Two-peoples-and-two-meanings theology

[Interplanner]

This thread will be posted at Dispensationalism as well.

Those who believe there are two peoples of God will inevitably end up with a very different idea of "Eschatology--Endtimes & Prophecy". They see about 10,000 feet of concrete between the two, so that whatever took place at the coming of the Gospel has nothing to do with the other group of people. In fact, a full-blown restoration or return to the other group never does, or needs to, show up in Acts, in NT letters, in any of the MO of the apostles; it's "just there." It doesn't matter what NT passages say about promises to the other people, God doesn't "change," so any passage at all from the OT has to happen, no matter what the NT says.

Parallel to this is the "two meanings" of Mt 24 &//s (Mk 13, Lk 19&21). Becasue of the two peoples, it is absolutely clear to these good people that Jesus was perfectly normal in giving the most scattered of explanations. Utterly urgent warnings...for people thousands of years in the future! Why, of course. Wasn't he that schitzophrenic all through his ministry? How could I have missed it? No, I think he was completely coherent about the events that would take place in that generation, with a bit of an echo that if something would happen in the distant future it would at least copy or replicate what was described:

a pretend 'messianic' antichrist(s),
a failed messianic war for the land of Judea,
Sabbath (ie Mosaic law) police making many miserable...etc

A person needs to sort out:
1, whether the NT is the authoritative statement about the two peoples in Eph 2-3 etc (as opposed to popular prophecy teachers now), and
2, where he goes with #1 into prophecy. They don't go to the same place. Why would the plainly stated doctrinal passages of the NT never mention anything in the future for Israel--I mean not even the slightest 'need' for any prophecy to be fulfilled--in their treatments of the promises, shape, destiny, history and conclusion of Israel's role in the arrival of the redemption that is in Christ Jesus?

Whenever I hear that 2nd century church fathers wrote about Revelation like the popular prophecy teachers of today, I have to place this beside the remark I hear all the time from 'messianic' friends: that shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem, the church immersed in anti-semitism (as though the destruction of Jerusalem was the only statement by God about such things). Both cannot be true, and both have lost their grip, as far as I can tell.

--Inter

 

[Biblewriter]

A person needs to sort out:
1, whether the NT is the authoritative statement about the two peoples in Eph 2-3 etc (as opposed to popular prophecy teachers now), and
2, where he goes with #1 into prophecy. They don't go to the same place. Why would the plainly stated doctrinal passages of the NT never mention anything in the future for Israel--I mean not even the slightest 'need' for any prophecy to be fulfilled--in their treatments of the promises, shape, destiny, history and conclusion of Israel's role in the arrival of the redemption that is in Christ Jesus?

Whenever I hear that 2nd century church fathers wrote about Revelation like the popular prophecy teachers of today, I have to place this beside the remark I hear all the time from 'messianic' friends: that shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem, the church immersed in anti-semitism (as though the destruction of Jerusalem was the only statement by God about such things). Both cannot be true, and both have lost their grip, as far as I can tell.

--Inter

The entire Bible is authoritative. All of it. Not just the New Testament.

The portion of your statement that I have highlighted in boldface is simply not true. Your interpretation of these passages completely leaves out any mention of a future blessing for Israel. But their wording does not. (see-for instance, Romans 11:26) You are using your interpretation of the meanings of a few New Testament passages as an excuse to pretend that about half of the Old testament is simply not true. But your interpretation of the meanings of these passages is not the only legitimate interpretation of their meanings.

You have forgotten the most important single rule in interpreting scripture. That rule is that if a proposed interpretation of the meaning of any passage of scripture conflicts with the explicit statement of any other passage of scripture, the proposed interpretation is incorrect.

 

[Clare73]

This thread will be posted at Dispensationalism as well.

And so will my response following it.

Those who believe there are two peoples of God will inevitably end up with a very different idea of "Eschatology--Endtimes & Prophecy". They see about 10,000 feet of concrete between the two, so that whatever took place at the coming of the Gospel has nothing to do with the other group of people. In fact, a full-blown restoration or return to the other group never does, or needs to, show up in Acts, in NT letters, in any of the MO of the apostles; it's "just there." It doesn't matter what NT passages say about promises to the other people, God doesn't "change," so any passage at all from the OT has to happen, no matter what the NT says.

Parallel to this is the "two meanings" of Mt 24 &//s (Mk 13, Lk 19&21). Becasue of the two peoples, it is absolutely clear to these good people that Jesus was perfectly normal in giving the most scattered of explanations. Utterly urgent warnings...for people thousands of years in the future! Why, of course. Wasn't he that schitzophrenic all through his ministry? How could I have missed it? No, I think he was completely coherent about the events that would take place in that generation, with a bit of an echo that if something would happen in the distant future it would at least copy or replicate what was described:

a pretend 'messianic' antichrist(s),
a failed messianic war for the land of Judea,
Sabbath (ie Mosaic law) police making many miserable...etc

A person needs to sort out:
1, whether the NT is the authoritative statement about the two peoples in Eph 2-3 etc (as opposed to popular prophecy teachers now), and
2, where he goes with #1 into prophecy. They don't go to the same place. Why would the plainly stated doctrinal passages of the NT never mention anything in the future for Israel--I mean not even the slightest 'need' for any prophecy to be fulfilled--in their treatments of the promises, shape, destiny, history and conclusion of Israel's role in the arrival of the redemption that is in Christ Jesus?

Whenever I hear that 2nd century church fathers wrote about Revelation like the popular prophecy teachers of today, I have to place this beside the remark I hear all the time from 'messianic' friends: that shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem, the church immersed in anti-semitism (as though the destruction of Jerusalem was the only statement by God about such things). Both cannot be true, and both have lost their grip, as far as I can tell.

--Inter

The "two peoples" is driven by several things:

1) its agreement with man's own fancy

2) its origin in Jewish apocalytic sources, revived between 160 and 250 A.D., which made its way into the Church during the third century.

It was not a teaching of the Church during the Apostolic age, ending with the year 150 A.D. (at the passing of those personally taught by the apostles). Likewise, the early Christian creeds, which were statements of apostolic teaching, do not contain a future earthly Messianic kingdom in a restoration of Israel. The Apostles' and the Nicene Creeds leave no room for it between Christ's ascension and the final judgment, nor did Christ (Mt 24:14). And the Athanasian Creed teaches final judgment and eternity at the second coming of Christ.

3) the desire of "people #1" to maintain a precedency and supercedency as God's favored people, with a special dispensation apart from and outside the Church, the bride of Christ (contrary to Jn 10:16)

4) misinterpretation of prophecy that Israel has a future apart from and outside the Church (contrary to Ro 11:15-24, esp. v.23; Heb 11:39-40, 12:22-23; Rev 21:9-14, 22:15) and

5) the insistence that unbelieving Jews who reject the NT for the OT are still God's people (contrary to Lk 10:16, 19:27; Jn 3:18b, 36; Gal 4:24-40)

This un-Biblical notion undermines Christian doctrine in several ways:

1) It shifts the focus, emphasis and purpose of God from the excellency of his plan in Christ Jesus and his body the Church, comprised of both Jew and Gentile, to the supposed excellency of his plan for a future restoration of Israel.

2) It removes Jesus from the center of God's plan for all history and time, and replaces him with Israel.

3) It sees the promise to Abraham of Ge 12:3, to be a blessing to all nations, as being fulfilled in a future restoration of Israel, rather than in the promised seed (Ge 3:15), Jesus Christ!

4) It diminishes the doctrine of Christ by captivating minds, focus, attention, interest, conversation, anticipation, orientation with a sensational future of Israel.

In practical effect, the doctrine of Christ has become a stepsister to the sensational future of Israel.

In the faith,
Clare

 

[Clare73]

The entire Bible is authoritative. All of it. Not just the New Testament.

The portion of your statement that I have highlighted in boldface is simply not true. Your interpretation of these passages completely leaves out any mention of a future blessing for Israel. But their wording does not. (see-for instance, Romans 11:26) You are using your interpretation of the meanings of a few New Testament passages as an excuse to pretend that about half of the Old testament is simply not true. But your interpretation of the meanings of these passages is not the only legitimate interpretation of their meanings.

You have forgotten the most important single rule in interpreting scripture. That rule is that if a proposed interpretation of the meaning of any passage of scripture conflicts with the explicit statement of any other passage of scripture, the proposed interpretation is incorrect.

Hi, Biblewriter,

Not quite.

Both passages can be explicit statements. You are setting Scripture against itself.

The letter to the Hebrews establishes the superiority of the revelation by the Son over the revelation by the prophets.

Heb 1:1-2 - "In the past
God spoke to our forefathers
through the prophets
at many times and various places (fragmentary and occasional, lacking fullness and finality),

but in these last days
he has spoken to us
by his Son,
whom he appointed heir of all things (God's estate),
and through whom he made the universe." (see Col 1:16-18)

All the fullness of God dwells in Jesus (Col 1:19), not in the OT writers (prophets).

And what that means is: the revelation through the prophets of the past
(OT writers are here viewed as prophets in that their testimony was preparation for the coming of Christ),
is to be understood in the light of the revelation by the Son in these last days, which is the NT.

So Heb 1:1-2 does not set Scripture against itself,
rather it establishes that the OT is to be understood in the light of the NT.

In the faith,
Clare

 

[Biblewriter]

Hi, Biblewriter,

Not quite.

Both passages can be explicit statements. You are setting Scripture against itself.

You could not be further from the facts. Amils are the ones who commit this crime. And yes, it is a crime, spiritually speaking. I am setting all scripture on an equal footing, for it all comes from the same God.

The letter to the Hebrews establishes the superiority of the revelation by the Son over the revelation by the prophets.

Heb 1:1-2 - "In the past
God spoke to our forefathers
at many times and various places (fragmentary and occasional, lacking fullness and finality),

but in these last days
he has spoken to us
by his Son,
whom he appointed heir of all things (God's estate),
and through whom he made the universe." (see Col 1:16-18)

Here, plainly and for all to see, you are doing exactly what you falsely accuse me of doing.

All the fullness of God dwells in Jesus (Col 1:19), not in the OT writers (prophets).

And what that means is: the revelation of the prophets in the past
(OT writers are here viewed as prophets in that their testimony was preparation for the coming of Christ),
is to be understood in the light of the revelation of the Son in these last days, which is the NT.

So Heb 1:1-2 does not set Scripture against itself,
rather it establishes that the OT is to be understood in the light of the NT.

In the faith,
Clare

Rather, all scripture is to be understood in the light of all scripture. The principle could not be more simple.

 

[Clare73]

You could not be further from the facts. Amils are the ones who commit this crime.

Now you know this is irrelevant to the truth of Scripture.

And yes, it is a crime, spiritually speaking. I am setting all scripture on an equal footing, for it all comes from the same God.

And that God reveals in Heb 1:1-2 that all Scripture is not all on the same footing, but that the revelation through the prophets in the past is to be understood in the light of the revelation by the Son in these last days of the NT.

Here, plainly and for all to see, you are doing exactly what you falsely accuse me of doing.

I am doing what the word of God directs me to do in Heb 1:1-2.
I am understanding the OT revelation through the prophets in the light of the NT revelation by the Son.

Rather, all scripture is to be understood in the light of all scripture. The principle could not be more simple.

And again, you know that simplicity is irrelevant to the truth of Scripture.

Your principle may be logical to the mind of man, but it is not God's principle.

For example, in the OT God established the priesthood in the order of Aaron of the tribe of Levi.

But the NT reveals the priesthood is in the order of Melchizedek, who is not of the tribe of Levi.

Both are specific statements "contradicting" one another.

Or, God made the Sinaitic (Old) Covenant with God's people, Israel.
But the NT reveals that the Sinaitic (Old) Covenant is now obsolete (Heb 8:13),
and God has made a New Covenant (Lk 22:20) with his people (the seed of Abraham through Jacob,
who receive all God's promises--Gal 3:29) in the blood of Christ (Heb 8:6-12),
of which New Covenant Christ is the new mediator, replacing Moses as mediator.

Both are specific revelations "contradicting" one another,
Sinaitic (Old) Covenant made vs. Sinaitic (Old) Covenant obsolete.

However, none of these revelations "contradict" one another when God's principle of Heb 1:1-2 is used,
that they are to be understood in the light of the NT.

God does not place all Scripture on "equal footing" (rather he places all believers, Jew and Gentile, on equal footing),
he has directed that revelation through the prophets of old be understood in the light of the revelation by the Son in these last days of the NT (Heb 1:1-2).

In the faith,
Clare

 

[Clare73]

Following is also from the Dispensationalism thread, to keep it all in one place.

The "two peoples" is driven by several things:

1) its agreement with man's own fancy

It fills half the Old testament.

Hi, Biblewriter,

But we're talking about unfulfilled symbolic prophecy, right?
And that's a problem.

Nu 12:6-8 - When God was reprimanding Aaron and Miriam for criticizing Moses, he demonstrated Moses' superiority to them with the fact that when God spoke to other prophets, he spoke to them indirectly, in visions and dreams, but when he spoke to Moses, he spoke to him directly, face-to-face, and clearly, not in riddles (dark sayings, dark speeches).

But note how God describes the nature of prophecy. He gives it in riddles, to everyone but Moses.
And the track record of God's people in correctly interpreting unfulfilled symbolic prophecy given in riddles is dismal,
at best, going all the way back to Christ, where the Jews interpreted prophecy to mean he would deliver them
from Roman rule and set up an earthly kingdom. Nor has their track record improved since then.

So the problem with "two peoples" is that it is taken from a lot of unfulfilled symbolic prophecy given in riddles, which is being interpreted literally to arrive at the "two peoples."
That's a recipe for error, and why "two peoples" is not presented anywhere in the NT, and is contrary to Ro 11:23.

2) its origin in Jewish apocalytic sources, revived between 160 and 250 A.D., which made its way into writings in the Church during the third century (around 250 A.D.).

It was not a teaching of the Church during the Apostolic age, ending with the year 150 A.D. (at the passing of those personally taught by the apostles).

This is simply incorrect. It was taught in the very oldest Christian writings on the subject that we know about.

Is what I said in disagreement with that?

Likewise, the early Christian creeds, which were statements of apostolic teaching, do not contain a future earthly Messianic kingdom in a restoration of Israel. The Apostles' and the Nicene Creeds leave no room for it between Christ's ascension and the final judgment, nor did Christ (Mt 24:14). And the Athanasian Creed teaches final judgment and eternity at the second coming of Christ.

3) the desire of "people #1" to maintain precedency and supercedency as God's favored people, with a special dispensation apart from and outside the Church, the bride of Christ (contrary to Jn 10:16).

4) misinterpretation of prophecy that Israel has a future apart from and outside the Church (contrary to Ro 11:15-24, esp. v.23; Heb 11:39-40, 12:22-23; Rev 21:9-14, 22:15) and

5) the insistence that unbelieving Jews who reject the NT for the OT are still God's people (contrary to Lk 10:16, 19:27; Jn 3:18b, 36; Gal 4:24-40)

This is not taught by even one main line dispensationaist.

There are many who maintain that unbelieving Israel is God's people, apart from Christ.

This un-Biblical notion undermines Christian doctrine in several ways:

1) It shifts the focus, emphasis and purpose of God from the excellency of his plan in Christ Jesus and his body the Church, comprised of both Jew and Gentile, to the supposed excellency of his plan for a future restoration of Israel.

2) It removes Jesus from the center of God's plan for all history and time, and replaces him with Israel.

This is nonsense. we see Jesus as the great deliverer iof Israel, just as He is the great deliverer of the church.

But isn't Jesus much more to the Church than just the great deliverer?

God's purpose is to bring all things in creation under one head, Christ,
to sum up all things (promises, blessings, provision, graces, etc.) in Christ (Eph 1:9-10; Col 1:16; Php 4:19).

All the promises of God, no matter what they were, are contained and fulfilled in Christ (2Co 1:20);
God has shut up all promises in Christ just as he has shut up all men in sin (Ro 3:19, 11:32),
[he has made it really simple: all mankind is hopeless, there is only one remedy]

that in all things Christ may have the supremacy (Col 1:18; Rev 22:13).

Christ is head over (governs) everything for the sake of the Church (Eph 1:22, 5:23), his people (see Mic 5; Pr 13:22, 21:18; Eccl 2:26).

The Church is Christ's body (Col 1:24; 1Co 12:27; Eph 1:11-14), none of his elect are outside it.

The Church is Christ's Bride (Eph 5:25-27, 31-32; Rev 19:7-8).

The Church is Christ's fullness (completion) (Eph 1:23), for
Christ is King, and he must have a kingdom, in our hearts (Lk 17:20-21; Jn 18:36), the Church,
Christ is Bridegroom, and he must have a bride (Eph 5:25-27), the Church.

So Christ is so much more to the Church, in addition to the great deliverer.

And how much of that do you hear in dispensationalism. . .and in a lot of the church today?
The doctrine of Jesus as the whole purpose and center of God's plan for all history and time is now a stepsister
to the sensational future restoration of Israel.

"Restoration" in the NT is the restoration of the original creation in the new creation (Ac 3:21; Mt 17:11, 19:28 w/ 1Co 6:2-3; Eph 1:9-10), it is not a restoration of Israel.
Israel was restored upon their return from exile in Babylon (Ne 12:43), and is a prophetic type
of the restoration of all creation in the NT (2Co 5:17; Gal 6:15).

The "fulfillment of the ages" is in the Church (1Co 10:11), not in a future restoration of Israel.
Again, this notion removes Jesus Christ from the center of God's plan and replaces him with Israel.

3) It sees the promise to Abraham of Ge 12:3, to be a blessing to all nations, as being fulfilled in a future restoration of Israel, rather than in the promised seed (Ge 3:15), Jesus Christ!

No, it sees the future blessing of Israel through the promise seed, which is Jesus Christ.

You seem to be acquainted with a better form of dispensationalism than is held by many.

There are many who maintain that unbelieving Israel (who denies Christ) is the people of God.
They maintain unbelieving Israel are the people of God apart from Christ.

God has no people apart from Christ.
Unbelieving Israel has been cut off from the one olive tree of God's people (Ro 11:17), and will remain so until they come to faith in Jesus, the Christ (Ro 11:23).
Israel is on the same footing as the rest of mankind; i.e., entry into the people of God is only by faith in Jesus Christ.

4) It diminishes the doctrine of Christ by captivating minds, focus, attention, interest, conversation, anticipation, orientation with a sensational future of Israel.

In practical effect, the doctrine of Christ has become a stepsister to the sensational future of Israel.

I would advise you to lean a little about what we teach before you try to disprove what we say.

Do you feel you have pretty good knowledge of what others believe in this regard?

In the faith,
Clare

 

[Interplanner]

re Rom 11:26. I think my 2nd post on this used this as the illusration of the mindset of Rom 9-11 which is not future at all. All passages quoted are used to explain what is happening currently as Gentiles believe and Jews mostly fail to. 11:26 is governed by the verses following which have the most overlooked component: the 3 nows. The 3 nows tell us when Paul saw his 'argument,' or rather God's, settled, which is Paul's present (the 5th decade but refering to the historic incoming of Gentiles), like the great wrap up of Rom 16 says. (The divine order). Of course, the language was future to the prophet, but once it happens historically, and is quoted, it is about something that has happened; the Greek tense is aorist.

Whether we have the NT interpret the OT is precisely the issue of 1st century Judaism. I hope all of us here will end up in with the apostles on that!

The two peoples message cannot survive a reading of Eph. 2-3 (or one might as well go on to 4 with its 7 "ones"). The thing which the apostles could not figure out about the OT was how Gentiles would come in. That is the mystery. It is no longer a mystery, because entry is no longer by birth, or ritual, or location, or works, but by Christ's work alone, // to Jn 1.

As I have been saying elsewhere, I'm completely prepared to allow that Mt 24 & //s have a future dimension to them, provided it is a replication of what happened in the 6th decade, ie, with the features listed above, which is what it refered to as Lk 21 so precisely says. But the future dimension would be a matter of Judaism repeating a mistake. There is no expectation (or need for one) of a future restored Israel. We belong to a Christocentric faith, and those parts of Abrahams promises that are geographic were fulfilled. Or actually not the intended fulfillment as Heb 11 says; 'better things were meant so that only along with us would (the ancient people) be blessed'

I do hope modern Israel as a representative and constitutional government stands as a light to its dictatorial neighbors. They need it!

--Inter

 

[Douggg]

God has no people apart from Christ.
Unbelieving Israel has been cut off from the one olive tree of God's people (Ro 11:17), and will remain so until they come to faith in Jesus, the Christ (Ro 11:23).
Israel is on the same footing as the rest of mankind; i.e., entry into the people of God is only by faith in Jesus Christ.

Israel is a nation, not an individual person. As a national people, God had made an everlasting covenant with them - which was never a covenant for eternal life - regarding the land and prosperity.

The Jews, the majority, up to the present time, have rejected Jesus - who is the covenant for eternal life. Regarding everlasting life, everyone is judged on an individual basis, Jews included.

Separate from the issue of eternal life, God has not rejected Israel as a nation, regarding the land and prosperity. And based on the promises God made to Abraham, Issaac, and Jacob, Israel represents that God keeps his faithfulness, for all the other nations to see. (Does God withdraw his salvation when a Christian commits a sin?)

Eventually, the Jews, making up the nation of Israel, will embrace Jesus as their savior for eternal life.


Doug

 

[Clare73]

Israel is a nation, not an individual person. As a national people, God had made an everlasting covenant with them - which was never a covenant for eternal life - regarding the land and prosperity.

But if you check out 1Kgs 4:21, 24-25 (cf 2Sa 8:3), you will find that the land promise (Ge 15:18-21; Ex 23:31; Dt 1:7, 11:24; Josh 1:4) was fulfilled under Solomon.

The problem is that, in addition to their seed, God promised the land to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob, individually and personally (Ge 17:8, 26:3, 35:12), but none of the three patriarchs ever possessed a foot of ground there (Ac 7:5);
so God did not keep his promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

It is only in the light of Heb 11:8-16 that we learn God did keep his promise of everlasting land to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, personally, even though they never possessed Canaan (Heb 11:13, 39); because the promise of everlasting land was really a promise of everlasting life (Heb 11:10), not a promise of everlasting dirt (Heb 11:9).

That country of their own (Heb 11:14), in contrast to Canaan, the country not their own (Ge 15:13),
that better country (Heb 11:16), in contrast to Canaan, the country of three famines (Ge 12:10, 26:1, 41:54),
that country of hope and promise (Heb 11:13), was the heavenly country (Heb 11:16), not the earthly country of Canaan.
The everlasting title (Ge 13:15; Jer 25:5) was to heavenly land (Heb 11:10, 16), not to earthly land.

So the promise of earthly land was fulfilled under Solomon (1Kgs 4:21, 24-25), and
the promise of heavenly land was fulfilled at their deaths.

For in the light of Heb 11:8-16, the promise of "everlasting land" to the seed of Abraham is really two promises:
"land" - a promise of the possession of Canaan by Israel (as a type of eternal life on earth),
which promise has been fulfilled; and

"everlasting" - a promise of eternal life in heaven forever,
which promise is being fullfilled to God's people who have passed.

So the earthy land promise is fulfilled, and the heavenly land promise is being fulfilled as we speak.

The Jews, the majority, up to the present time, have rejected Jesus - who is the covenant for eternal life. Regarding everlasting life, everyone is judged on an individual basis, Jews included.

Separate from the issue of eternal life, God has not rejected Israel as a nation, regarding the land and prosperity. And based on the promises God made to Abraham, Issaac, and Jacob, Israel represents that God keeps his faithfulness, for all the other nations to see.

And God has kept his faithfulness, by fulfilling the earthly land promise under Solomon (1Kgs 4:21, 24-25),
and by fulfilling the heavnely land promise (Heb 11:10, 16) to his people, the seed of Abraham (Gal 3:29), who have passed.

The only land promises remaining are those to the Church (Ps 37:29; Mt 5:5; Ro 4:13; 2Pe 3:10, 13; Rev 21:4-7),
who are believing Jews and Gentiles, and of which the promise of Canaan was a type (Josh 24:13).

God has shut up all promises in Christ (2Co 1:20; Gal 3:16), just as he shut up all promises in Isaac (Ro 9:6-9).
Only the son of Sarah (the new covenant) inherits the promise (Gal 4:30).

In the faith,
Clare

 

[Douggg]

And God has kept his faithfulness, by fulfilling the earthly land promise under Solomon (1Kgs 4:21, 24-25),
and by fulfilling the heavnely land promise (Heb 11:10, 16) to his people, the seed of Abraham (Gal 3:29), who have passed.

The only land promises remaining are those to the Church (Ps 37:29; Mt 5:5; Ro 4:13; 2Pe 3:10, 13; Rev 21:4-7),
who are believing Jews and Gentiles, and of which the promise of Canaan was a type (Josh 24:13).

Ezekiel lived 300 years after Solomon. Ezekiel 48 gives the future boundaries of each of the 12 tribes of Israel.

In the parable of the fig tree in Matthew 24, what do you think is the fig tree?

In Matthew 23:, Jesus said...

37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

In order for that prophecy to be fulfilled, Jerusalem has to be in the hands of the Jews again. Israel is the fig tree and Jerusalem was recaptured by the Jews in 1967, the generation that will not pass without Jesus's return.

The present boundaries of Israel, and the allocation of the land according to the 12 tribes, in Ezekiel 48 is still future. Nothing to do with Solomon.


Doug

 

[ebedmelech]

There are no "two peoples" of God. Those who espouse such are simply going against the scripture as Christ,in the sacrificial death,"broke down the middle wall".

You start with Romans 2 where Paul emphatically states this:
Romans 2:27-29:
27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law?
28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.
29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

From the cross Israel becomes a spiritual entity that identifies every believer.

This is very consistent throughout scripture! Romans 9, 10, & 11 make the point very clear that Jews and Gentiles are "one olive tree".

Paul says it clearly in Galatians when he says:
Gal 2:26-29:
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.

And again:
Gal 6:15, 16:
15 For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.
16 And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

The only Israel God is concerned with is "The Israel of God!!!

He say's it very clearly in Ephesians 2:13-18
13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
14For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,
15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,
16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.
17 And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near;
18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father.

There is no amount of reasoning to overcome the fact that we are all one in Christ! There is one people of God!

 

[Interplanner]

Doug what major doctrinal chapter of Paul would have me read to come to your conclusion? I simply cannot find what you are saying in NT materials.

--Inter

 

[Douggg]

Doug what major doctrinal chapter of Paul would have me read to come to your conclusion? I simply cannot find what you are saying in NT materials.

--Inter

I can't find any doctrinal chapter of Paul that cancels Ezekiel 48 (I know that is not the way you packaged your question). And I see no reason to look for one, given the prominence the nation of Israel has in end times bible prophecy.

The whole argument being presented by those sympathetic or sharing your position is centered around the selective uses of phrases "people of God", "God's people", which, used out of context, can be shaped to deny Israel as being a chosen nation among the nations through which God uses to reveal His power and glory to the world - in addition to, the saved, which are of many nations. And Israel being a factor in His progressive prosecution of Satan, which, quiet frankly,is the bigger picture being overlooked in your argument.

When using the phrase "God's people", technically speaking, one could similarly misuse Psalms 24:1 The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.

Psalms 24:1 indicates that all of the people of the world belong to God. Everyone is God's people, in the sense that he owns everyone. Yet, we know that all are not saved.

Similarly, Israel being God's chosen people, as a chosen nation, does not mean that individual Jews are saved because of it.


Doug

 

[Biblewriter]

Now you know this is irrelevant to the truth of Scripture.


And that God reveals in Heb 1:1-2 that all Scripture is not all on the same footing, but that the revelation through the prophets in the past is to be understood in the light of the revelation by the Son in these last days of the NT.


I am doing what the word of God directs me to do in Heb 1:1-2.
I am understanding the OT revelation through the prophets in the light of the NT revelation by the Son.

Neither the passage you quoted nor any other scripture even suggests that any scripture takes precedence over any other. This is simply an interpretation on your part, and it is explicitly contrary to 2 Timothy 3:16-217, which says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

And again, you know that simplicity is irrelevant to the truth of Scripture.

Your principle may be logical to the mind of man, but it is not God's principle.

For example, in the OT God established the priesthood in the order of Aaron of the tribe of Levi.

But the NT reveals the priesthood is in the order of Melchizedek, who is not of the tribe of Levi.

Both are specific statements "contradicting" one another.

No there is no contradiction here at all. The Old Testament clearly stated that another priesthood was coming. It came in Jesus.

Or, God made the Sinaitic (Old) Covenant with God's people, Israel.
But the NT reveals that the Sinaitic (Old) Covenant is now obsolete (Heb 8:13),
and God has made a New Covenant (Lk 22:20) with his people (the seed of Abraham through Jacob,
who receive all God's promises--Gal 3:29) in the blood of Christ (Heb 8:6-12),
of which New Covenant Christ is the new mediator, replacing Moses as mediator.

You are forgetting that this new covenant was explicitly promised in the Old Testament.

Both are specific revelations "contradicting" one another,
Sinaitic (Old) Covenant made vs. Sinaitic (Old) Covenant obsolete.

However, none of these revelations "contradict" one another when God's principle of Heb 1:1-2 is used,
that they are to be understood in the light of the NT.

God does not place all Scripture on "equal footing" (rather he places all believers, Jew and Gentile, on equal footing),
he has directed that revelation through the prophets of old be understood in the light of the revelation by the Son in these last days of the NT (Heb 1:1-2).

In the faith,
Clare

I find it astounding that, after falsely accusing us of putting one scripture above another, you then proceed to do exactly that.

 

[Clare73]

Ezekiel lived 300 years after Solomon. Ezekiel 48 gives the future boundaries of each of the 12 tribes of Israel.

In the parable of the fig tree in Matthew 24, what do you think is the fig tree?

In Matthew 23:, Jesus said...

37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

In order for that prophecy to be fulfilled, Jerusalem has to be in the hands of the Jews again. Israel is the fig tree and Jerusalem was recaptured by the Jews in 1967, the generation that will not pass without Jesus's return.

The present boundaries of Israel, and the allocation of the land according to the 12 tribes, in Ezekiel 48 is still future. Nothing to do with Solomon.

These are private interpretation of unfulfilled symbolic prophecy, which God gives in riddles (Nu 12:6-8,) as explained in post #7, [post=61487161]here[/post], in red.

And the track record of God's people in correctly interpreting symbolic unfulfilled prophecy given in riddles,
is dismal, at best.

The interpretation of prophecy to mean that Jesus would set up an earthly kingdom which would free Israel from Roman rule comes to mind. And the record shows that the people of God haven't gotten any better at it since then.

So I don't build my theology on private interpretation of unfulfilled symbolic prophecy given in riddles.

The clear, specific and unequivocal word of God in 1Kgs 4:21, 24-25 shows that the land promise was fulfilled under Solomon.

And the clear, specific and unequivocal word of God in Heb 11:8-16 shows that the promise of an everlasting possession was fulfilled in the heavenly land.

Our interpretation of unfulfilled symbolic prophecy given in riddles must be in agreement with what is clear, specific and unequivocal in Scripture, as it is in 1Kgs 4:21, 24-25 and Heb 11:8-16.

In the faith,
Clare

 

[Clare73]

Neither the passage you quoted nor any other scripture even suggests that any scripture takes precedence over any other. This is simply an interpretation on your part, and it is explicitly contrary to 2 Timothy 3:16-217, which says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

None of which disgrees with Heb 1:1-2, that the complete and full revelation by the Son is superior to the occasional
and fragmentary revelation through the prophets.

No there is no contradiction here at all. The Old Testament clearly stated that another priesthood was coming

To what are you referring?

You are forgetting that this new covenant was explicitly promised in the Old Testament.

So the Church is in the New Covenant promised in Jer 31:31?

Has the Mosaic Law been set aside, and abolished?

I find it astounding that, after falsely accusing us of putting one scripture above another

You set one Scripture against another,

you then proceed to do exactly that.

I set not one Scripture against another, I reconcile them in the light of the full and complete revelation given by the Son.

In the faith,
Clare

 

[Douggg]

These are private interpretation of unfulfilled symbolic prophecy, which God gives in riddles (Nu 12:6-8,) as explained in post #7, [post=61487161]here[/post], in red.

Matthew 23 and 24 are new testament. Why are you giving old testment verses on how to understand the new testament, when the foundation of your argument to biblewriter, as I understand it, is that the new testment explains the old testament? By referring to Numbers 12:6-8 over the text of Matthew 23 and 24, you are doing just the reverse as what you claimed to biblewriter; in addition to ignoring the passages regarding Matthew 23:37-39, Jerusalem, the Jews, have to say "blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord", as a precondition to Jesus returning.

The clear, specific and unequivocal word of God in 1Kgs 4:21, 24-25 shows that the land promise was fulfilled under Solomon.

The Ezekiel 48 prophecy regarding the land of Israel being assigned to the 12 tribes with specific areas identified in Ezekiel 48, came 300 years after Solomon. So that prophecy could not have been fulfilled during Solomon's time. It is still unfulfilled.

Doug

 

[Clare73]

Matthew 23 and 24 are new testament. Why are you giving old testment verses on how to understand the new testament, when the foundation of your argument to biblewriter, as I understand it, is that the new testment explains the old testament?

Every detail of the OT is not dealt with in the NT.
Only what the NT deals with from the OT explains the true meaning of the OT.

But unfulfilled prophecy, whether it be NT or OT, is subject to private interpretation, and we know how poor the people of God are at accurately doing that.

By referring to Numbers 12:6-8 over the text of Matthew 23 and 24, you are doing just the reverse as what you claimed to biblewriter;

Good observation, but prophecy is not given clearly, whether given by Jesus, or other prophets.

It is the clear specific and unequivoal revelation, not the prophecy, given by the Son that is superior to revelation given through the prophets, by whom is meant in Heb 1:1-2 all the OT writers, because their testimony was preparation for the coming of Christ.

in addition to ignoring the passages regarding Matthew 23:37-39, Jerusalem, the Jews, have to say "blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord", as a precondition to Jesus returning.

That is subject to more than one meaning, and no one can say which, if any, are correct.

The Ezekiel 48 prophecy regarding the land of Israel being assigned to the 12 tribes with specific areas identified in Ezekiel 48, came 300 years after Solomon. So that prophecy could not have been fulfilled during Solomon's time. It is still unfulfilled.

And you are taking that unfulfilled symbolic prophecy literally, with no basis for doing so.

The dimensions for the temple in Ezekiel are larger than all of Jerusalem, and the New Jerusalem is larger than all of Canaan.

Ezekiel 40-48 can be interpreted to mean the Temple is a type of Messiah (see Zec 6:12 for connection).
Or it could be interpreted as a figure of the NT church. Chp 37 is not literal, and neither are chps 40-48.

Your literal interpretation of symbolic prophecy contradicts 1Kgs 4:21, 24-25, which states that the land promise made to the patriarchs was fulfilled,
and your literal interpretation of symbolic prophecy contradicts Heb 11:8-16, which states that the everlasting land promised to the people of God was heavenly land, not earthly land.

It's your private interpretation of unfulfilled symbolic prophecy, which enjoys a very poor track record of accuracy among God's people, that disagrees with clear, specific and unequivocal statements of Scipture.

In the faith,
Clare

 

[Interplanner]

Almost every other post of mine is failing. The last one I wanted to put in was:

Doug, what richly doctrinal chapter of the NT should I read in support of your view? I just cant' find it as an authentic NT view. I know why people try to find OT promises or predictions, but they don't seem to follow the NT and allow it to interp those same ones.

This also means that there is a view of ISrael's promises that would have been perfectly acceptable for the Judaism of the 1st century and we have to realize that this was not what Christ or the apostles were saying; hence the flare ups with Judaism over it.

--Inter