Is the land restoration to the nation of Israel found in the new covenant?

[Contenders Edge]

Do you think God recognized them any longer after the final complete perfect Sacrifice of His Son?

Their sacrifices from then on were exercises in futility.

No, God did not recognize them any longer after the final and complete sacrifice of Christ and yes, the animal sacrifices continued on in futility, but that is not the point.

The point is is that the Jews who continued them were blinded to the significance of Christ’s death on the cross and resurrection because they, in their unbelief, rejected Him as their Messiah, and in their unbelief, continued to perform the sacrifices, thinking that God was still recognizing them when in fact, the sacrifice of Christ had indeed made them unnecessary.

It is the unbelief of the Jews that led them to continue offering up animal sacrifices in futility despite the temple veil being torn to signify the end of the Old Covenant and the beginning of the New Covenant.

It was the destruction of the temple that brought the sacrificial practices to a halt.

 

[Contenders Edge]

Who is "he" in Daniel 9:27?

The “he” in Daniel 9:27 can be none other than the Anti-Christ. The temporal covenant that needs periodic renewing described in Dan. 9:27 is nothing like the New Covenant which is everlasting and is in no need of renewing.

 

[jgr]

The “he” in Daniel 9:27 can be none other than the Anti-Christ. The temporal covenant that needs periodic renewing described in Dan. 9:27 is nothing like the New Covenant which is everlasting and is in no need of renewing.

The word "antichrist" is found neither in Daniel 9:27, nor anywhere else in the OT.

There is no word for "antichrist" in ancient Hebrew.

The grammatical antecedents of "he" in Daniel 9:27 ultimately refer back to Prince Messiah in Daniel 9:25.

 

[jgr]

No, God did not recognize them any longer after the final and complete sacrifice of Christ and yes, the animal sacrifices continued on in futility, but that is not the point.

The point is is that the Jews who continued them were blinded to the significance of Christ’s death on the cross and resurrection because they, in their unbelief, rejected Him as their Messiah, and in their unbelief, continued to perform the sacrifices, thinking that God was still recognizing them when in fact, the sacrifice of Christ had indeed made them unnecessary.

It is the unbelief of the Jews that led them to continue offering up animal sacrifices in futility despite the temple veil being torn to signify the end of the Old Covenant and the beginning of the New Covenant.

It was the destruction of the temple that brought the sacrificial practices to a halt.

Agreed, except for your last sentence.

When God no longer recognized them, then from His perspective they were halted.

From His perspective, they no longer possessed any significance.

His perspective is the only perspective that matters.

 

[BABerean2]

The Gospel was being taken to both Jew and Gentile from the very start and even as Paul was taking the Gospel to the Gentiles, he always took it first to the Jews in the Gentile communities and nations that he was sent to.

Compare your statement above to the words of Christ found below.

Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
Mat 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Mat 10:7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

.

 

[Contenders Edge]

The word "antichrist" is found neither in Daniel 9:27, nor anywhere else in the OT.

There is no word for "antichrist" in ancient Hebrew.

The grammatical antecedents of "he" in Daniel 9:27 ultimately refer back to Prince Messiah in Daniel 9:25.

That may be, but there is a figure, especially in the book of Daniel whose attributes and character are consistent with that of the Anti-Christ and there is no way that any grammatical antecedents point back to Prince Messiah because the covenant confirmed by this figure who comes after Christ is crucified, raised from the dead, and then ascends back up into Heaven, is different from the New Covenant we are under. The events spoken of in that passage cannot possibly in its given context be speaking of Christ like the verses (25-26) preceding it do.

I looked up the Hebrew myself and the word "he" simply refers to any male figure, but this figure spoken of in Daniel 9:27 does not sound like Jesus.

 

[Contenders Edge]

Compare your statement above to the words of Christ found below.

Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
Mat 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Mat 10:7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

.

The ministry of Jesus before His crucifixion and resurrection was only roughly three years, not seven. And while His ministry was focused on the nation of Israel, He never turned Gentiles seeking Him away which goes to show that while His ministry began with the Jews, He had the entire world in mind.

 

[Contenders Edge]

Agreed, except for your last sentence.

When God no longer recognized them, then from His perspective they were halted.

From His perspective, they no longer possessed any significance.

His perspective is the only perspective that matters.

Be as that may, that Perspective was not made manifest until the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish temple by the legions of Rome.

 

[Contenders Edge]

Agreed, except for your last sentence.

When God no longer recognized them, then from His perspective they were halted.

From His perspective, they no longer possessed any significance.

His perspective is the only perspective that matters.

[Most of my response in the preceding response was cut off for some reason. Here is all that I had originally intended to send.}


Be as that may, that Perspective was not made manifest until the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish temple by the legions of Rome.

The followers of Christ knew that the animal sacrifices were no longer necessary, but until the judgment pronounced upon Jerusalem took place and the temple was destroyed, the unbelieving Jews continued the practice.

While I do not dispute the fulfillment of the verses 25-26 (the first coming and death of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish temple), the animal sacrifices by the unbelieving Jews persisted until the destruction of the Jewish temple the span of time between Christ ascending into Heaven and the destruction of the temple being almost forty years. But the events of Daniel 9:27 speak of a seven year period in which the practice is taking place but stopped half way through that tenure. That is a time span far shorter than forty years. That is why I believe that Daniel 9:27 is still yet to come.

In order for a prophecy to be fulfilled, the fulfillment must happen exactly as foretold and within all time frames mentioned.

 

[Contenders Edge]

The inherent definition of a New (Will and) Testament cancels them. Review post 356, and Brother BAB2's excellent posts 384 and 386. Review your own Will and Testament. What does its first clause state?

That may be the case when it comes to the Will and Testaments of men. Any changes that someone makes in their will is going to be cancel out what was written in their previous will to whatever extent those changes apply. But God has made in His Word very clear what still applies under the New Covenant and what does not (i.e. the animals sacrifices which could never take away sins are no longer necessary because the blood of Christ takes away sins once and for all. We are no longer required to undergo circumcision, observe certain holidays, keep our day of rest on a certain day of the week, or abide in the cleanliness and dietary laws that were once required of us).

But we cannot declare cancelled what God has not expressly declared cancelled which is why we cannot declare all that has pertained to the nation of Israel to be made null and void, because there is nothing in the New Testament that expressly declares anything pertaining to the Jewish people (including land restoration) to be declared null and void.

 

[jgr]

That may be, but there is a figure, especially in the book of Daniel whose attributes and character are consistent with that of the Anti-Christ and there is no way that any grammatical antecedents point back to Prince Messiah because the covenant confirmed by this figure who comes after Christ is crucified, raised from the dead, and then ascends back up into Heaven, is different from the New Covenant we are under. The events spoken of in that passage cannot possibly in its given context be speaking of Christ like the verses (25-26) preceding it do.

I looked up the Hebrew myself and the word "he" simply refers to any male figure, but this figure spoken of in Daniel 9:27 does not sound like Jesus.

Consult someone grammatically competent who can explain the antecedents.

 

[jgr]

That may be the case when it comes to the Will and Testaments of men. Any changes that someone makes in their will is going to be cancel out what was written in their previous will to whatever extent those changes apply. But God has made in His Word very clear what still applies under the New Covenant and what does not (i.e. the animals sacrifices which could never take away sins are no longer necessary because the blood of Christ takes away sins once and for all. We are no longer required to undergo circumcision, observe certain holidays, keep our day of rest on a certain day of the week, or abide in the cleanliness and dietary laws that were once required of us).

But we cannot declare cancelled what God has not expressly declared cancelled which is why we cannot declare all that has pertained to the nation of Israel to be made null and void, because there is nothing in the New Testament that expressly declares anything pertaining to the Jewish people (including land restoration) to be declared null and void.

The wills and testaments of men originated long ago in the Wills and Testaments of God. It is in the OT that covenants first appeared.

There can only ever be one will and testament in force and effect at any time.

You have yet to cite any NT Scripture which supports your contentions.

 

[BABerean2]

The ministry of Jesus before His crucifixion and resurrection was only roughly three years, not seven.

Bible scholars have found four Passovers in the Gospels, which puts Christ's earthly ministry to the Jewish people at about 3 1/2 years.

Christ specifically commanded His disciples to go to Israel, and not to go to the Gentiles in Matthew 10:5-7.
Do you deny this fact?

Based on the passage below this ministry continued for about another 3 years, before Paul took the Gospel to the Gentiles.

Gal 1:14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
Gal 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
Gal 1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
Gal 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

Add it up.

3 1/2 years

50 days until Pentecost.
Paul's conversion was after Pentecost.

3 years before Paul went up to see Peter in Jerusalem.

It does not take a calculator to get about 7 years when these numbers are added.

.

 

[Contenders Edge]

Consult someone grammatically competent who can explain the antecedents.

You believe yourself to be that incompetent?

 

[Contenders Edge]

The wills and testaments of men originated long ago in the Wills and Testaments of God. It is in the OT that covenants first appeared.

There can only ever be one will and testament in force and effect at any time.

You have yet to cite any NT Scripture which supports your contentions.

And you have yet to justify declaring cancelled what scripture has not.

 

[jgr]

You believe yourself to be that incompetent?

Sure. That's why we need a competent third party.

 

[jgr]

And you have yet to justify declaring cancelled what scripture has not.

Already explained.

But if you're not able or willing to understand, then leave it for those who are.

 

[Contenders Edge]

Bible scholars have found four Passovers in the Gospels, which puts Christ's earthly ministry to the Jewish people at about 3 1/2 years.

Christ specifically commanded His disciples to go to Israel, and not to go to the Gentiles in Matthew 10:5-7.
Do you deny this fact?

Based on the passage below this ministry continued for about another 3 years, before Paul took the Gospel to the Gentiles.

Gal 1:14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
Gal 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
Gal 1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
Gal 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

Add it up.

3 1/2 years

50 days until Pentecost.
Paul's conversion was after Pentecost.

3 years before Paul went up to see Peter in Jerusalem.

It does not take a calculator to get about 7 years when these numbers are added.

.

“Christ specifically commanded His disciples to go to Israel, and not to go to the Gentiles in Matthew 10:5-7.

Do you deny this fact?”





I do not deny it, but are you saying that they turned Gentiles away who came to them?


“Bible scholars have found four Passovers in the Gospels, which puts Christ's earthly ministry to the Jewish people at about 3 1/2 years.

Based on the passage below this ministry continued for about another 3 years, before Paul took the Gospel to the Gentiles.”


That does not describe the timeline or the events of Daniel 9:27. How could the earthly ministry of Jesus continue for another three years if it had only lasted three and a half years? That just doesn’t make any sense.

It could not have ceased after three and a half years and then continued for another three years. The newly founded Church under the direction of the Holy Spirit continued the ministry of the Gospel from that point on to this very day. Furthermore, since the day of Pentecost and even before Paul began taking the Gospel to the Gentiles, the Apostles were already preaching the Gospel to both Jew and Gentile alike. It is just that their ministry began in the land of Israel, and more specifically, in Jerusalem, and then spread from there.

 

[Contenders Edge]

Sure. That's why we need a competent third party.

Then I'll be waiting for that third party to present itself.

 

[claninja]

"Just because the Old Covenant was made null and void by the New Covenant, that does not mean that all that was under the Old Covenant was made obsolete as well as there were elements associated with the Old Covenant that were still carried over into the New covenant—the Ten Commandments and other moral laws for example."

The agreement was made null and void. I'm not talking about what parts of the Law of moses are or are not in effect today. I'm talking about the agreement to obey those laws to receive blessings or disobey those laws to receive curses.

I really do not see how what I said was even remotely an inference of an accusation against you that I never really made.

You will interpret my statement as being an accusation in which there is no contextual evidence of me accusing anyone of anything and yet you refuse to accept that Romans chapter 11 and Romans 9:4-5, and 8 imply restoration of land to the Jews alongside reconciliation with God through Christ when land restoration has always been a part of the restoration of Israel alongside their reconciliation to God when no NT scriptures ever excluded land restoration as it pertains to the Jews.

Where is the consistency in that way of thinking?

From my perspective the language you used and the way you typed your sentence made it appear that you concluded I believed all of the law was done away with. Since you established that you haven't concluded that I believe all the law was done away with, we can consider this matter settled.

You continue to provide "your interpretation" of romans 11 and romans 9:4-5, of which I disagree with. you have yet to provide even one NT scripture that clearly states land restoration is a part of the new covenant. You, then declare that "no NT scriptures ever exclude land restoration as it pertains to the Jews". This type of argument, is an argument from ignorance. It is a fallacy in informal logic.

Laws against incest, fornication, LGBT behavior, inappropriate behavior with animals, taking God’s name in vain, and which command us to honor our father and mother, work six days and rest on a seventh day were established Old Covenant laws and they did not die out with the Old Covenant. The New Testament still commands the followers of Jesus to abide them even now.

Again, I am not trying to argue which laws of Moses are or are not in effect. The point this entire time is that the agreement to obey/disobey those laws in order to receive the blessings/curses of the law of Moses is no longer in effect.

But the curses would be lifted upon their repentance.

I agree

The Old Covenant was never meant by God to be permanent in the first place.

I agree, it was only in place until the coming of Christ, the time of reformation

Galatians 3:23 Before this faith came, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until faith should be revealed.

Hebrews 9:10 They consist only in food and drink and special washings—external regulations imposed until the time of reform.

That is because God promised to preserver the people of Israel even when they were under His judgment. (Lev. 26:44-45) This had to be done in order to keep alive for Himself a faithful remnant.

Christ was to come through the line of Israel, thus he kept a remnant and did not destroy them completely.

It does not exclude land restoration either because land restoration has always been the result of the Jews being reconciled to God.

Only under the old covenant. The old covenant is now obsolete.

That was not a one-time fulfillment. Scripture indicates that this could very well be an ongoing cycle concerning Israel.

If the old covenant was still in effect, I would agree. But the old covenant is obsolete.

Just because it appears in the Old Covenant or declared under the Old Covenant, that does not make it an Old/New Covenant matter which is why I would like to start a post discussing what died with the Old Covenant and what did not.

It's clear the new covenant was built on better promises. Why would the worse promises coincide with the better promises. Who would want the worse promises?

Hebrews 8:6 Now, however, Jesus has received a much more excellent ministry, just as the covenant He mediates is better and is founded on better promises.

That passage is not related to land restoration. It pertains to the entire world in the day of judgment.

That doesn't answer my question. Is the barn the physical land of Israel, heaven, or something else?

As it pertains to salvation in Christ that is true, but both Isaiah and Paul are referring to Israel as an entire people and nation, a remnant of which will come to embrace Jesus as their Messiah and be saved? Why a remnant? Because for reasons that I am not prepared to go into on this particular thread, a remnant will be all that remains of the nation of Israel when Christ returns.

So it appears you agree that a remnant of Israel is related to all Israel.

The death of Christ gathers all willing to place their trust in Him for their salvation to Himself, and that applies to both Jew and Gentile alike, but the regathering of Israel is also literal and is meant to be understood as such. In order for the Jews to be regathered from all the nations of the world to which they have been dispersed, there has to be a place for them to be regathered to and that is their homeland. This is why, as it pertains to the people of Israel, land restoration can never be severed from a complete and total restoration.

The gathering of Jew and gentile to Christ is a literal gathering. The only other mentioned gathering in the NT is at the end of the age, and not of Israel back to the literal physical land as you presume. You still have yet to provide even one clear and specific NT scripture that mentions land restoration. So far your have only given your interpretation on NT that don't even mention land restoration.

First of all, that passage in Jeremiah does not mention the house of Israel and Judah being sown among the other nations

Jeremiah states the opposite. In Jeremiah, God literally states he will sow both the house of Israel and Judah with the seed of man and of beast.

Jeremiah 31:27 The days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man and of beast. just as I watched over them to uproot and tear them down, to demolish, destroy, and bring disaster, so will I be attentive to build them and to plant them,” declares the LORD.

the cited parable told by Jesus has nothing to do with the cited passage cited from Jeremiah, but deals with an entirely different subject.

So if "the days are coming when God would sow Israel and Judah among the seed of man and beast" is not about the good man sowing seed, then what is it about? Remember the sowing was to build them up, not to destroy them.