About Israel... How are Amils affected

[mikew]

I keep seeing instances where people say that the Church is Israel.

How are views such as Post-Mil and Amil or preterism (including full preterism) affected if it isn't true that the Church is Israel?

I am probing here to see if the idea of the Church being Israel would appear to be central to these eschatological views or whether those views would just have to be adjusted if such premise was wrong.

[steve]

In general, I think this question of whether "Israel" sometimes means the church is the central tenet in every eschatological system.

A dispensational premillennial view of most Old Testament prophecies presupposes that Israel always means ethnic Israel, and never means the church.

Both amillennialism and postmillennialism believe that Israel sometimes refers to the church, but, as near as I can tell, this view is more essential to amillennialism than to postmillennialism. I think it is pretty central to both.

Preterism (whether full or partial) is usually joined either to amillennialism or to postmillennialism, and thus makes many of the same assumptions about the meaning of Israel.

[SteveF]

When you use the word “Israel”, I’m going to assume you mean the true spiritual Israel in the same sense that Paul used it in Rom 9 “….For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,….”

One thing that comes to mind is the Kingdom passages mentioned in Isaiah. If the Church is not spiritual Israel then it's difficult for me to see how these passages can apply to the present Church age. Also, other passages like Jer 31:31-34 likely couldn’t apply to the current age either.

It seems if these passages needed to be understood differently by an Amil, it would alter their view significantly.

Is this topic a new consideration for you or do you have some thoughts about your own question?

FYI...Just so you know, my tendency is towards the Amil view but I’m not a flag waver. I’m more in the “if you ask me for my thoughts then I’ll share them with you” camp. I haven’t drawn any firm conclusions and still consider myself a student in the matter.

Hopefully this won’t digress into a discussion on whether the Church is spiritual Israel or not.

[mikew]

Thanks for getting this discussion going on the right track again.

In general, I think this question of whether "Israel" sometimes means the church is the central tenet in every eschatological system.

A dispensational premillennial view of most Old Testament prophecies presupposes that Israel always means ethnic Israel, and never means the church.

Both amillennialism and postmillennialism believe that Israel sometimes refers to the church, but, as near as I can tell, this view is more essential to amillennialism than to postmillennialism. I think it is pretty central to both.

Preterism (whether full or partial) is usually joined either to amillennialism or to postmillennialism, and thus makes many of the same assumptions about the meaning of Israel.

Are you saying "more essential to amillennialism" because there's a closer association of "kingdom" and "Israel" and Church" whereas for the post-mil view the kingdom would be seen as external to the Church?

[mikew]

When you use the word “Israel”, I’m going to assume you mean the true spiritual Israel in the same sense that Paul used it in Rom 9 “….For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,….”

Hmm. Paul's use of the word "Israel" really is the topic I'm analyzing in a separate writing. The question in this forum then is to answer a curiosity on the role of the idea of "Church as Israel" on Eschatological views.

One thing that comes to mind is the Kingdom passages mentioned in Isaiah. If the Church is not spiritual Israel then it's difficult for me to see how these passages can apply to the present Church age. Also, other passages like Jer 31:31-34 likely couldn’t apply to the current age either.

It seems then that you essentially equate Church, kingdom of God and Israel. I see these as three different topics. Now the passage in Jeremiah will be interesting for me to think about. My first impression would be that the Jeremiah passage applied to saved Jews in the first century.

It seems if these passages needed to be understood differently by an Amil, it would alter their view significantly.

I'm starting to see why. But if you look at verses that specifically talk about Israel, are there any of these verses that have a critical role influencing the amillennial view?

Is this topic a new consideration for you or do you have some thoughts about your own question?

I was asking about something I didn't have an answer for.

FYI...Just so you know, my tendency is towards the Amil view but I’m not a flag waver. I’m more in the “if you ask me for my thoughts then I’ll share them with you” camp. I haven’t drawn any firm conclusions and still consider myself a student in the matter.

Hopefully this won’t digress into a discussion on whether the Church is spiritual Israel or not.

Regarding Eschatology, I'm in my own tent in the wilderness. It is somewhere between partial and full preterism with an expectancy for the resurrection of the Last Day.

[mtymousie]

I keep seeing instances where people say that the Church is Israel.

How are views such as Post-Mil and Amil or preterism (including full preterism) affected if it isn't true that the Church is Israel?

I am probing here to see if the idea of the Church being Israel would appear to be central to these eschatological views or whether those views would just have to be adjusted if such premise was wrong.

I guess what confuses me about your question is the phrase "if it isn't true" so I really am not sure how to answer. But I will try.

The letter to the Galatians is clear that "Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all" and "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

Ergo, the idea that the Church is Israel is in perfect harmony with preterism which recognizes that the everlasting kingdom of God is alive and well.

Hopefully, that response did not send the thread off in a direction you did not want to go.

preteristmouse

[steve]

Are you saying "more essential to amillennialism" because there's a closer association of "kingdom" and "Israel" and Church" whereas for the post-mil view the kingdom would be seen as external to the Church?

I am saying that amillennialism is essentially the same thing as equating the church with the true Israel. This is also the case with postmillennialism, though I do not know that this would have to be true to the same extent—because postmillennialists also have historically believed in the future salvation of all ethnic Israel (though not the restoration of the State of Israel in the Holy Land). Because of this, there would be a possibility of a postmillennialist taking Israel in an ethnic sense in certain passages assigned to a future salvation.

However, postmillennialism, like every eschatology that takes Paul seriously, would have to see the church as the referent in many Old Testament passages about "Israel."

[mikew]

I guess what confuses me about your question is the phrase "if it isn't true" so I really am not sure how to answer. But I will try.

The letter to the Galatians is clear that "Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all" and "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

Ergo, the idea that the Church is Israel is in perfect harmony with preterism which recognizes that the everlasting kingdom of God is alive and well.
Hopefully, that response did not send the thread off in a direction you did not want to go.
preteristmouse

well. your answer was an attempt to negate the question. Its ok toward the goal of answering the question though. But what I lacked seeing in you quote above was a reference to Israel. I saw one to Jerusalem (the new one) and to Abraham, but not to Israel.

I can see from your quoted verse that the Church is New Jerusalem and that the believers are children of Abraham. But is there any problem doctrinally or functionally if the Church is not shown to be Israel?

[steve]

It is difficult to speak to your question without addressing the underlying one: "Is the church Israel?" While I know this is not your question, it seems to some of us to be so obvious from scripture, that it feels impossible to say more about your actual question (beyond what has already been said, as in my first post) without spilling over into consideration of the biblical foundation for this premise (as mtymousie has done).

That Paul equated the church with Israel in his olive tree illustration (Rom.11) is quite in keeping with his speaking of the church as "children of Abraham" and "the Jerusalem that is above." Many of Paul's quotations from the Old Testament can not make any sense unless he is applying the term "Israel" to the church. To most Christians throughout history, this has seemed fundamental to the whole New Testament message.

To ask a question about how much a particular eschatological system may depend upon this fundamental premise (as if to hint that the system may be compromised if only we can show that the church is not Israel) strikes me as similar to asking, "How much does the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement rely upon the assumption that Jesus died on the cross?"—as if to imply that all we need to do to disprove limited atonement is to show that the Bible does not teach that Jesus died on the cross!

Of course, all Christian views of the atonement depend upon the belief that Jesus died upon the cross, but the fact of Jesus dying on the cross is so fundamental to all Christian belief that to suggest that it might not be true would naturally distract respondents from the other question of its relation to the doctrine of limited atonement.

I am wondering what more you are asking in this thread. You asked a basic question, and I believe it was answered immediately. When other respondents took up the question of whether the church is Israel, they were not "negating" your question, but assuming that it had been answered, and moving on to discuss corollaries to the issue raised. Are you asking for further answers to your initial question?

[mikew]

The concept of the Church as being Israel is something that has not be part of my manner of thinking. But this concept has been discussed on various Eschatological issues, so I assumed that people saw the concept as a matter of end-time prophecy not of doctrine foundational to Christianity.

In a sense the question of my original OP was like asking a stereotypical atheist, "Is the understanding of the workings of the human body the same even if macro evolution is proven false?" Or I might want to ask about Chemistry, "Are chemical reactions less predictable if evolutionary theory were invalid?"

But in reality my question wasn't expected or intended to be confrontational or otherwise harsh.

= = = =
I really didn't want to give piecemeal discussion on a broader subject, on whether the Church is Israel, and I didn't want the question to focus on the idea about such broader topic, but the following thoughts are just to quickly show what I was considering.

One concept repeated twice is that of being "children of Abraham" and being "the Jerusalem from above."
Both phrases have connotations distinct from being about Israel.

One reason that Paul would speak about believers as "children of Abraham" would be to focus on the promises given to Abraham and the fulfillment of such promises. In selecting "children of Abraham" rather than "children of Israel" is that Paul didn't want the Gentiles to follow the Law. So an emphasis on being "children of Israel" -- if used instead of mention of Abraham -- would more likely give credence to those Gentiles who wanted to follow the Law of Moses.
Maybe its a little clearer to say that with Abraham came the promise through faith but through Israel came the Law.

Now speaking with a bit more speculation the city Jerusalem represents the place of God's presence (among other things). This also would be the place of His temple. So this city, as the Church, exists in a spiritual sense (maybe as hidden or as metaphor) and basically is inhabited by God's people -- who may or may not be called "Israel."

These different terms then appear to have different applications, not being mere synonyms.
Now if there were a verse saying "you who are Israel, the Church, being children of Abraham" I would immediately acknowledge these as having the same meaning -- well maybe I'm not always so quick. Otherwise, I would only make that connection based on less obvious verses from scripture.

I kind of don't think a question about connection of "Israel" and "Church" would make us think that the Church is anything less than what we perceived before.

But I'm not asking the question about the meaning of Israel yet.
= = =

Another way of asking the question in the OP would be, "What are some example passages that clearly speak of Israel, by name or context (not of Abraham, not of Jerusalem) that have to be fulfilled (or have to be explained regarding their fulfillment)?