Announcement

Collapse

Eschatology 201 Guidelines

This area of the forum is primarily for Christian theists to discuss orthodox views of Eschatology. Other theist participation is welcome within that framework, but only within orthodoxy. Posts from nontheists that do not promote atheism or seek to undermine the faith of others will be permitted at the Moderator's discretion - such posters should contact the area moderators before posting.


Without turning this forum into a 'hill of foreskins' (Joshua 5:3), I believe we can still have fun with this 'sensitive' topic.

However, don't be misled, dispensationalism has only partly to do with circumcision issues. So, let's not forget about Innocence, Conscience, Promises, Kingdoms and so on.

End time -isms within orthodox Christianity also discussed here. Clearly unorthodox doctrines, such as those advocating "pantelism/full preterism/Neo-Hymenaeanism" or the denial of any essential of the historic Christian faith are not permitted in this section but can be discussed in Comparative Religions 101 without restriction. Any such threads, as well as any that within the moderator's discretions fall outside mainstream evangelical belief, will be moved to the appropriate area.

Millennialism- post-, pre- a-

Futurism, Historicism, Idealism, and Preterism, or just your garden variety Zionism.

From the tribulation to the anichrist. Whether your tastes run from Gary DeMar to Tim LaHaye or anywhere in between, your input is welcome here.

OK folks, let's roll!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Replacement theology

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by seanD View Post
    I was addressing mikewhitney's post. It seems a bit more general about the subject than what the OP was addressing.
    As I understand it, the OP is discussing "replacement theology" as the wholesale replacement of the people of Israel by the church as God's people. You're using it to mean the replacement of old covenant by new covenant. These are distinct.

    Comment


    • #32
      The original point was that the church "of all nations" (including Jews but also others) seems to be referred to as the twelve tribes of Israel.

      In terms of eschatological relevance, this point also takes away some focus from the destruction of the Jews, which preterists often claim to be the whole point of Revelation. The great tribulation takes place among all nations, kindreds, and tongues.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
        The original point was that the church "of all nations" (including Jews but also others) seems to be referred to as the twelve tribes of Israel.

        In terms of eschatological relevance, this point also takes away some focus from the destruction of the Jews, which preterists often claim to be the whole point of Revelation. The great tribulation takes place among all nations, kindreds, and tongues.
        Not so much the Jews as a whole, but the unbelieving Jews (just like the OT doom 'n' gloom prophets, there was a faithful remnant that was preserved).
        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
        sigpic
        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by seanD View Post
          Originally posted by mikewhitney
          I concur with Paprika in noting that the Mosaic covenant was not equivalent and did not replace the covenant(s) with Abraham. In a separate discussion on the land promises, one could glean which promises were recognizable as promises to the 'seed' (who is Christ) and which were for the physical descendants of Abraham.

          Paul shows that the inheritance was through Christ -- the promise was to Abraham and his seed, who is Christ. This is the point made in Galatians.
          The land and seed promises were given concurrently.
          You are mixing separate points together. Paul, in Galatians, emphasized that the promise was made to Abraham and, essentially speaking, to Jesus, as well. So Jesus was a benefactor to the promise. So it is true that the promises were made to the seed (as ultimately referring to Christ) about the land. Such an observation is distinct from promises in Genesis where the physical children of Abraham seem to be identified as gaining some land -- which is more in alignment with your statement that "the land and seed promises were given concurrently.'

          Maybe also you were thinking about the sense where Abraham was promised both to have many descendants who would enjoy land via the promise -- this was where I was trying to point you toward an earlier discussion (from about a month ago) regarding the land promises.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
            You are mixing separate points together. Paul, in Galatians, emphasized that the promise was made to Abraham and, essentially speaking, to Jesus, as well. So Jesus was a benefactor to the promise. So it is true that the promises were made to the seed (as ultimately referring to Christ) about the land. Such an observation is distinct from promises in Genesis where the physical children of Abraham seem to be identified as gaining some land -- which is more in alignment with your statement that "the land and seed promises were given concurrently.' Maybe also you were thinking about the sense where Abraham was promised both to have many descendants who would enjoy land via the promise -- this was where I was trying to point you toward an earlier discussion (from about a month ago) regarding the land promises.
            It seems better to say that the reception of land enjoyed by Abraham, the Patriarchs, and the Children of Israel was a shadow of the greater land fulfillment which came to Christ, the inheritor of the whole earth (Hebrew erets, often translated "land" as well). This would be a pretty standard "double fulfillment" scenario in which some OT passage has a limited proximal fulfillment (e.g. David as the kingly "son of God") but an ultimate super-fulfillment in Christ. So SeanD is right to see the land and seed as the same issue. The land is the inheritance, and the seed is the one who inherits it. In the limited OT context, the land was only Palestine, and the seed was Abraham's physical lineage through Isaac and Jacob. In the NT fulfillment, the land is the whole universe, and Christ is the only seed in view, as Paul discusses in Galatians.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by RBerman View Post
              It seems better to say that the reception of land enjoyed by Abraham, the Patriarchs, and the Children of Israel was a shadow of the greater land fulfillment which came to Christ, the inheritor of the whole earth (Hebrew erets, often translated "land" as well). This would be a pretty standard "double fulfillment" scenario in which some OT passage has a limited proximal fulfillment (e.g. David as the kingly "son of God") but an ultimate super-fulfillment in Christ. So SeanD is right to see the land and seed as the same issue. The land is the inheritance, and the seed is the one who inherits it. In the limited OT context, the land was only Palestine, and the seed was Abraham's physical lineage through Isaac and Jacob. In the NT fulfillment, the land is the whole universe, and Christ is the only seed in view, as Paul discusses in Galatians.
              If you just want to say that it is simply easier to talk of dual fulfillment rather than look into the details, I would say that such an approach would be acceptable in many discussions. And it would be agreeable to note that the inheritance of land by Israel was a type for the fulfillment to come through Christ.


              But when we are asking whether there was a replacement of the church for Israel, we must look at the finer details. But we must realize that the discussion of God's faithfulness was is as pertinent for our discussion of Israel with respect to the Abrahamic covenant as His faithfulness was for Paul (in Rom 9-11). As such, it seems reasonable to recognize that certain passages appear to specify the physical descendants directly ... and these don't speak of the everlasting claim to the land. There were other promises where the wording leaned toward Christ as benefactor (under the insight shared by Paul) which presented the everlasting benefit. I had begun to recognize this distinction of promises in Genesis -- Of course a formal proposal of such distinctions (among the promises) would permit better scrutiny of its merits.

              If we remember SeanD's words
              But the earthly covenant (which included land) promised to Abraham and his descendants was vowed to be forever. So I don't see how you can avoid arguing that the church is spiritual replacement of the earthly covenant.
              then we must recognize, in response to Sean's words, that nothing promised to Israel was taken away. Nothing of Abraham's promise was abrogated. We believers were (an unexpected) fulfillment of Abraham's covenant. And we benefited in an unexpected fashion. The members of the church benefit not as a replacement for something but rather as a direct and logical outgrowth of Abraham's covenant.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                If you just want to say that it is simply easier to talk of dual fulfillment rather than look into the details, I would say that such an approach would be acceptable in many discussions. And it would be agreeable to note that the inheritance of land by Israel was a type for the fulfillment to come through Christ.


                But when we are asking whether there was a replacement of the church for Israel, we must look at the finer details. But we must realize that the discussion of God's faithfulness was is as pertinent for our discussion of Israel with respect to the Abrahamic covenant as His faithfulness was for Paul (in Rom 9-11). As such, it seems reasonable to recognize that certain passages appear to specify the physical descendants directly ... and these don't speak of the everlasting claim to the land. There were other promises where the wording leaned toward Christ as benefactor (under the insight shared by Paul) which presented the everlasting benefit. I had begun to recognize this distinction of promises in Genesis -- Of course a formal proposal of such distinctions (among the promises) would permit better scrutiny of its merits.

                If we remember SeanD's words


                then we must recognize, in response to Sean's words, that nothing promised to Israel was taken away. Nothing of Abraham's promise was abrogated. We believers were (an unexpected) fulfillment of Abraham's covenant. And we benefited in an unexpected fashion. The members of the church benefit not as a replacement for something but rather as a direct and logical outgrowth of Abraham's covenant.
                As was often the case with NT fulfillments of OT prophecies, nothing was taken away, but the result was magnified far beyond what was expected. Jesus was "Son of God" in a way that David never would have anticipated. Jesus (and those in Jesus) gets the earth in a far more comprehensive way than Abraham's descendants ever expected. There's no abrogation, but rather infinite expansion.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by RBerman View Post
                  As was often the case with NT fulfillments of OT prophecies, nothing was taken away, but the result was magnified far beyond what was expected. Jesus was "Son of God" in a way that David never would have anticipated. Jesus (and those in Jesus) gets the earth in a far more comprehensive way than Abraham's descendants ever expected. There's no abrogation, but rather infinite expansion.
                  Oh. I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to say that your view was in that direction. My intent was to explain why the distinctions of my on-going comments were relative to SeanD's post.

                  Certainly it is true that the prophetic fulfillment was greater than we could normally have expected from the prophecies. Who could have truly recognized from the OT prophecies how we could become new creatures in Christ?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Just an additional point to mike's and RBerman's excellent posts: some time after Abraham, the Jews did recognise that the whole earth was supposed to belong to them (of at least to the Messiah), at least in the sense that they would rule over the whole earth. Key passages include Psalm 2, Psalm 72, Isaiah 11, Isaiah 60, Daniel 7.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                      the Jews did recognise that the whole earth was supposed to belong to them (of at least to the Messiah), at least in the sense that they would rule over the whole earth.
                      I want to build on this point by noting that in his epistle to the Christians in Rome - the seat of Roman imperial power- Paul bookends his entire discourse with the idea that Jesus is the Messiah and thus the ruler of the nations, that is, in chapters 1 and 15. In the former, Paul talks about the gospel of God concerning " concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations". "Son of God", of course, isn't just a Messiah title, it was a Caesar title. In the latter, Paul quotes Isaiah: "“The root of Jesse ... arises to rule the Gentiles; in him will the Gentiles hope.” Here's not the place to have a fullblown discussion about Paul and Empire, but it is clear that he views Jesus, being the Messiah, is ruling the nations.

                      In Ephesians, Paul approaches the issue of reign from another angle. In chapter 1, Christ, having been raised, was seated at God's right hand in the heavenly places, "far above all rule and authority and power and dominion". Those who have been made alive with Christ (chapter 2) are also seated at the heavenly places, sharing his reign, but the reign of the believers is of course in the inaugurated eschatological sense: now and not yet (cf 1 Cor 4:8).

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Does anyone disagree that the twelve tribes in Revelation refer to the whole church, including gentiles?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                          Does anyone disagree that the twelve tribes in Revelation refer to the whole church, including gentiles?
                          I would disagree. Your quote of Revelation in the original post does suggest that the twelve tribes were part of the great numbers which included gentiles. However, the twelve tribes had been distinctly numbered. God had certain obligations to Israel ... to the twelve tribes. Also, there was a judgment specifically on Jerusalem and Judea. It seems in Rev 7 there was the sequence first of saving/sealing people of the 12 tribes and then next the observance of the greater multitude of saved people (including those of the 12 tribes).

                          However I do have to mention that I have not particularly figured out the sequence of events across all chapters of Revelation.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                            Does anyone disagree that the twelve tribes in Revelation refer to the whole church, including gentiles?
                            As far as I can see from a quick glance, the twelve tribes are enumerated, and then a "great multitude from the nations" is referred to subsequently. Hence I would provisionally disagree that the twelve tribes refer to the whole church. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise.
                            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                            sigpic
                            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              The argument was mainly based on the fact that John only heard the number, and then he saw the multitude. He didn't hear anything about the multitude, and he didn't see anything regarding the 144,000 -- unless they are the same.

                              Also, I think the number 1000 is supposed to be a lot. Twelve thousand from each tribe is therefore supposed to represent a large number.

                              Also, I don't believe that the multitude is ever again mentioned in the book. In contrast, the 144,000 is mentioned again. As long as the multitude and the 144,000 are the same, then there is nothing unusual about this fact. If they are different, then I find it strange.

                              Revelation 14
                              1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.
                              2 And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:
                              3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.
                              4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.
                              5 And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.


                              And then there is always the odd fact that no one from the tribe of Dan is mentioned, which I don't know exactly what to make of. But it probably lends itself toward a more symbolic interpretation of the 144,000.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                                Revelation 7
                                4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.
                                5 Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand.
                                6 Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nephthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand.
                                7 Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand.
                                8 Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand.
                                9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands

                                It seems to me like the 144,000 is the same thing as the great multitude of many nations. Most people distinguish these, saying that the 144,000 are the Jews and the great multitude is the gentiles. But I think the correct interpretation is that the 144,000 is what John heard, whereas when John actually saw it, the 144,000 appeared innumerable.


                                Other passages that could arguably support this interpretation include the following:

                                James 1
                                1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.
                                2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;

                                I don't see any reason to believe that James was writing to unsaved Jews. And he never qualifies his greeting by saying that he is only writing to "some" of the twelve tribes. Hence, the twelve tribes are probably the Christians.

                                Matthew 19
                                28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

                                Presumably, the apostles get to judge more than just the ethnic Jews.



                                The prophesies does not speak of Replacement Theology, though we are to understand, that in the end, both Jews and Gentiles would be under one fold. But first, according to the prophecy, the whole (not partial) nation of Israel will be rejected first. By word, the promise of salvation was given to the Jews (John 4:22, Deut 7:6-8). But that was not the whole truth of God's plan. God made the promise to Israel to be a special people unto Him, but God knows all along that Israel, as a nation, will backslide (Deut 32:21, Rom 11:25); thus the prophesies foretold of the Gentiles coming unto God (Rom 15:11, Deut 32:43, Isa 11:10).


                                But when Christ came, he said that he was sent only for the Jews! (Matt 15:24). The prophesy foretold that Christ will come to gather the lost sheep of Israel, but there are other elect which will not be gathered unto his fold (Isa 56:8). Thus, Christ said to his disciples, "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." (John 10:16) The first fold that were gathered unto Christ were the Jews, and the other fold were referred to the Gentiles that will come to hear the gospel. Paul himself was clear prophesying of Gentiles that will hear the Gospel (Acts 28:28).


                                And with regards to the first fold, who were Jews gathered with Christ, they will suffer apostasy along with the whole of the Israel nation. Thus, the prophecy foretold that those who were with Christ would only reign for a thousand years, not literally, but figuratively (Rev 20:6).


                                In the end, all kingdoms will be the kingdom of God and his Christ (Rev 11:15), this meant that, in the end, the Jews will again receive Christ.


                                Now note that the Gentile nation will never replace the Church, the body of Christ. Paul described the Church as "....built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone..." Any existing organization will not amount to the temple of God; for the temple of God represents "ALL" the elect, where it comprises all living and the dead, including even those that are not yet born. The Gentiles are only a fold, a partial part of the Church, the body of Christ.
                                ...WISDOM giveth life to them that have it. (Ecclesiastes 7:12)
                                ...the ISLES shall wait for his law (Isaiah 42:4)
                                https://philippinesinprophecies.wordpress.com/

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X