Is there any reason why the child cannot be given both? Neither one cancels out the other. So it is with all of the promises of God.
Because the old covenant was taken away and made obsolete (hebrews 8:13, Hebrews 10:9).
You cannot put new wine into old wine skins, nor can you put an unshrunk patch on an old garment (matthew 9:16-17).
If the conditional old covenant promises of deuteronomy 28-30:1-5 were found in written in the NT as a part of the new covenant then I would agree with you, but as it is, they are not.
It makes sense if you believe in a God who is faithful in keeping all promises and who brings to fulfillment in the New Covenant those things that were foretold but did not come to pass under the Old Covenant.
God was faithful to fulfill His promises to old covenant Israel. But Israel could not keep their end, so he dissolved that agreement and superseded it with a new covenant (hebrews 8:6-8)
Does the faithful keeping of promises make the New Covenant like the Old Covenant? Does that keep the Old Covenant in effect? Is a promise of God made inferior just because it may not be the same as other promises that He has made?
God's faithfulness to uphold his side of the old covenant agreement was conditional upon Israel's obedience. God's faithfulness to send His son to save the world was unconditional. Under the new covenant God's blessings are not bestowed on us because of righteous works, but because of Christ's righteous works. So the way God bestows promises under the old covenant and new covenant are much different
Believing God's part of the of the old covenant agreement is still in effect displays that one believes the old covenant is still in effect.
By the very words of "Better Promises" as found in Hebrews 8:6-8, yes the old covenant promises are inferior for they could not bring about eternal life. They were simply a shadow pointing to the reality in Christ.
The Church is never called Israel in the literal sense, nor is it written that they replace the literal nation of Israel, but the nation of Israel will become a part of the Church. (Rom. 9:27, 11:26)
Is the natural olive tree that the branches were broken off for rejecting Christ, Israel or the church? (romans 11:17)
I did not deny that Israel is the central focus of the messages of both, but the difference between them is that the message of Hosea is extended to the Gentiles. Ezekiel does not mention them except in the sense of drawing the Jewish people out from among them and back into their homeland.
Gentiles are not explicitly mentioned in hosea 1. Both Ezekiel 37 and Hosea 1 are about the houses of Judah and Israel being brought together under 1 leader.
When were the Greeks ever invaded by foreign armies, taken captive, exiled from their homeland and scattered throughout the nations of the world like the Jews had been?
When were they regathered from the four corners of the earth and brought back to their land?
The greeks were over thrown by the romans. Greece became a nation again in the 1800s
No such distinction was made at the time that these things were written.
The hebrew parallelism of Micah 2:12 disagrees.
Some translations such as the Geneva and King James Bible say that a multitude of “nations” not “gentiles” would descend from Ephraim. But what nations would those presently be?
Ethnon is the greek equivalent of the hebrew word goyim, as evidenced by the LXX. It would be the same thing to say that the descendants of Ephraim would become a multitude of nations/gentiles.
ut that is not the end of the story. Hosea also foretold that they would be reconciled with God.
Absolutely agree. And Paul quotes hosea 1:10 and 2:23 fulfilled by the inclusion of the gentiles with the Jews in the vessels of mercy in Romans 9:23-26. THis substantiates that the descendants of the northern kingdom that had been divorced and scattered by God, were gentiles. Thus by God including the gentiles, of whom some descended from Ephraim, with the Jews in the vessels of mercy, He fulfills His promises.
Which they were already doing before their punishment.
I agree
They did not all become scattered or mixed (2 Chr. 10:17, 11:13-14, 15:8-9, 30:5-6, 10-11, 18)
and as for those who were scattered throughout the nations, He promised, even in the midst of judgment, to keep them preserved. (Lev. 26-44-45, Deut. 4:31, 37)
I agree. Not all of the northern kingdom was divorced and scattered. Some moved to the southern kingdom (1 chronicles 9:1-3) and were still tribally intact by the 1st century (luke 2:36).
Does a man’s bloodline change upon his receiving or rejecting of Christ? Or is it the inward nature of the man that changes?
This doesn't answer my question. Is true Israel, those that reject Christ?
As to your question, no a man's genetics do not change upon accepting or rejecting Christ, only the inward nature changes. The spiritual being the more important than the natural.
In order for it to be a shadow, Israel would have had to submit themselves to punishment for the sins of others and not their own. What scripture does call as having served as a shadow of the redemption to come was the priestly and animal sacrificial system.
Can you tell what color someone's hair is by looking at his or her shadow? No.
A shadow is not an exact replica. Thus the law is not an exact replica of CHrist, put a shadow that pointed to Christ.
While the cited Deuteronomical passages and all that applied to them could be used as an illustration of our relationship to God (being under the curse of sin and then redeemed through Christ when we call upon Him for salvation), the New Testament writers never called those events a shadow of things to come. Again, it was the priestly and animal sacrificial system that was the shadow of things to come.
Food and drink, feasts, festivals, sabbaths, new moons, etc. where also shadows (colossians 2:16-17).
If one cannot understand the earthly pictures, how can they understand the heavenly pictures to which they point?
When you are born again, do you literally come out of your mother's womb a 2nd time?
But they were not the nation of Israel as a whole. The vast majority of Israel continued to persist in their rejection of Christ which led to their punishment at the hands of the Roman empire. Had that not been the case, the outcome might have been very different.
Not all of Israel is Israel (romans 9:6) and only a remnant would be saved (romans 9:27).
The literal fulfillment requires not only the Return of the King but a people ready to receive Him.
But it has not yet taken place because of Israel’s rejection of the King when He first came.
According to Jesus, his subjects that hated him before he ascended are the ones destroyed at his return. So i'm not sure what you mean by Israel must be ready to accept him before he comes.
Luke 19:14 But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We do not want this man to rule over us.’
Luke 19:27 And these enemies of mine who were unwilling for me to rule over them, bring them here and slay them in front of me.’”
This is also confirmed by the parable of the wicked tenants, in which the wicked tenants are destroyed at the coming of the vineyard owner. the pharisees even recognize that Jesus is talking about them (Matthew 21:33-46).
But who is to say that God cannot transfer promises from one Covenant to another if that is what it takes to faithfully fulfill them?
Sure, just show which NT scriptures mention specific earthly old covenant promises are now a part of the new covenant. I'm not asking for your debatable interpretation of NT passages, I'm asking for explicit and clear evidence so we can agree.
You made it sound as though there is no such thing as a Jew by blood; Paul never went so far as to say that. He was explaining what defines a Jew in the spiritual sense.
The purpose of Jews by blood was bring up the Christ. Now under the new covenant, genetics and genealogies no longer matter. Thus the true people of God, the true Jew is one who is in Christ. For all who are in Christ are Abraham's offspring.
Again, why do you think that God has retained a Jewish presence in the land of Israel even before their re-establishment as a nation in 1948?
For the same reason all cultures tend to live in their ancient lands. why did Greeks continue to live in greece despite the greek diaspora?
It is interesting that the scripture does not explicitly call the Church the Bride of Christ, but the title is adopted due to the illustration of marriage often being used to describe the relationship that Jesus and the Church have with one another. But we will be dwelling with Christ in the New Jerusalem which is the Bride, thus making us a part of the Bride, thus going to show that the structure, topography, and ecosystem of the New Jerusalem are not all that defines the Bride but what defines the Bride are also who will be dwelling in her and those who go in and out of her.
The purpose of marriage is another picture to point to Christ's relationship with the church. The wife is the body and husband the head, just as the church is the body and Christ the head. the 2 are one.
The mystery is profound.
Ephesians 5:32 This mystery is profound, but I am speaking about Christ and the church.
he doctrine of the Gospel has its foundations in the Old Testament scriptures with the Apostles establishing its doctrine and the institution of the Church being built upon Christ, but the twelve foundations of the New Jerusalem have only the names of the Apostles written on them. Whereabouts in the city the names of the prophets are written, the scriptures do not tell us.
Not sure what your point is. Both the body of Christ and new jerusalem have their foundations on the apostles. Use scripture to interpret scripture.
The Body of Christ is where God dwells through His Holy Spirit. He will dwell physically in the New Jerusalem upon the new earth among all men.
The ezekiel temple is where GOd's throne is and where he rests his feet (ezekiel 43:7) Heaven is his throne and the earth his footstool. The body of Christ/New Jerusalem is where GOd's throne is and where His feet rest. The new Jerusalem/body of Christ is a unit that exists on earth (footstool) and heaven (throne). Thus there are believers currently on earth (at his footstool) where God dwells in Spirit and believers in heaven( at his throne) where they dwell in the presence of God.
The ezekiel temple is a picture of the new Jerusalem. If one cannot understand the earthly pictures, how can they understand the heavenly reality.
In the Jerusalem of Ezekiel, there are many trees. In the New Jerusalem, there is only one.
Again, Shadow (ezekiel temple), reality (new Jerusalem).
We will dwell and move in and out of a city, but we are not a city nor are we a building. Christ dwells in us through the Holy Spirit, but His physical dwelling on the earth will be in the temple described by Ezekiel.
The one who overcomes is made a pillar in the temple of God (revelation 3:12). Is this a literal pilar or symbolic pilar?
Last edited:
Upvote
0