You have made the case that because there is no specific mention (only implied interpretation) of land restoration in the NT, then the promise of land restoration from the old covenant is still in effect. This type of argument, where one claims something is true based on absence of evidence to the contrary, is known as an argument of ignorance.
I on the other hand, have made an argument from silence (which is different than an argument from ignorance). Because the NT is very clear that that old covenant was taken away and made obsolete (Hebrews 8:13, Hebrews 10:9), and is absent of any mention of land restoration under the new covenant, then I argued land restoration is not a part of the new covenant.
Unlike an argument from ignorance, an argument from silence is not always a fallacy in informal logic.
I agree the sacrificial system passed away. So has the food, drink and external washings (Hebrews 9:10), So has the feasts and Sabbaths (colossians 2:16-17), so has the priest hood (hebrews 7:12), so has circumcision (galatians 6:15).
But I am not discussing which specific laws have passed away. I am talking about the agreement between God and the nation of Israel that has passed away.
Your "interpretation" based on eschatological bias implies that. For in fact, there is not even one single NT verse that clearly and specifically mentions land restoration.
Does Deuteronomy 30:1-6 mention multiple exiles followed by multiple re gatherings?
In fact, you will find no OT scripture post Babylonian exile that mentions a 2nd exiling due to punishment followed by 2nd re gathering.
God promised that If Israel repented and turned back to him, following the curses of the law being poured out, then He would return them to the land and restore their heart.
Deuteronomy 30:6 And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.
Paul has this being fulfilled in the 1st century.
Colossians 2:11 him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
According to Paul only true Jews are those inwardly
Romans 2:29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.
Again, the promises to the nation of Israel under the old covenant were CONDITIONAL. They were not UNCONDITIONAL promises.
Scripture states the old covenant was made obsolete and taken away (Hebrews 8:13, Hebrews 10:9). I believe that. That is not beyond scripture. To Go beyond scripture would be to draw an imaginary line and declare some parts of the old covenant AGREEMENT are still in effect while others done away with to suit ones eschatological bias.
The promises under the old covenant were CONDITIONAL on the nation of Israel's obedience (deteuteronomy 28:1-14, Deuteronomy 30:1-5).
That agreement is no longer in effect. It makes no logical sense for CONDITIONAL promises of an agreement to remain after the agreement has been terminated.
This is only true of unconditional promises. Conditional promises are cancelled out if the agreement is cancelled, otherwise they wouldn't be conditional promises. And if they are not conditional promises, then Israel's obedience wasn't required in order to receive the blessings of the old covenant.
This does not answer the question, so what do you personally believe the barn is?
There are 2 gatherings mentioned in the NT, 1.) into the body of Christ (john 11:52) 2.) the gathering at the 2nd advent (2 thessalonians 2:1).
There is no mention of being gathered to the physical land of Israel in the NT.
So the days coming when God would sow his people among the nations and give them a new covenant (Jeremiah 31:27-34) has nothing to do with The son of man sowing the good seed?
I disagree. It seems to me you are unaware that Jesus draws His parables from OT scripture.
“You have made the case that because there is no specific mention (only implied interpretation) of land restoration in the NT, then the promise of land restoration from the old covenant is still in effect. This type of argument, where one claims something is true based on absence of evidence to the contrary, is known as an argument of ignorance.
I on the other hand, have made an argument from silence (which is different than an argument from ignorance). Because the NT is very clear that that old covenant was taken away and made obsolete (Hebrews 8:13, Hebrews 10:9), and is absent of any mention of land restoration under the new covenant, then I argued land restoration is not a part of the new covenant.
Unlike an argument from ignorance, an argument from silence is not always a fallacy in informal logic.”
An argument from silence is no argument at all. It is a red herring that refuses to admit that there is lack of evidence for the case that the argument is made for. You make the case that the land restoration promise to the Jews is no longer in effect simply because it was associated with the Old Covenant which was replaced by the New Covenant.
Despite the fact that the New Covenant scriptures do not say that land restoration promises were canceled, you assume that must be the case because the Old Covenant with which they were associated is now obsolete. But that is only an assumption. Assumptions are not truth nor should they be a basis for doctrine. In the case of alleged canceling of land restoration promises, such an assumption is without merit.
In order to prove that my argument for land restoration still being in effect is an argument from ignorance, you would have to be able to prove that Paul did not believe that Israel would ever become a nation again under the New Covenant. In order to do that, you would have to prove that the reconciliation of the Jews to God through Christ was not founded upon Old Testament scriptures which many times speak of the restoration of the Jews to their homeland physically and their spiritual restoration to God.
“Your "interpretation" based on eschatological bias implies that. For in fact, there is not even one single NT verse that clearly and specifically mentions land restoration…Again, the promises to the nation of Israel under the old covenant were CONDITIONAL. They were not UNCONDITIONAL promises.”
Is an unchanging God who is faithful in keeping all of His promises an eschatological bias?
“Does Deuteronomy 30:1-6 mention multiple exiles followed by multiple re gatherings?
In fact, you will find no OT scripture post Babylonian exile that mentions a 2nd exiling due to punishment followed by 2nd re gathering.
God promised that If Israel repented and turned back to him, following the curses of the law being poured out, then He would return them to the land and restore their heart.”
There is no doubt that the cited passage applies to the Babylonian and post Babylonian exile, but it does not say that this was only going to be a one-time fulfillment. If that was the case, I believe the passage would give clear unquestionable indication of that, but contextually, that is not the case.
And scripture makes very clear that the relationship between God and Israel has been one consisting of generations faithful and devoted to Him and generations that have rejected Him; an ongoing cycle that will be brought to an end when the nation welcomes Jesus as their Messiah after all wickedness and ungodliness has been purged from them.
“To Go beyond scripture would be to draw an imaginary line and declare some parts of the old covenant AGREEMENT are still in effect while others done away with to suit ones eschatological bias.”
To say that the promises of land restoration to the Jews have been canceled is in itself drawing an imaginary line that declares things canceled that the scriptures have not declared canceled.
“The promises under the old covenant were CONDITIONAL on the nation of Israel's obedience (deteuteronomy 28:1-14, Deuteronomy 30:1-5)… That agreement is no longer in effect. It makes no logical sense for CONDITIONAL promises of an agreement to remain after the agreement has been terminated…
Conditional promises are cancelled out if the agreement is cancelled, otherwise they wouldn't be conditional promises. And if they are not conditional promises, then Israel's obedience wasn't required in order to receive the blessings of the old covenant.”
There is only one indisputably conditional promise declared by God and that was in order for a man to be perpetually on the throne of David, Israel had to remain faithful and obedient to Him. (1 Ki. 2:4, 6:12-13, 9:4-5) But because they did not remain faithful, they were dispersed among the nations and they will not have a king sitting upon the throne of David again until the return of Christ.
But as for the promise of land restoration, that is not a conditional promise in the sense that we understand a conditional promise to be because God has not cast off Israel and has continued to leave the door open for them to repent so that they will not only be reconciled to Him once more but also be given all the blessings that He has promised them which also includes their homeland.
“This does not answer the question, so what do you personally believe the barn is?”
I thought I made myself clear what I believe the barn to be. What does the wheat represent?
“So the days coming when God would sow his people among the nations and give them a new covenant (Jeremiah 31:27-34) has nothing to do with The son of man sowing the good seed? I disagree. It seems to me you are unaware that Jesus draws His parables from OT scripture.”
If Jesus did draw His parables from the OT scriptures, He would have pointed us to the scriptures to which they relate. This parable does not point back to the prophet Jeremiah because the topics of the cited Jeremiah passage and the cited parable are not related to one another.