Posted on 06/07/2012 8:38:38 AM PDT by Gamecock
If we stand within the field of prophetic vision typical of Israel’s prophets after the exile and captivity, and with them we look to the future, what do we see? Israel’s prophets clearly anticipate a time when Israel will be restored to its former greatness. But will that restoration of the nation of Israel to its former glory mirror the days of the monarchy? Or does the monarchy itself point us to the monarch?
Such a prophetic vision includes not only the nation, but the land of Canaan, the city of Jerusalem, the throne of David, as well as the temple in Jerusalem. Since the nation had been divided and the people were hauled off into captivity in Babylon some five centuries before the coming of Jesus, the magnificent temple destroyed and the priesthood gone, such prophetic expectation related to Israel’s future quite naturally spoke of a reversal of fortune and the undoing of calamity which had come upon the nation.
But with apostolic hindsight Peter speaks of how “concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.” (1 Peter 1:10-12).
In Isaiah 41:8-9, the prophet spoke of a future restoration of Israel in these terms. “But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham, my friend; you whom I took from the ends of the earth, and called from its farthest corners, saying to you, `You are my servant, I have chosen you and not cast you off.'” The same promise is reiterated in the next chapter of Isaiah (42:1-7), when the LORD declares of his servant, “I am the Lord; I have called you in righteousness; I will take you by the hand and keep you; I will give you as a covenant for the people, a light for the nations”( v. 6). Isaiah continues to speak of this servant in chapters 44 (vv. 1-2) and 45 (v. 4).
Dispensationalists, given their so-called "literal hermeneutic," are bound to interpret such passages literally, thereby assign the fulfillment of these prophecies of Isaiah to a future earthly millennium in which Israel co-exists with Gentiles under the reign of the Davidic king (See Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, 302-304; and Pentecost, Things to Come, 503-508). In effect, this amounts to the restoration of the monarchy as Jesus takes his place on David's royal throne and rules the nations from this restored Israel.
But is this how the New Testament interprets these messianic prophecies regarding the servant of the Lord? Who is this servant of the Lord? It is the nation of Israel, or is it Jesus, Israel’s Messiah?
In order to answer this questions, we must see that the gospel writers interpret these prophecies from Isaiah as fulfilled in the messianic mission of Jesus. First, in Matthew 12:15-21, for example, when Jesus withdrew from the crowds who had followed him, Matthew reports that this event fulfilled what had been spoken in Isaiah the prophet. This event serves to demonstrate that Jesus is the true servant of the Lord.
Second, as Jesus cast out demons and healed the sick, Matthew saw in this the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecies of a suffering servant who would take upon himself our infirmities and carry our diseases (Matthew 8:17 with Isaiah 53:4).
Third, in Luke’s gospel, Luke speaks of both Israel (cf. Luke 1:54) and David as the servant of God (Luke 1:69). Yet in Acts, Luke pointedly speaks of Jesus as the servant of God (Acts 3:13). After his crucifixion, God raised Jesus from the dead so that people everywhere might be called to repentance (3:26).
Fourth, when the Ethiopian eunuch hears a reading from Isaiah 53:7-8 and asks Philip about whom this prophecy refers, Luke tells us that Philip informed the Ethiopian that this passage does indeed refer to Jesus (Acts 8:34-35).
But this is not all that is in view here. In Hosea 11:1, Hosea predicted a time when “Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” But in Matthew 2:15, the evangelist tells us that Hosea’s prophecy was fulfilled when his parents took Jesus to Egypt to protect him from Herod’s “slaughter of the innocents” (Matthew 2:3-18). Yet, after Herod had died, God called Jesus and his family to return to Nazareth. Matthew takes a passage from Hosea, which clearly refers to Israel, and tells his reader that this passage is now fulfilled in Jesus Christ! He does this to prove to his largely Jewish audience that Jesus is the servant of the Lord, foretold throughout the Old Testament (especially Isaiah).
By now it should be clear that according to many New Testament writers, Jesus is the true servant, the true son and the true Israel of God. Recall too that it was Isaiah who spoke of Israel and the descendants of Abraham as the people of God. It as through the seed of Abraham that the nations of the earth would be blessed.
Therefore, even as Jesus is the true Israel, he is the true seed of Abraham. This is the point that Paul is making in Galatians 3:7-8, when he says “know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, `In you shall all the nations be blessed.'”
Paul’s words here, are important for several reasons. First, Paul tells us that Abraham believed the very same gospel that he preached to the Gentile Galatians. There has only been one plan of salvation and one gospel from the very beginning. This, of course, raises very serious questions about the dispensational notion of “clearly distinct” redemptive purposes for national Israel and the Gentiles, as is evident when Paul goes on to say in Galatians 3:29, that “if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.”
Second, the one gospel promise from the very beginning of redemptive history is that the true children of Abraham, whether they be Jew or Gentile, are heirs of the promise, if they belong to Jesus Christ, the true seed of Abraham. But as Robert Strimple points out, an important word of clarification is certainly in order. “We [amillennarians] say: `Yes, the nation of Israel was the people of God in the old covenant. Now in the new covenant the believing church is the people of God.’ And thus we quickly run past (or we miss the blessed point entirely) the fact that we Christians are the Israel of God, Abraham’s seed, and the heirs to the promises, only because by faith, we are united to him who alone is the true Israel, Abraham’s one seed.” (See Strimple, “Amillennialism,” in Bock, ed., Three Views of the Millennium and Beyond, 89).
The ramifications for this upon one’s millennial view should now be obvious. If Jesus is the true Israel of God, and if the New Testament writers apply to Jesus those Old Testament prophecies referring to Israel as God’s son or servant, then what remains of the dispensationalist’s case that these prophecies remain yet to be fulfilled in a future millennium? They vanish in Jesus Christ, who has fulfilled them!
Instead of a serious debate, this can be reduced to poster's hurling "d.." or "rep..." a
be aware Lexi that some posters who think they were hot stuff have created their own individual religion of one, with two gospels, beliefs that God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are just modes of each other etc.
"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord.......for the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy" (2 Timothy 1:7-8,Rev 19:10)
This is the work of God,that ye believe on Him whom He has sent. Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall.We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts (John 6:29,John 13:19,2 Peter 1:10,2 Peter 1:19)
read post 28 - 12 gospels in the NT...
I'm sorry, but this incomplete reading of the Bible is utterly wrong philosophy, just as wrong as making a masonic ideal of Christianity by saying in post 22 "there are 3-5 hundred thousand Believers all over the world who understand the Gospel Jesus preached"
>Cant seem to find nivrauchu in my bible...Perhaps you could point it out...<
Restoration Scriptures...page 11 or http://yourarmstoisrael.org/The_Truth/THE_TRUTH_ABOUT_ALL_ISRAEL by Rabbi Moshe Koniuchowsky
“The LORD said also to me in the days of Josiah the king: “Have you seen what backsliding Israel has done? She has gone up on every high mountain and under every green tree, and there played the harlot. And I said, after she had done all these things, ‘Return to Me.’ But she did not return. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also. So it came to pass, through her casual harlotry, that she defiled the land and committed adultery with stones and trees. And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah has not turned to Me with her whole heart, but in pretense,” says the LORD.” (Jeremiah 3:6–10, NKJV)
As an outsider looking in -- question: why do guys on both sides of the divide persist in using the terms "dispensationalist" or "replacementarian"? From what I've read, if one takes the strict definition of the terms, hardly anyone fits them exactly.
"Dispensational" is their own term for themselves. It goes back quite a ways, at least to Clarance Larkin and the Scofield Reference Bible. Google it, go to Wikipedia.
"Replacement Theology" is their pejorative term for those that don't hold to the dispensationaists own unique views of the church and it's relation to Israel. The term has no meaning, outside their circles, and no one outside their circles talks that way.
"Replacementarian" is term coined by a Freerepublic dispensationalist*. Same old hooey, different day.
Instead of a serious debate, this can be reduced to poster's hurling "d.." or "rep..." aNot a lot of headway seems to be made.
*whom I will not ping. No good is likely to come of it.
What church do you belong to?
Just curious.
ok, thanks. I’m staying out of this, but I hope that we freepers can debate on this instead of fight.
“Dispensational” refers to the Bible term/word “oikonomos”-economy (literally). It’s a VERY Biblical word.
The fulcrum of dispensationalism is the distinction between Israel and the Church.
Israel = the unfaithful, whoring, divorced wife of God the Father. She will be restored to full status in the future.
The church = the unmarried, betrothed, Bride of Christ. The marriage has yet to take place.
I hope your beliefs don’t extend into British Israelism.
Just a thought.
How many does your religion tell you to claim there are and what is IT???
We have a home fellowship but are associated with the Messianic Israelite Alliance. The MIA is the umbrella association for thousands of Believers who understand the two Houses of Israel that were divided into the House of Judah and the House of Israel (1 Kings 11,12). Most prophetic scripture yet to be fulfilled is about the reuniting of both houses back to the Kingdom of Israel with Jesus, the son of God and fully God, reigning as Messiah over this Kingdom during he millennium.
So you believe in the restoration of Israel to God's Kingdom, but then the church replaced Israel as the church???
Others do not believe the Church has "replace" Israel. Rather the Church has been continuous throughout history with the believing Jews first and then the Gentiles grafted in later. This is the view that was held by the Church for over 1900 years.
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.