Replacement theology? Yes or No.
- Thread starter Gideon300
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I had to check to see if she was not related to the writer George MacDonald,(1825- 1905) Lilith is one of my favourite novels.
Whew... George is her brother!!
Either way the branches are individuals, not a nation.
But I will go with the remnant of that time... most rational and logical, along with being consistent with the rest of Paul's writings.
That's a good question because Galatians is probably the strongest argument for your position.
Galatians emphasizes that the true children of Abraham are those who share Abraham's faith (Gal. 3:7), that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile (Gal. 3:28), and that believers are heirs according to the promise (Gal. 3:29).
So if I were arguing your side, I would say Romans 11 should be read through Galatians: one people of God, one olive tree, one inheritance, and therefore "all Israel" refers to the completed covenant people composed of believing Jews and Gentiles together.
My hesitation is that Romans 11 still spends considerable time distinguishing Israel from the Gentiles and speaks of a future grafting in of natural branches.
That keeps me from concluding the issue is completely settled by Galatians alone.
So I would say Galatians strongly supports the unity of God's people in Christ.
The remaining debate is whether Romans 11's "all Israel" refers to that unified people, or to a future large-scale conversion of ethnic Israel into that unified people.
That's where the discussion remains for me.
I can see why you'd take that position.
The branches in Romans 11 are indeed individual Jews and Gentiles who either remain in, are broken off, or are grafted into the olive tree through faith.
My hesitation is that Paul explicitly distinguishes the remnant in verse 5 from "all Israel" in verse 26. If "all Israel" means only the remnant that already existed in Paul's day, then verse 26 seems to add little beyond what he had already established.
That's why I think the argument has to explain why Paul changes terms.
If the remnant and "all Israel" are identical, what new point is Paul making in verse 26?
I agree that whatever "all Israel" means, it must remain consistent with Paul's teaching elsewhere, especially Galatians and the unity of Jew and Gentile in Christ.
The question is whether that consistency points to the remnant alone or to the completed people of God.
Actually the way we are saved begins in the book of Exodus and continues on through the prophets and such.
Reminding ourselves that not only jews were exiting Egypt but also Egyptians followed.
God instituted a inclusion to the stranger to be apart of his chosen.
Reminding ourselves that not only jews were exiting Egypt but also Egyptians followed.
God instituted a inclusion to the stranger to be apart of his chosen.
Also consider that just as in the Exodus from Egypt, in the time of Jacobs trouble there will be another Exodus with a mixed multitude.....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
The text itself deliberately compares the future regathering with the Exodus:
Galatians 3 is focused on an entirely different matter than Romans 11.
Romans 11 was meant to teach Gentiles to openly welcome Jewish believers and to understand and except evangelism of Jewish unbelievers.
It has been widely used for a completely different purpose that it was never intended for, ie to "proove" separation between a newly created "Israel" and an imaginary "Gentile Church".
Now after many decades of tearing apart that chapter it is difficult for people to approach it without all of those hot topics spinning around in their heads.
I see a difference between "all Israel" of v.26 and "remnant" in v.5, but it is not the one that is often suggested.
The remnant are yet to be saved in Paul's time, while the "all Israel" includes the remnant and all to be saved both before and after them and the old testament saints and the "grafted" Gentile believers.
I think you're right that Romans 11 is often pulled into debates Paul was not directly addressing.
Paul's immediate concern is indeed the relationship between Gentile believers and unbelieving Jews, and he warns Gentiles against arrogance while encouraging continued evangelism toward Israel.
My only hesitation is that Paul's purpose does not necessarily exhaust the meaning of every statement he makes in the chapter.
The fact that Romans 11 teaches Gentiles how to view Jewish unbelievers does not automatically settle what he means by "all Israel shall be saved."
So I agree we should read Romans 11 in its own context rather than importing later systems into it.
The question remains whether Paul's conclusion in verse 26 is limited to the remnant of his day or extends beyond it.
That's still where I see the debate lying.
I had to check to see if she was not related to the writer George MacDonald,(1825- 1905) Lilith is one of my favourite novels.
Whew... George is her brother!!
There is a view that the pre trib rapture doctrine began from Margret McDonald's trans channeling experiences.
When Caleb and Joshua cross Jordan River, yeah, all of them. Because rest died.
In Noah ark, all get saved, whoever in the boat. The rest not counted in "all".
When God says "all", that means the predestined, none get lost.
If we were to deny the relevance of Paul's Roman 11 teaching to our own present time we would be believing that Jews now can't be saved, which is the opposite of what Paul is arguing.
As long as it is understood that Paul is speaking about them becoming Christians and not about setting up an earthly nation, we will not go wrong with applying the teaching to modern times.
As to whom God intends to save and what number of what race, I would consider that none of my business.
"For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?".
That's a more nuanced position, and it does address the distinction I raised.
If by "remnant" you mean only the believing Jews alive in Paul's day, then I still think verse 26 adds very little to verse 5.
But if by "all Israel" you mean the complete covenant people of God across time, including Old Testament saints, the Jewish remnant, grafted-in Gentiles, and all who are saved through faith in Christ, then verse 26 is doing more than merely restating the existence of the remnant.
In that case, the contrast would not be:
Remnant vs. future national conversion
but:
Present remnant (v. 5)
Completed Israel of God (v. 26)
That reading has the advantage of fitting naturally with the one olive tree and with Paul's emphasis elsewhere that believers, whether Jew or Gentile, inherit the promises through Christ.
My remaining question would be whether Paul's use of "Israel" elsewhere in Romans prepares the reader for that broader definition in verse 26, or whether the context still points to ethnic Israel in some special sense.
That's where I think the debate continues.
I think we're very close on this point.
Romans 11 absolutely remains relevant today because Jews can still be saved through faith in Christ.
Paul's entire argument depends on that possibility.
Where I agree with you is that Romans 11 should never be used to suggest there is some separate way of salvation for Jews apart from Christ.
Paul's concern is precisely that unbelieving Jews can be grafted in again through faith.
My only caution is that the statement "all Israel shall be saved" still needs to be defined from the context.
We agree it doesn't mean ethnic Jews are automatically saved.
We agree it involves salvation through Christ.
So the debate isn't whether Jews can be saved today.
The debate is simply whether "all Israel" refers to the complete people of God, including believing Jews and Gentiles, or whether Paul is anticipating a larger future ingathering of Jews into that one redeemed people.
On the central point, however, I agree: Romans 11 encourages hope and evangelism, not the idea of a separate path of salvation.
lots of imagination in that family thenI had to check to see if she was not related to the writer George MacDonald,(1825- 1905) Lilith is one of my favourite novels.
Whew... George is her brother!!
To clarify, my sentence has an error, the writer, the one I like is not her brother, but she also has a brother named George.
Clear as mud now I hope!
For pitys sake NO.
There is NO breach of the marriage contract insofar as the gentile Bride Church is concerned, no will there be. Therefore she is ALWAYS called "BETROTHED", never a divorced adulteress.
HOWEVER, God declared the wife of YHVH the Nation Israel an adulteress and DID divorce her. Consequently, the husband HAD TO DIE in order to PROPHETICALLY once again call her BETROTHED.
Which is precisely the point that Paul is making in Romans 7.
Paul's metaphor shift depending on which party is in view:
1. For Israel: The Death of the Husband (Covenantal Termination)
The Dynamic: In human marriage (and the prophetic picture of YHVH and Israel), the bond is broken when the husband dies (or, in the broader theological scope, when Christ—the representative head and divine Bridegroom of Israel—died and rose again).
The Result: This allows the unfaithful wife (national Israel) to be legally released from the first covenant and enter into a renewed, eternal covenant relationship with her Messiah at His second coming (the New Covenant fulfilled with the nation). The legal framework changes because the death of the partner terminates the binding contract.
2. For the Church (Jew & Gentile): The Believer Dies in Christ (Identificatory Union)
The Dynamic: As you noted, for the Church—particularly the Gentile believer who was never part of the Sinai contract—we do not wait for a husband to die; we ourselves die co-crucified with Christ (Galatians 2:20, Romans 6:3–6).
The Result: Because our old identity ("the old man") was put to death in Him, the penalty of sin is fully paid, and the entire principle of approaching God through legal performance is severed. We are raised in "newness of life," united not as an old wife remarried, but as a brand-new entity—a virgin betrothed to Christ in a completely new dispensation.
Two Distinct Applications of One Infinite Cross
This is the ultimate beauty of how Fruchtenbaum and traditional dispensationalists view the Atonement: The death of Christ is a single historical event with multiple distinct legal and covenantal outcomes.
It satisfies the national redemption and future restoration of Israel.
It achieves the justification, co-crucifixion, and present spiritual union of the Church.
This insight maps out the exact distinction that keeps these two streams of redemptive history from getting tangled together.
No, "house" is mostly referred to as a a nation. It's also why the Bible mentions the House of David and the House of Jacob. They are all related and refer to the nation of Israel.
As shown below:
House of Jacob refers to the entire nation of Israel as the descendants of the patriarch Jacob (later named Israel), encompassing all twelve tribes and emphasizing their identity as a single biological and covenantal family. The terms are often used interchangeably in the Bible, such as in Exodus 19:3, where God instructs Moses to speak to both the "house of Jacob" and the "sons of Israel," indicating they denote the same collective people.
House of Israel specifically denotes the nation as a political and spiritual entity, particularly after the United Monarchy split around 931 BCE. While it initially referred to all twelve tribes, it came to distinguish the Northern Kingdom (the ten tribes) from the Southern Kingdom of Judah, and has been used spiritually at times to refer to all of the people of God.
House of David refers to the Southern Kingdom (Judah), named after the royal dynasty of King David, who ruled from Jerusalem. This term highlights the political lineage and the tribal dominance of Judah (along with Benjamin) after the schism, contrasting with the "House of Israel" which represented the remaining ten tribes under different leadership. Together, these terms illustrate the nation's evolution from a unified tribal confederation under the patriarch Jacob into distinct political entities, while maintaining a shared ancestral and religious identity.