Replacement theology? Yes or No.

[cv5]

Yeah that pertains to the first century, lol.

Of course not.
Peter is intentionally making reference to the END of the FLOOD AGE as a parallel to the END of the PRESENT CHURCH AGE.

 

[Revelation1v8]

People do not understand: the rapture will be far more quiet and subtle than most surmise.

The rapture will probably be that way, but the Second Coming of Jesus Himself will NOT be that way.

 

[Revelation1v8]

Was not trying to prove any point just posted part of her vision as a reference, because it was the first mention of a secret Rapture and the first mention of the requirement of a special infilling of the Holy Spirit.

So, she was describing this as a rapture event and not a Second Coming event? Thanks for the clarification.

 

[cv5]

Yeah that pertains to the first century, lol.

And here you go. Its always a good idea to read a few verses ahead.

The Coming Day of the Lord

3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue just as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed by being flooded with water.

 

[Revelation1v8]

And here you go. Its always a good idea to read a few verses ahead.

The Coming Day of the Lord

3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue just as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed by being flooded with water.

If you're talking to HeIsHere, you probably need to highlight "the world at THAT TIME" in verse 6.

 

[cv5]

If you're talking to HeIsHere, you probably need to highlight "the world at THAT TIME" in verse 6.

And also "latter days".......

 

[Beekeeper]

If the second-temple period fulfilled that prophecy, how do you account for the fact that Israel later fell into the very unbelief that led to the rejection of her Messiah?
The restoration described by Ezekiel appears permanent: "from that day and forward."
The post-exilic revival was real, but it was not permanent.

You could have approached that question differently and asked:
If the restoration described in Ez 39:22 was NOT fulfilled, how could it be that so many Israelites did NOT reject their Messiah?
How is it possible that the house of Israel can still continue to know their God through Jesus Christ unless it was given to them by God?
Once we know that the house of Israel is a people and not a place, and we grasp that Jesus is the king, priesthood and temple of the house of Israel we also see that the restoration is permanent
for all that God permanently chooses.

The question is whether Romans 11:26 describes a future large-scale turning of Israel to Christ.
Paul distinguishes between the present remnant in verse 5 and "all Israel" in verse 26.
If "all Israel" simply means the remnant, then Paul's contrast loses much of its force because the remnant already existed when he wrote the letter.
As for defining modern Israelis as Gentiles, I don't think that's how Paul uses the terms in Romans 11.
Throughout the chapter he distinguishes Israel from the Gentiles.
The argument depends on that distinction.
Whatever "all Israel" means, it is difficult to see how it can simply be collapsed into "the last Gentile who believes."

Paul does not use any terms to describe modern Israelis in Romans 11, because he was not writing about modern Israelis.
Old covenant Jerusalem still existed when he wrote, as did his tribe Benjamin.
He defended the free offer of the gospel to his kinsmen in a time that extreme persecution also came from his kinsmen on the grounds that God has reserved a remnant of them, "even in this present time", meaning in the time that he was writing.
Paul was also knowledgeable of the fact that Jerusalem was to be destroyed, because he believed Jesus.
He had much reason to be burdened in his heart for his kinsmen, as many of them (including himself) would soon be killed.

Those of us that understand the relevance of the book of Revelation to the destruction of Jerusalem also understand that God maintained a witness to them (Rev.11) right up to the end.
In Rev. 7 God also restrains the angels from doing harm before his servants are sealed.
Here we find a description of a believing remnant of Israelites reserved by God.

Paul also gives a description of new covenant Israel to the Gentile believers in his olive tree illustration, and he explains it in a way that they might fully grasp that they are grafted into a tree that has its roots in old covenant Israel, so as to strengthen his point.
Those who would dispute that the olive tree represents Israel on the grounds that Jesus is the root should not forget that Jesus never broke the old covenant, and so the true old covenant Israel still continues in Him.

And now having described new covenant Israel by the metaphor of this olive tree which non Israelites should be most grateful to have been grafted into contrary to nature, and into which God fully intends to graft His Israelite remnant, Paul tells us that in like manner (houtows) all Israel will be saved.
Paul is not flying off on a completely new tangent there, he is bringing his illustration to it's logical spiritual conclusion in his usual intelligent way.
The obstacle for our friends here is that they are heavily conditioned to keep the concepts of "church" and "Israel" strictly separate, and this conditioning has come from outside of the Bible.
The understanding is easily available to all who can receive it.

 

[OMC]

You could have approached that question differently and asked:
If the restoration described in Ez 39:22 was NOT fulfilled, how could it be that so many Israelites did NOT reject their Messiah?
How is it possible that the house of Israel can still continue to know their God through Jesus Christ unless it was given to them by God?
Once we know that the house of Israel is a people and not a place, and we grasp that Jesus is the king, priesthood and temple of the house of Israel we also see that the restoration is permanent
for all that God permanently chooses.

I agree that many Israelites believed in Jesus. The question is whether that believing remnant exhausts Ezekiel 39's language.

My point is that a remnant already knew the Lord before the exile. Ezekiel 39 appears to describe something broader: "the house of Israel shall know that I am the LORD their God from that day and forward."

If "house of Israel" is reduced to the remnant, then the prophecy doesn't seem to describe anything uniquely new. The issue is whether Ezekiel is speaking only of the elect remnant, or of a larger restoration of Israel as a people.

Paul does not use any terms to describe modern Israelis in Romans 11, because he was not writing about modern Israelis.
Old covenant Jerusalem still existed when he wrote, as did his tribe Benjamin.
He defended the free offer of the gospel to his kinsmen in a time that extreme persecution also came from his kinsmen on the grounds that God has reserved a remnant of them, "even in this present time", meaning in the time that he was writing.
Paul was also knowledgeable of the fact that Jerusalem was to be destroyed, because he believed Jesus.
He had much reason to be burdened in his heart for his kinsmen, as many of them (including himself) would soon be killed.

Those of us that understand the relevance of the book of Revelation to the destruction of Jerusalem also understand that God maintained a witness to them (Rev.11) right up to the end.
In Rev. 7 God also restrains the angels from doing harm before his servants are sealed.
Here we find a description of a believing remnant of Israelites reserved by God.

Paul also gives a description of new covenant Israel to the Gentile believers in his olive tree illustration, and he explains it in a way that they might fully grasp that they are grafted into a tree that has its roots in old covenant Israel, so as to strengthen his point.
Those who would dispute that the olive tree represents Israel on the grounds that Jesus is the root should not forget that Jesus never broke the old covenant, and so the true old covenant Israel still continues in Him.

And now having described new covenant Israel by the metaphor of this olive tree which non Israelites should be most grateful to have been grafted into contrary to nature, and into which God fully intends to graft His Israelite remnant, Paul tells us that in like manner (houtows) all Israel will be saved.
Paul is not flying off on a completely new tangent there, he is bringing his illustration to it's logical spiritual conclusion in his usual intelligent way.
The obstacle for our friends here is that they are heavily conditioned to keep the concepts of "church" and "Israel" strictly separate, and this conditioning has come from outside of the Bible.
The understanding is easily available to all who can receive it.

I agree that Romans 11 is discussing Paul's contemporaries, but that's actually why the distinction between the remnant (v. 5) and "all Israel" (v. 26) seems significant.
The remnant already existed when Paul wrote.
If "all Israel" simply means the remnant, then Paul appears to be restating a reality he had already established.

I agree that the olive tree illustrates one people of God rooted in the covenants and promises, with Gentiles grafted in and unbelieving Jews broken off.
The question is whether Paul's "and so all Israel shall be saved" refers to the completed people of God, or to a future large-scale turning of ethnic Israel to Christ.

My point is simply that Romans 11 does not make that question as obvious as you're suggesting.
Paul deliberately distinguishes Israel, the remnant, and the Gentiles throughout the chapter, which is why many readers see more than the remnant alone in verse 26.

 

[Beekeeper]

Are the Jews under the OT.
Answer that and you can start over in your doctrine.

Do you mean the law of Moses?
Under God they are not, unless the book of Hebrews is not to the Hebrews.
Not sure what you are getting at.
What do you think?

 

[Revelation1v8]

You could have approached that question differently and asked:
If the restoration described in Ez 39:22 was NOT fulfilled, how could it be that so many Israelites did NOT reject their Messiah?
How is it possible that the house of Israel can still continue to know their God through Jesus Christ unless it was given to them by God?
Once we know that the house of Israel is a people and not a place, and we grasp that Jesus is the king, priesthood and temple of the house of Israel we also see that the restoration is permanent
for all that God permanently chooses.


Paul does not use any terms to describe modern Israelis in Romans 11, because he was not writing about modern Israelis.
Old covenant Jerusalem still existed when he wrote, as did his tribe Benjamin.
He defended the free offer of the gospel to his kinsmen in a time that extreme persecution also came from his kinsmen on the grounds that God has reserved a remnant of them, "even in this present time", meaning in the time that he was writing.
Paul was also knowledgeable of the fact that Jerusalem was to be destroyed, because he believed Jesus.
He had much reason to be burdened in his heart for his kinsmen, as many of them (including himself) would soon be killed.

Those of us that understand the relevance of the book of Revelation to the destruction of Jerusalem also understand that God maintained a witness to them (Rev.11) right up to the end.
In Rev. 7 God also restrains the angels from doing harm before his servants are sealed.
Here we find a description of a believing remnant of Israelites reserved by God.

Paul also gives a description of new covenant Israel to the Gentile believers in his olive tree illustration, and he explains it in a way that they might fully grasp that they are grafted into a tree that has its roots in old covenant Israel, so as to strengthen his point.
Those who would dispute that the olive tree represents Israel on the grounds that Jesus is the root should not forget that Jesus never broke the old covenant, and so the true old covenant Israel still continues in Him.

And now having described new covenant Israel by the metaphor of this olive tree which non Israelites should be most grateful to have been grafted into contrary to nature, and into which God fully intends to graft His Israelite remnant, Paul tells us that in like manner (houtows) all Israel will be saved.
Paul is not flying off on a completely new tangent there, he is bringing his illustration to it's logical spiritual conclusion in his usual intelligent way.
The obstacle for our friends here is that they are heavily conditioned to keep the concepts of "church" and "Israel" strictly separate, and this conditioning has come from outside of the Bible.
The understanding is easily available to all who can receive it.

"House of Israel" is used in the Bible as both a nation and a people. If it was just referring to the people, it would use the term, Israelite.

 

[Beekeeper]

Paul deliberately distinguishes Israel, the remnant, and the Gentiles throughout the chapter

So he does, yet he puts all those ingredients together in the same olive tree.
All Israel.

 

[OMC]

So he does, yet he puts all those ingredients together in the same olive tree.
All Israel.

That's certainly a possible reading of the olive tree, and I agree Paul ultimately brings believing Jews and believing Gentiles into one people of God.
My question is why Paul spends the chapter distinguishing Israel, the remnant, and the Gentiles if "all Israel" simply means the combined tree.
The olive tree shows participation in the same covenant blessings.
What remains debated is whether "all Israel" refers to the completed people of God or to a future large-scale ingathering of ethnic Israel into that one tree.
The existence of one olive tree does not, by itself, settle that question.
That's why Romans 11 continues to be debated.

 

[Beekeeper]

"House of Israel" is used in the Bible as both a nation and a people. If it was just referring to the people, it would use the term, Israelite.

"House" means "family".
In the case of an Israelite his family is the house of Israel.

 

[OMC]

House" means "family".
In the case of an Israelite his family is the house of Israel

In Ezekiel, "house of Israel" frequently refers to the nation as a whole, not merely the believing remnant within it.
That's why I hesitate to reduce Ezekiel 39's language to only those Israelites who already believed.

If "house of Israel" there means only the faithful remnant, then the prophecy becomes much easier to fulfill.
But the passage's broad language is precisely what makes many readers think Ezekiel is describing something larger than the remnant alone.

 

[Churchgoer]

Oh and BTW, the gentile Bride is said to be BETROTHED from the start.
Your theory of the innocent party to a marriage gone wrong DOES NOT APPLY to the gentile Bride Church.

???? Why not?
That theory is universal.
should a husband marry back his ex wife, who is already married to other man?

And the fact of the necessity of the death of the Husband DOES APPLY to the Nation Israel.

You have not explained the reason.

However Jesus died for sinners. His blood covers us, so we are considered righteous. Through Jesus blood we are born again with Jesus blood in us.

As has been pointed out already Israel is once again prophetically called BETROTHED.

Where is explanation?

Oh and BTW, the entire corporate body of the Nation Israel accepted the old covenant long ago.

What happened to all the OT books? If corporate body of national Israel accept covenant and obey covenant, why they kill the prophets, plus Jesus?
If only individual killed prophets and Jesus, ok, I accept.
Then who is the corporate body? The prophets plus some good people? I can accept this.
As I said, ethnic never save anyone. Jesus saved, saves, will save.

And the entire Nation Israel will likewise accept the New Covenant in the midst of the trib.

The remnants will accept Jesus, Lord willing anyone live to be remnants.
That's the reason Jesus said do not boast, Lord willing.....

 

[Beekeeper]

My question is why Paul spends the chapter distinguishing Israel, the remnant, and the Gentiles if "all Israel" simply means the combined tree.

Paul is trying to make and important point exclucively to Gentile believers about the attitude they should have toward the remnant from Israel.
He has to name those ingredients to make his point.

 

[OMC]

Paul is trying to make and important point exclucively to Gentile believers about the attitude they should have toward the remnant from Israel.
He has to name those ingredients to make his point.

The issue isn't whether the ingredients belong in one olive tree. We both agree they do.
The issue is whether "all Israel" refers to the remnant alone or to the full people of God composed of both natural and grafted-in branches. That's the point still under discussion.

 

[Beekeeper]

In Ezekiel, "house of Israel" frequently refers to the nation as a whole, not merely the believing remnant within it.
That's why I hesitate to reduce Ezekiel 39's language to only those Israelites who already believed.

If "house of Israel" there means only the faithful remnant, then the prophecy becomes much easier to fulfill.
But the passage's broad language is precisely what makes many readers think Ezekiel is describing something larger than the remnant alone.

Yet they would have to believe in order to "know the Lord their God".
It is possible that in the early part of the second temple restoration that included the whole nation.

 

[Churchgoer]

The issue isn't whether the ingredients belong in one olive tree. We both agree they do.
The issue is whether "all Israel" refers to the remnant alone or to the full people of God composed of both natural and grafted-in branches. That's the point still under discussion.

If we combine ot and nt looking at this, "all Israel " is those that God predestined before the foundation of the world.
"All" is the key word.
How did "Israel" come about, from Jacob, a sinner, Abraham, a sinner.

A sinner that is saved by God, by grace, through faith, not through human ethnicity. But through Jesus blood.

 

[God-fearing]

Just some thoughts on the rapture. There are more scripture that proves the possibility rather than exclusion so I tend to agree that this does take place.
I've wondered what effect it would have on the world and especially to the nation of Israel.
I know the world would explain it away like some alien abduction or what ever but I dont think that Israel would buy into that.
Paul siad that the church would provoke Israel to jealousy.
Scripture says those that are first are last so I picture Israel seeking answers for this event starting a revival of sorts .which starts a much debated issue for such is the Jewish way