything other than "Modern day Jews do not have an exclusive claim to Abraham or to Israel of old"? I am not sure what your issue is. 

In one breath you condemn the usage of the term the "Jewish nation" (which I never used) to describe Israel, in the next you employ the term to describe Israel: "the faithful amongst the Jewish nation were those who were faithful to the religion of Israel, given by God."

I am not sure what you are trying to say.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 1, 2019)

Well I'm not sure what you're trying to say either. I never said you didn't believe in a consistent plan of salvation. My original point was only that we shouldn't emphasise the Jewishness of the early converts and that the writers of the New Testament themselves don't emphasise that other than to differentiate Christianity from Judaism. You responded to my points about the term Jew and that is what has led to this back and forth. I think we're really talking past each other.


----------



## sovereigngrace (Mar 2, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> I agree with a lot of what you say. However I think we should avoid this emphasising the "Jewishness" of the early converts. I think this distorts the picture and allows for the deviant theology we have today. The religion of the Old Testament is not Judaism. Judaism is the traditions of the elders which Christ condemns in the strongest of terms. And it's worth noting that Christ never ascribes to Himself the title "King of the Jews". The early converts were Jews by their being of the kingdom of Judah (or Judea). But Paul was not a Jew in this sense, he was born in Tarsus and was of the tribe of Benjamin and in that verse you alluded to conspicuously does not refer to himself as a Jew.
> 
> So we should avoid any suggestion that Christianity "came out of" Judaism or that the only difference between the two religions is the position on Christ (as is maintained by some).



I think it is important to recognize the focus of the favor of God upon OT Israel, because (1) it was in that the Abrahamic covenant was realized. This proves the veracity of God's promises. It also proves He is a covenant keeping God. Moreover, (2) the Messiah had to come through that natural/spiritual lineage. What is more, (3) it was through Abraham's offspring that the Gentiles were to be reached. This joining of Jews and Gentiles together fulfilled many of the promises Abraham received about the nations being blessed in him (Genesis 12:1-3, 17:3-8, 17:15-16, 18:18 and 22:16-18).

Paul declares in Romans 11:1-5:

Q. *“I say then, Hath God cast away his people?”*

A. *“God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.”*

Dispensationalists misrepresent, or conveniently circumvent, the wording of this text with their fixation on the whole nation of natural Israel. They seem to imagine that to be considered faithful to Israel God must be committed to the whole physical nation, even though it was apostate, rejected Christ and nailed Him to a tree. But that is not what Scripture says or demands.

Paul actually takes this inaccuracy head on. You can glean from his question at the opening of Romans 11 that he feels a real sense that the faithfulness of God is at stake. After all, the majority of his kinsmen had rejected their own Messiah. According to Paul, the evidence that God had not rejected Israel in his day is demonstrated by the fact that there was a notable remnant of believing Jews (including himself) that had accepted Christ and therefore embraced the new covenant arrangement.

God had not cast away Israel in Paul’s day. He remained faithful to those who desired to embrace His only provision for sin and uncleanness. Even though most Israelites rejected Christ, those that were foreknown by God, and were true Israelites, came to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. We should not miss this thought as we explore the remainder of his argument in Romans 9-11. This perfectly fits in with Romans 9:6-13.

Paul was tireless in demonstrating that God was a covenant-keeping-God. He shows that Yahweh did not break His Word or forsake His true people Israel. He was faithful in all His dealings with His elect. God did not wipe His hands clean of Israel at the first advent. No! He stayed committed to the believing element within national Israel. This was true Israel (Romans 9:6).

Paul is careful to demonstrate God’s ongoing covenantal favor to Israel through the continuation of a faithful remnant in his day. He shows this enlightened company to be part of the ongoing historic existence of true Israel, not some brand new faction. This is integral to his whole argument that God has not abandoned Israel.

Paul’s first argument is personal. He supports his contention by presenting himself as exhibit A. He volunteers himself as tangible proof of God’s continued grace toward Israel. We should recognize, there is no more compelling a spiritual argument than personal testimony. Paul proves that “God has hath not cast away his people” by presenting himself as an evidence of a chosen Israeli. God had not (nor has not) completely cast away Israel, Paul was living proof of this nearly 2,000 years ago. Even though much of Israel rejected Christ, not all did. Thus, Paul is saying not all Israel rejected the Messiah.

Please note, he did not present the continued survival of national Israel as proof (which many mistakenly do today), no, but rather his own personal relationship with God. He presents his own credentials as “an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin,” as proof that God has not finished with Israel. Paul was showing that he was living evidence that God has not turned his back on all Israel.

Paul’s second argument is theological: “God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew” (Romans 11:2). Paul builds upon what he has been previously teaching in Romans 8 and 9. His teaching in Romans 8:29–30 and the whole of Romans 9 set the stage for this. God in His infinite wisdom chooses who He wishes. Paul underlines his overriding argument in Romans 9:18: “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.” Romans 9:21 sums up the whole matter succinctly: “Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?”

Professor R. Scott Clark asks: “Has God rejected his people? No, the elect are His people and all the elect will be saved … God’s election of some and reprobation of others are the twin facts of the history of redemption which Paul brings to bear on the question of “Who is the Israel of God?”

Even Dispensationalist John McArthur agrees with this. “God didn’t set His people aside, He foreknew them. Notice the term ‘His people, whom He foreknew’ … Foreknowledge in the Bible has to do with predetermined love relationship … Foreknowledge, scripturally, has to do with God’s predetermination to love … This word frequently implies the intimacy of a binding love relationship in its simplest and purest form. And thus it is used in terms of the foreknowledge of God … God has not cast away His people whom He predetermined to have a love relationship with. He has not set aside Israel, and He shows how He always has a remnant. Verse 5: ‘At this present time there is a remnant’” (Is God finished with Israel? Part 1).

Paul’s third argument is historic. He presents Elijah's day where there was a very small remnant of true Israelites (7,000 in number) as support for the fact that God always has a faithful people who remain in covenant arrangement with their Lord. This proved that his day was not unique or unprecedented at all.

McArthur adds: “There are only selected ones of faith who are the true Israel. God always in all Israel's history had a small remnant that was His elect. In Elijah's time there were only 7,000 who hadn't bowed to Baal” (Is God finished with Israel? Part 1).

Paul’s fourth argument is covenantal. He concludes his argument proving God was faithful to His covenantal obligations by flat-out asserting: “there is a remnant according to the election of grace.” Here was his legal case, and it was water tight.

We should consider, if the infant New Testament Church did not relate to true Israel then a question mark could have been placed over the faithfulness of God. The Almighty would indeed have broken His promise never to forsake His people. But the promises of God were fully realized through a believing remnant of historical Israel, which morphed into the empowered new covenant global Church. As a New Testament Christian, Paul demonstrates the continuation of believing Israel by showing he is personally part of remnant Israel. As a member of the New Testament Church, Paul remained attached to the good Israeli olive tree. The whole thrust of the good olive tree teaching is that only the believing remnant of Israel continue in covenant blessing through their faith in Christ.

Paul declares in Romans 11:1-5:


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 2, 2019)

I'm not disputing any of that. I'm disputing the exclusive identification of Israel of old with the Jews of today or with Judaism more generally.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Mar 2, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Not entirely. Dispensationalism simply needs to demonstrate that the church and Israel can't coexist at the same time (a fallacious assumption, I grant).


(Caveman voice): No. I Grant....You Jacob.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 3


----------



## sovereigngrace (Mar 2, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> I'm not disputing any of that. I'm disputing the exclusive identification of Israel of old with the Jews of today or with Judaism more generally.



But i have never suggested anything other. Judaism today is overwhelmingly apostate. Please read my posts again. My thesis surrounded the continuity of faithful Israel, and our attachment to them as God's elect.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 7, 2019)

Thank you for your labors in this area, Paul (sovereigngrace). It is needed in this day of eschatological confusion, much of it having to do with the identity of "Israel".

I don't think there is anything amiss in focusing on the fact that the earliest disciples were Jewish, those faithful to Jehovah gathered around His Son, the Messianic King, and only true—righteous—Israelite, the only One not under judgment for law-breaking. The Jews / Israelites who clave unto their King were the children of Abraham for whom the Lamb of God _first_ came. Later the Gentiles were to be grafted in. And Jesus did say, "...we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews" (John 4:22).

Nowadays—in language which is both modern and Biblical—we call ethnic descendants of Abraham (and proselytes) Jews or Jewry. If they live in the State of Israel we may call them Israelites.

This below is a brief article on the topic we're discussing. And I'll attach at the bottom a pdf of the booklet, _A Poet Arises in Israel_, an attempt to engage and evangelize my people after the flesh—though it's also an act of war against the rabbinate, who seek to suppress knowledge of Messiah, thereby waging spiritual genocide against said people, many of whom are my family. I advertised the larger work this booklet came from in the _Jerusalem Post_, this being a serious business.
_______
*
ISRAEL HAS NOT BEEN REPLACED BY THE CHURCH*

_Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people 
whom he has chosen for his own inheritance. _Psalm 33:12​
When Christ – the Messiah of Israel – came among His people, taught them and died for them, He came as the King anciently prophesied. Of Him Isaiah said, “Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, *to order it*, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever” (9:7). Daniel saw in vision, “there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed” (7:14). Messiah, on the throne of David, shall rule a kingdom comprised of many nations.

When the angel Gabriel foretold His birth to Mary His mother, he said, “the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father, David; and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; And of his kingdom there shall be no end.” (Luke 1:32, 33)

We see here Messiah coming into the world to establish and order his kingdom; it is called by the angel “the house of Jacob”, and in this kingdom will be many nations, peoples, and languages; Micah said of Messiah, that He is “to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting” (5:2). We also see that Messiah, Jesus the Christ, extends the boundaries of His kingdom – the kingdom of Israel – to include all the earth, and this is fitting, for “The earth is the LORD’s, and the fulness thereof; the world, and all they that dwell therein.... For God is the king of all the earth.... [He] reigns over the heathen” (Ps 24:1; 47:7, 8). There is no doubt that this long-awaited kingdom – of which Daniel said the God of heaven would set it up and it would never be destroyed but rather would do away with all rival kingdoms (2:44) – this very kingdom was Israel; its king, Jesus of Nazareth, seed of the royal line of David; its capital, New Jerusalem (on the renewed earth in the eternal state—Rev 21:1): “And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their honour and glory into it” (Rev 21:24).

But many in ancient Israel would not hear Him, rather _hated _Him. Of such, God speaking through Moses declared, “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him” (Deuteronomy 18:19), meaning, God would require his place in Israel and his life! The apostle Peter reiterated these words of Moses as follows, “every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people” (Acts 3:23).

In other words, the Lord – _the King! _– at this time *ordered *His kingdom by separating wheat from chaff, sheep from goats, and executed what He had earlier told the chief priests and elders of the people: “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof” (Matt 21:43). The kingdom of God given to a nation _other _than Israel? *No*, rather the nation of Israel so ordered anew by its king as to remove its ties to the temple and its priesthood, and to the government – both of which were conspiring to slay Him! – and transfer it to a new government of His choosing, with twelve apostles instead of twelve tribal elders, and comprised of all true Israelites who would bow the knee to their King and God. The others – *all the others *– who refused to heed the word of the God of Israel through Messiah, were removed from the nation of Israel, as a butcher cleaves inedible gristle from the meat. Israel was now comprised of only those loyal to God’s Messiah. His body was now the true temple, His word the law, and His apostles the appointed rulers of the people. The land of Israel would be extended to include the entire earth, no more restricted by the geography of Palestine; the true Jerusalem would be the heavenly, the one from above, to be brought to the earth in the fullness of time.

What was the status of those Jews cut off from the people of Israel? Unabashedly modern Judaism states,

“...it was the tannaitic [Pharisaic-Rabbinic teaching] tradition which was almost completely representative of the Jewish community in Palestine and, to a great extent, of that segment of the Diaspora which remained loyal to its ancestral faith.... Indeed, it is the _halakhah _[the Jewish legal system founded by the Tannaim] which may be described as that which typifies Rabbinic Judaism.” [1]​
In other words, those Jews who refused to acknowledge Jesus as Messiah and were cut off by God from the nation – no more accepted as Israelites by the God of Israel, and by its messianic King – these renegades became rivals for the name and status of _Israel _and _Jew_. Though physical seed of Abraham, they were disowned by Jehovah. They murderously persecuted the true Israel when it was in their power.

What says Messiah of these? When giving John the letter for the church in Smyrna, Jesus says, “...I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan” (2:9). When the Greek word _blasphēmia _is used regarding humans it means reviling slander, and these Jews slanderously accused this small company of Messiah’s followers to the Roman authorities, causing their imprisonment and execution. Again, in the letter to the church in Philadelphia Jesus has John write, “Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship [bow down in humility] before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee” (3:9). This indicates that some of the church’s fiercest enemies were converted and won to their Messiah. But it also indicates that the King of Israel declared those Jews which were against Him (“He that is not with me is against me” Matt 12:30) were, in His eyes, not any longer Jews, but apostates.

The apostle Paul, by the Spirit of God, says the same:

“For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” (Rom 2:28, 29)​
Jeremiah concurs, for even in the Old Covenant uncircumcision of heart incurred God’s wrath, as it indicated wickedness and rebellion (Jer 9:25, 26). And again Paul says, “For they are not all Israel which are of Israel... but the children of the promise are counted for the seed” (Rom 9:6, 8), and “...if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:29).

And yet again, in his letter to the church in Philippi, Paul says, “For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Jesus Christ, and have no confidence in the flesh.” (3:3) To the Galatian churches he says, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.” (6:15)

Little wonder many in what is called Modern Jewry loathe Christ, the New Testament, Christians, and *God *for this pronouncement, even though it first came by Moses (Deut 18:15, 18, 19).

Paul says that in times past Gentile nations were looked upon as “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world…”, but now, in the fold of Messiah, they “are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God” (Eph 2:12, 19). This household of God is the same spoken of in Hebrews, Moses being a faithful servant in it – the house of Israel – while Christ is no servant but the “son over his own house; whose house we are” (3:1-6).

The Israel of God has not been replaced, but it has been culled, the faithful Jews gathered and the unfaithful cast off by word of the King; the promise to Abraham that “in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed” (Gen 12:3) is now being fulfilled, as is the prophecy of Daniel that “all people, nations, and languages should serve him” (7:14). Sometimes the kingdom of Israel is called the church, but this latter is a synonym, and no replacement! Only in _this _kingdom is _this _Scripture fulfilled: “In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory” (Isa 45:25), for justification before His presence is the gift of God through faith in Messiah; in true Israel alone are *all the seed *so blessed. The New Jerusalem which shall come down upon the renewed earth is its capital, and the glory of Israel is the Lamb who sits upon the throne of David, the divine Husband of that beloved Bride who shares His glory.
_____

[1] _Who Was A Jew? Rabbinic and Halakhic Perspectives on the Jewish-Christian Schism_, by Lawrence H. Schiffman (KATV Publishing House, NJ 1985), Pages 4, 5.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 8, 2019)

Good article.

But I would add that modern day Israel is not the Israel of old. They don't call themsevles Israelites, why should we? The vast majority of them can't trace their ancestry back even to 1st century Judea let alone earlier. Modern day Jewry is not the same thing as was Israel of old.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 8, 2019)

Hello Alexander,

Yes, I agree—modern day Israel is not the Israel of old. It is not the Israel of prophetic fulfillment. The Israel which God recognizes is His people—from all nations—joined to Messiah, Christ Jesus. Though it is well known that Sabras (born there) and those who immigrated from other countries—made Aliyah—call themselves “Israelites”.

It is a great delusion when men outside of Messiah think of themselves and call themselves Israelites, not realizing that they have been stripped of the name by the original Giver of it to Jacob, and stripped of the benefits of covenant inclusion, save they repent of their wicked unbelief and turn to the LORD as He revealed Himself in His Son. An even briefer article (than the first) on that specific matter:
____
*

SPIRITUAL IDENTITY THEFT: Stealing God’s Gift*

The identity under consideration is the name “Israel,” and as its origin and usage come from the Bible, we will first look there. When this name was bestowed upon Jacob by God at Peniel, after he had wrestled with Him through the night (see the account in Genesis 32:24-32), it was given to designate the patriarch’s new spiritual status: in the LORD’s own words, “Thy name shall be no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.”

_This _name is utterly unique! The LORD, set to purify and equip His patriarch of the covenant people, Himself wrestles with Jacob (_as with us in all our adversities –_ truly it is Him in like graciousness behind the scenes) granting him strength to continue – and even prevail – in his desire for the blessing. Jacob’s own strength unequal to the task, and crippled in the struggle, he received strength from God: “with the name He gives the thing itself which the name implies.”[1] The name was conceived and bestowed by God to designate a blessed state of being; it was passed on to his descendants as well, _and the name was also removed from some of them by the same Bestower, for serious violations of the covenant_, as seen in Exodus 12:15, 19; 30:33, 38, and Isaiah 9:13-17; 48:16-19,[2] and shown in the expressions, “that soul shall be cut off from Israel,” “…shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel,” “…shall even be cut off from his people,” “…destroyed from among you,” and “…destroyed from before Me.” 

It should be clear that this is not a name to be bestowed by men,[3] as God has created and reserved it for His own special use. It should also be clear He retains the right to strip the name from whom He will, and specifies when this is to be done.

To use this name when it has not been given, or after it has been removed, is to steal a prerogative reserved by God to Himself. It is stealing the right to confer an identity from the Almighty God!

We will look at a modern instance of this in a moment, but let us first look at a warning to the people of Israel given by God through Moses in his Fifth Book, which bears directly on this:

I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put My words in His mouth; and He shall speak unto them all that I shall command Him.

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto My words which He shall speak in My name, I will require it of him. (Deut. 18:18, 19)​
This is a warning to heed the words of those appointed to the prophetic office, and in particular Him who is the culmination and fulfillment of that office, the Messiah, whom New Covenant believers know as Jesus of Nazareth. The phrase, “I will require it of him,” means in this instance, “I will require his place among My people and his life.” Consider the destruction to be visited on those who with wicked hearts refused to “hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all His commandments…” (Deut 28:15), which promised destruction is shown in the verses following, so you may comprehend the dread import of the words “I will require it…”[4] to the Jewish nation after Messiah appeared among them.

Messiah’s apostle, Peter, in quoting from this passage [5] as he spoke to the people of Israel, rendered it, “And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that Prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.” (Acts 3:22, 23)

We have looked at the pertinent Biblical data, and have seen the name Israel given by God and taken away by Him (from those who did not warrant it). We have seen it specifically taken away from those in the Jewish nation who, in the time of Christ and the apostles, refused to “hear that Prophet,” who would not “hearken unto My words which He shall speak in My name.” Simply put, God openly cleft all those who refused His word through Messiah from the people of Israel, like a butcher cuts away gristle. As with a great cleaver He divided the nation, those who were His, and those who were not, even as aged Simeon prophesied over the infant Jesus in the temple, “Behold, this child is set for the falling and rising again of many in Israel…” (Luke 2:34; Cf. Isaiah 8:14, 15)

From this point on, the people of Israel gathered around their King, Messiah Jesus. Those who did not were “cut off” from the people by the judicial decree of God. Jesus Himself foretold this event when He announced to the chief priests and elders of Israel, “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” (Matthew 21:43) Immediately prior to that statement He told them the same thing in the parable of the vineyard, there holding up a mirror to their motives and actions (verses 33-41). Many of the priests, and some Pharisees, did turn to Him.

We look now at the “identity theft” spoken of earlier, which, amazingly, is abetted by some in the Community of Messiah, God’s authentic “holy nation” (1 Peter 2:9).

On May 14, 1948, descendants of those Jews who were declared no longer people of Israel by Messiah (and by the word of Moses) declared themselves a sovereign nation in the land of Palestine, to be called the State of Israel. Those Jews who denominated themselves thus, had for 2,000 years maintained their identity as Jews through subjection to rabbinic teaching devolved from the first century Pharisees, who were, in the main, the leaders of the apostasy from – and rebellion against – the God of Israel, and His appointed King. This stealing the name only God may give is an act of unbridled defiance.

I hear many Christians declaiming from various prophetic Scriptures and schemas that the Jewish state is still God’s Israel, and they go quite on about it, overlooking – or avoiding – the foundational decree on the matter.

But God’s decree stands eternal: _A Prophet shall the LORD your God raise up…Him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever He shall say unto you._

He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name. [Jesus said,]…I have not spoken of Myself, but the Father which sent Me, He gave Me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that His commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto Me, so I speak. (John 1:10-12; 12:49, 50)​
_And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto My [the Father’s] words which He shall speak in My name, *I will require it of him.*_

Whoever abides in the word and Spirit of the King of Israel partakes of His identity and Kingdom, be they Jew or Gentile. Any others who call themselves Israelites, on any other basis, will answer for this identity theft – this stealing of that which belongs to God – on the Day that is coming quickly. Do not support them in their grievous delusion and sin!
____

[1] _Commentary Upon The Book Of Genesis_, by John Calvin, on 32:28 
[2] Further references on this wise: Deut. 4:2, 3; Lev. 7:21, 25, 27; 18:29; 19:8; 20:6; 23:29, 30; Num. 9:13; 15:30, 31; 19:13; Psalm 94:23; 101:8; etc.
[3] This is not referring to parents who name their children after Biblical characters, even such as Israel, Jesus, Moses, etc., which may be a way of honoring heroes of the Faith, and seeking the blessing of their children.
[4] It is the same usage as in Genesis 9:5; 42:22; and 2 Chron. 24:22.
[5] Deuteronomy 18:15, 19.


----------

