Lazarus43 wrote:mark s wrote:Referrencing the 70 weeks of Daniel in this discussion is not a red herring if the 70 weeks are not all fulfilled, since they specifically involve national Israel. Just because it was not raised in the OP doesn’t matter. Neither were several other Scriptures mentioned in the OP that have direct implication with a future status of National Israel.
These are relevant point to this topic. If the Bible prophesies that God will be dealing in spiritual matters with national Israel, i.e. the physical descendants of Jacob, in ways that He is not doing with the gentiles, saved or unsaved, then this shows that the OP article was not complete in its conclusions.
I agree that while what is discussed is being called “Remnant Theology”, as it is presented, it functions as “Replacement Theology” by denying Israel’s special end-times role and disposition.
I think that a definition of “national Israel” is in order. When I use this term, I am specifically referring to the physical descendents of Jacob, whether within or without the borders of the modern-day state of Israel.
Love in Christ,
I am sorry that I do not have time right now to comment in detail on the approximately ten screens of posts that you have just made. When I have more time, I will probably try to comment on one point at a time.
Due to the length of the thread, I needed to download it to take home and spend some time with it, so that I could properly read and assimilate it. I apologize if my replies seem a little overwhelming. I realize I've posted a fair amount of material.
Please, feel free to take all the time you need to prepare a proper response, should you wish to do so.
I realize that I may have misunderstood what the OP article said, and I welcome correction if that is the case.
I read the article several times. While the author did make a brief comment about "national Israel", it was, in my opinion, lip service only, since his conclusions did not, in my view, leave room for the actual and literal fulfillment of the prophecies made to the descendents of Jacob. Again, if I have understood him correctly.I do not know if you read the article, but you apparently did not notice what the author wrote about "national Israel" near the end of the article. Right now, I just want to make a short summary of what I understand "remnant theology" to be saying.
I'm not sure how you mean this. About a hundred and twenty disciples were baptized into the body of Christ on Pentacost following the resurrection of Jesus, which I believe to be the beginning of the Church Jesus is building. It began with people whom God had called to faith in His Son. There may well have been others who were faithfully practicing the Law. These might have been not faithfully practicing the Law. I don't know, and the Bible doesn't say.I believe that what we call the "church" began with a remnant who had began in the law of Moses and then trusted in Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
This is a place I disagree with you. They did not cease to become descendants of Jacob, and I see that there are prophecies made specifically to the descendants of Jacob.The unbelief of those not in the remnant caused them to be "cut off" and made the same as Gentile unbelievers, just as prophesied.
But neither do they become descendants of Jacob.Gentiles who believed were later added to the faithful remnant. They did not replace the remnant. They are not separate from the remnant.
But this reaches beyond the plan of salvation, and speaks of God's plans for the saving of the entire remaining group of the physical descendents of Jacob.Gentile believers have been joined to the remnant and become one with the remnant. All unbelievers, Jew and gentile, are cut off, but are able to be added to the faithful if they trust in Jesus Christ of Nazareth. The plan of salvation is the same for all of mankind.
the correct transliteration would be ekklasia, as the letter used is kappa, k.The Greek word translated "church" is "ekklesia" or "ecclesia."
I have seen it transliterated both ways. As I understand it, that word appears 73 times in the LXX version of the Old Testament, which is what was commonly read in the first century, and is still used by some Christians today. Many New Testament quotes are from it. When the Old Testament faithful gathered and joined in covenant and worshiped God, they were an "ekklesia." Just as gentiles could become part of that "ekklesia," they have been allowed to become part of the New Testament "ekklesia," which began with a faithful remnant of the Old Testament "ekklesia" trusting in Jesus Christ of Nazareth to snatch them from the jaws of sin and death. As I understand it, this is the "church" being built by Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
Ekklesia simply means the "called out". It speaks of a group who were part of another group, and have been called out to form their own group.
Abraham was called out of Ur. Israel was called out of Egypt. We are called out of the world. Essentially, I agree with your understanding of the Church which is being built by Jesus, but that doesn't change that God has specific plans for the salvation of the Jews at the end of the age.
One distinction to be made is that the Old Covenant was not transformed into the New Covenant, it was replaced by the New Covenant.
Love in Christ,