Posted on 06/01/2004 9:12:10 AM PDT by fishtank
It's totally without support, scripturally, historically, etc. It's only slightly more plausible than Mormonism.
BTTT
Do you believe that this particular modern incarnation of "Israel" is necessarily of prophetic significance? In other words, must this Israel eventually become the Jewish nation that comes to faith in Christ? Or is it possible that this modern state of Israel could pass away, and that some future Israel, perhaps thousands of years in the future, might set the stage for the believing nation?
The Zola article gets the ball rolling.
The Bible passage is the stumbling stone.
This is possible, but can you deny that God sets the times and the boundaries of all nations, and that He has SOME plan now for Israel?
I believe that God is sovereign and has a plan for every nation. But I also believe that plan is part of His secret will which He has not revealed to man.
I thought Christ was the stumbling stone? :-) Seriously, I have no issue with Romans 9-11 when properly understood. I don't think it goes as far as some futurists would like. E.g., there is nothing about a future restoration of national Israel in the middle east.
"Replacement theology" is not a term that is used by anyone but those who hold to a "two people" theory. I suggest you would learn more about the classic Christian theology of the relationship between the church and Israel by reading those you believe it, not those who are afraid of it. There are a lot of little boys crying wolf out there.
I have even heard some reformers who hold to a belief that because they are believers - that their children DO NOT have to ever make a personal decision of belief in Christ! That they are born into salvation through their parents faith!!! I was shocked when I heard this!
Who are these terrible people. Please name names!!
According to dispensational theology there may be some very huge ramification for erroring on the other side, quite the understatement!
Such as??
Dispen-sensationalism.
So you believe in replacement theology? I thought I read this as the author saying the Church and Israel are two different things, not that the Church has replaced Israel. The view he says he agrees with is the second one, that we are different, not the first which is replacement theology. Unless of course, I read this with blond eyes, which is possible! :-)
This, then is the end of the matter. Every other position is a human construct, and of no authority.
DG
What follows is only for discussion, not necessarily what I believe. What if Ezekiel 37, dry bones, were to be taken literally and all Jews throughout history came back to life, in mortal bodies, before the Kingdom age?
To be perfectly honest I've never thought about it before. If I've learned anything from this board it's that Christians have a name and theology for just about everything.
I've always felt that when the Gentiles were grafted onto the branch of Israel we were a continuation of what God had started with Israel. Israel was broken off. (Romans 11) We are not a replacement. I think Romans is very clear in the branch analogy. It also fits with "I am the vine, you are the branch...".
I never knew there was a theology of different views on this.
http://www.cwi.org.uk/Heralds/Archives/Provan.htm
Boasting against the Natural Branches
A Review of Charles D. Provan's The Church is Israel Now
"Some books", said Francis Bacon, "are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some to be chewed and digested." Charles D. Provan's The Church is Israel Now contains enough truth to make it palatable to the unwary but enough error to poison their system, making it unfit for human consumption.
The book, claims Charles Provan, is "one of the end products of several years of research into the topic of the Old Testament and its relationship to the New Testament." Puzzled by the number of Old Testament references to Israel which, in the New Testament, are attributed to Christians, Provan concluded from his studies that, "The only hypothesis which explains how this could be is that the Israel of the Old Testament (so called 'Racial Israel') had been replaced by the Israel of the New Testament, the Christian Church."
To be fair to Mr Provan, he allows "racial Jews" a place in the Church and, unlike some replacement theologians, expresses the view that the responsibilities as well as the privileges of Israel have been transferred to the Church.
Illogical premise
The author purports to let Scripture speak for itself by juxtaposing sets of Old Testament and New Testament texts which say the same things about the Jews and Christians. Charles Provan assembles sets of verses that show, for example, that in the Old Testament Israel was beloved of God and that in the New Testament Christians are beloved of God and that in the Old Testament the Jews are called God's people and in the New Testament Christians are called God's people. The author, however, appears unable to think in categories other than "either/or". If Mr Provan's system of biblical interpretation was applied to the biblical teaching about God one would have to conclude that the Jehovah of the Old Testament has been replaced on the grounds that in the New Testament the Old Testament divine titles are all accorded to Jesus. It does not seem to occur to the author that the Church may indeed be the beloved Israel of God without having replaced the nation of Israel.
While appearing to be scriptural, Charles Provan's method is ultimately unscriptural in that he attempts to fit Scriptures into his own preconstructed framework. Nowhere is this more evident than when he avers that Matthew 21:43 "demonstrates ... quite clearly" the transfer of Israel's privileges and responsibilities, "Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit."
At first sight the words of Christ appear to support Mr Provan's hypothesis. But Matthew goes on: "When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus' parables, they knew he was talking about them." (Matthew 21:45). Jesus was not saying the kingdom would be taken from Israel but from the rulers of Israel.
Conditional love?
The Church is Israel Now is simplistic; a classic example of adding two and two together to make five. To his credit the author acknowledges that his conclusion is a "hypothesis" (albeit the only possible one, as far as he is concerned) according to which, when "the Israelites obeyed God, God loved them. But when they turned from Him He hated them, stripping them of their Israelite status." While it is true that in certain Old Testament passages, God speaks of His hatred for disobedient Israelites those passages must be modified by other statements. If God's love is conditional upon obedience, it is difficult to pinpoint a time when God could possibly have loved the nation, not to mention the Church.
Apart from a reference to a select number of verses from Romans 11, one would think Mr Provan was unaware the chapter exists, for he nowhere considers what Paul means when he says that "the Israelites are beloved for the fathers' sakes" and that God's "gifts and calling are without repentance".
The book's subtitle, "The Transfer of Conditional Privilege" reveals the writer's lack of understanding of the unconditional nature of God's covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15.
Only one olive tree
Moreover, he fails to understand that the Church is not a new entity which came into being on the Day of Pentecost. During the Old Testament period Israel was God's church and continues to be so in the New Testament era. Israel was God's qahal, a Hebrew word that in the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament appears as ecclesia, the same word translated "church" in English versions of the New Testament. To say, therefore, that the Church is the Church now is hardly profound thinking.
The book states that in the Old Testament, "Israel Is An Olive Tree" (Jeremiah 11:16-17; Hosea 14:5-6) and in the New Testament, "Christians Are An Olive Tree" (Romans 11:17-24). Though acknowledging that in Romans 11, "The Olive Tree under discussion ... is clearly Israel" Provan's bold-type sub-headings give the wrong impression. Paul does not say in Romans 11 that Christians are "an olive tree". Gentile believers, says the apostle, are branches from a wild olive tree that have been grafted on to the olive tree of Israel. If Charles Provan's hypothesis is, as he believes, the only possible one, Paul's olive tree illustration is misleading. If the Church has replaced "Racial Israel" a more fitting illustration would be that one olive tree has been cut down and another planted in its place.
But God has not cut down one olive tree and planted another in its place. Nor are there two separate olive trees. Instead, God has broken off some branches from the olive tree of Israel because of their unbelief and has grafted in branches not native to the tree. This is a vital and important distinction and it is inexcusable that a book purporting to be serious biblical scholarship should fail to see that distinction.
Theological anti-Semitism
Nowhere in the book does the writer take into account Romans 11:1: "Did God reject his people? By no means!" Nor does he engage with Old Testament verses such as Deuteronomy 4:31: "For the LORD your God is a merciful God; he will not abandon or destroy you or forget the covenant with your forefathers, which he confirmed to them by oath." Nowhere does Charles Provan take into account Jeremiah 31:35-37:
This is what the LORD says, he who appoints the sun to shine by day, who decrees the moon and stars to shine by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar - the LORD Almighty is his name: "Only if these decrees vanish from my sight," declares the LORD, "will the descendants of Israel ever cease to be a nation before me."
This is what the LORD says: "Only if the heavens above can be measured and the foundations of the earth below be searched out will I reject all the descendants of Israel because of all they have done," declares the LORD.
At best, the claim that the Church is Israel now demonstrates an utter disregard for the apostle's warning to the grafted-in branches of the Olive Tree not to boast themselves against the natural branches. At worst, Mr Provan's thesis is a particularly arrogant example of theological anti-Semitism. If it falls into the hands of Jews it will serve only to alienate them from the Church which has supposedly replaced them.
This article first appeared in our special Israel at Fifty issue of the Herald in Summer 1998
And here I thought you were going to stick to the Scriptures. Oh well.
Provan should have looked at THESE Scriptures that the author of this review wrote. He's pointing out the blind spots in Provan's book.
"Nowhere in the book does the writer take into account Romans 11:1: "Did God reject his people? By no means!" Nor does he engage with Old Testament verses such as Deuteronomy 4:31: "For the LORD your God is a merciful God; he will not abandon or destroy you or forget the covenant with your forefathers, which he confirmed to them by oath." Nowhere does Charles Provan take into account Jeremiah 31:35-37:
This is what the LORD says, he who appoints the sun to shine by day, who decrees the moon and stars to shine by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar - the LORD Almighty is his name: "Only if these decrees vanish from my sight," declares the LORD, "will the descendants of Israel ever cease to be a nation before me."
This is what the LORD says: "Only if the heavens above can be measured and the foundations of the earth below be searched out will I reject all the descendants of Israel because of all they have done," declares the LORD.
At best, the claim that the Church is Israel now demonstrates an utter disregard for the apostle's warning to the grafted-in branches of the Olive Tree not to boast themselves against the natural branches. At worst, Mr Provan's thesis is a particularly arrogant example of theological anti-Semitism. If it falls into the hands of Jews it will serve only to alienate them from the Church which has supposedly replaced them."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.