Is land restoration a part of the new covenant?

jgr · Oct 8, 2019

Dave-W said:
Not their understanding - YOUR understanding of what they meant.

They knew exactly what they meant and they were exactly correct.
But the question is 3000 years later - do YOU understand what they meant?

How does YOUR understanding of "all the land" differ from the Joshua 21:43 understanding of "all the land"?

claninja · Oct 8, 2019

Dave-W said:
What other major river is in Egypt?

Why does it have to be a major river?

Wady el Arish = Brook of Egypt, southwestern border of the promise land, where it bordered Egypt.

Brook of Egypt - Encyclopedia of The Bible - Bible Gateway

"EGYPT, BROOK OF. The SW border of the Promised Land (Num 34:5), of the tribe of Judah (Josh 15:4, 47), of Solomon’s kingdom (1 Kings 8:65; 2 Chron 7:8), and later Judaea (2 Kings 24:7).

The “brook” or watercourse (Heb. naḥal, Arab. wady) of Egypt is prob. the present-day Wady el-’Arish, reaching the Mediterranean at El-’Arish some ninety m. E of the Suez canal and almost fifty m. SW of Gaza. Local geography supports this identification—only scrub and desert W of El-’Arish, but cultivable terrain eastward therefrom, claimed by Judah (cf. Gardiner, JEA, VI [1920], 115; B. Rothenberg et al., God’s Wilderness [1961], 21 end, 32 [plate 9], 57). The Biblical evidence places it westward from Gaza (cf. Josh 15:47) and Kadesh-barnea (cf. Num 34:4, 5). Identical with Heb. naḥal-miṩrayim is Akkad. nahalmuşur mentioned by Sargon II of Assyria in 716 b.c. (ANET, 286; Tadmor, Journal of Cuneiform Studies, XII [1958], 77, 78). He settled people in its “city,” the Arza(ni) or Arsa which Esarhaddon’s texts place on the “brook of Egypt” (ANET, 290), the classical Rhinocorura, and phonetically comparable with modern (El-)’Arish. Hence, the “brook of Egypt” should prob. not be confused with Shihor (q.v.), the old Pelusiac and easternmost arm of the Nile (never a nahal). Further discussion, cf. NBD, 353, 354"

So again, Israel did in fact possess all the land promised to their fathers

Per the Author of the book of 1 kings Solomon had dominion over everything west of the Euphrates as far as the border of Egypt.

1 Kings 4:21 And Solomon reigned over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt. These kingdoms offered tribute and served Solomon all the days of his life.

1 kings 4:24 For Solomon had dominion over everything west of the Euphrates —over all the kingdoms from Tiphsah to Gaza—and he had peace on all sides

Dave L · Oct 8, 2019

claninja said:
The old covenant was an agreement between the nation of Israel and God: If Israel obeyed the laws of Moses, then God would bless (Deuteronomy 28:1-14). If Israel did not obey the laws of Moses, then God would curse (Deuteronomy 28:15-68). And if after the blessings and curses were poured that Israel returned to the Lord, he would restore them from captivity and back to the land of Israel (Deuteronomy 30:1-5). Thus, the Promises and Curses of the Law of Moses were CONDITIONAL upon the nation Israel's obedience.

As we can see in scripture:

-Israel was blessed according to the law of Moses (1 kings 8:56)
-Israel was cursed according to the law of Moses (Daniel 9:13)
-Israel was restored to the land after Babylonian exile (Jeremiah 29:10-14, Psalm 85:1, 2 Chronicles 36:21-23).
-Christ was born, in the flesh, under the law, in the land after Israel had been restored (Galatians 4:4, Luke 2:1-7)

The law of Moses was added AFTER the promises were made to Abraham, so as not to annul them (Galatians 3:17). The Laws of Moses were added because of sin (Galatians 3:19) and to give knowledge of sin (Romans 7:7). The Law of Moses was a guardian (Galatians 3:24).

The Law was temporary. It was only to be until the time of the coming of Christ in the flesh, until the time of reformation (Galatians 3:19, Galatians 3:24, Hebrews 9:10).

And So when Christ came in flesh, He did not abolish the Law, but brought it to its completion (Matthew 5:17, Luke 24:44), for He is the reality of the shadow (Colossians 2:17, Hebrews 10:1). And by its completion in Christ, the righteous standards of the Law are now fulfilled in us (Romans 8:4), for Christ is the yes to all the promises of God (2 Corinthians 1:20).

What was made obsolete by the work of Christ, was the CONDITIONAL old covenant agreement, which was superseded by the new covenant (Hebrews 8:13) and its BETTER promises (Hebrews 8:6) due to a fault in the old covenant. Not a fault on the part of God or the righteous standards of the laws themselves, but in the fault of the people who could not keep their end of the agreement (Hebrews 8:7).

And some of the Better promises of the new covenant include:
- the forgiveness of sin (Ephesians 1:7)
- reconciliation with God (colossians 1:22)
- eternal life (John 3:16)
- fruit of the Spirit (galatians 5:22)
- inheritance in the kingdom (matthew 25:35, Hebrews 12:28)
- resurrection from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:54)
- the imputed righteous standards of God through Christ (romans 8:4)

So, as land restoration was already fulfilled following the Babylonian exile, and the old covenant was made obsolete and superseded by the new covenant with its better promises, IS LAND RESTORATION A PART OF THE NEW COVENANT, AND IF SO WHAT NEW TESTAMENT VERSES CLEARLY AND EXPLICITLY SUPPORT THIS?

Please follow forum policy when providing answers:

"When you disagree with someone's position, you should post evidence and supporting statements for your position. This policy, sometimes referred to as "X means Y because of Z", must be followed especially when posting claims that are widely considered to be controversial."

“The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me.” (Leviticus 25:23)

“Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” (Galatians 3:16)

“For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.” (2 Corinthians 1:20)

------------

“This means it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God; rather, the children of promise are counted as descendants.” (Romans 9:8)

Dave-W · Oct 8, 2019

jgr said:
How does YOUR understanding of "all the land" differ from the Joshua 21:43 understanding of "all the land"?

I am actually not saying I know exactly. What ever meaning it has seems to leave other land to be occupied by the Jews.

While Solomon may have expertises “authority” over “kingdoms,” between the Jordan and the Euphrates, it never said Jews lived there. THat only indicates a vassal relationship between Solomon and those other kingdoms.

So what ever was meant, it did NOT indicate the promise of God was completely fulfilled.

BTW - the promise was to Abraham, so it is part of the Abrahamic covenant and not the Mosaic that you so insist is gone and done. THe Abrahamic covenant is NOT done.

Maria Billingsley · Oct 8, 2019

claninja said:
So, as land restoration was already fulfilled following the Babylonian exile, and the old covenant was made obsolete and superseded by the new covenant with its better promises, IS LAND RESTORATION A PART OF THE NEW COVENANT, AND IF SO WHAT NEW TESTAMENT VERSES CLEARLY AND EXPLICITLY SUPPORT THIS?

None, it is NOT in scripture. It is a man made theological system, Dispensational Futurism. If you are not familiar with this system, you can study John Nelson Darby, Scofield Bible and the Great Disappointment.
Blessings

jgr · Oct 8, 2019

Dave-W said:
I am actually not saying I know exactly. What ever meaning it has seems to leave other land to be occupied by the Jews.

How does "all the land" mean "not all the land"?

Dave-W said:
While Solomon may have expertises “authority” over “kingdoms,” between the Jordan and the Euphrates, it never said Jews lived there. THat only indicates a vassal relationship between Solomon and those other kingdoms.

1 Kings 4
25 And Judah and Israel dwelt safely, every man under his vine and under his fig tree, from Dan even to Beersheba, all the days of Solomon.

Dave-W said:
So what ever was meant, it did NOT indicate the promise of God was completely fulfilled.

Joshua 21:43 Hebrew interlinear:

3605 [e]
kāl-
כָּל־
all
N‑msc

◄ 3605. kol ►
Strong's Concordance
kol: the whole, all
Original Word: כֹּל
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: kol
Phonetic Spelling: (kole)
Definition: the whole, all
NASB Translation
complete (2), completely (5)

Dave-W said:
BTW - the promise was to Abraham, so it is part of the Abrahamic covenant and not the Mosaic that you so insist is gone and done. THe Abrahamic covenant is NOT done.

It is fulfilled by, and inherited by, Christ.

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. (Galatians 3:16)

For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us. (2 Corinthians 1:20)

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds (Hebrews 1:1,2)

Dave-W · Oct 8, 2019

jgr said:
How does "all the land" mean "not all the land"?

Oh - you like how “this is a statute forever” in various places throughout the Law means “only until Messiah comes?”

If Forever does not really mean forever, then it seems only logical that all may not mean all.

Dave-W · Oct 8, 2019

jgr said:
It is fulfilled by, and inherited by, Christ.

That is replacement theology which I categorically reject.

jgr · Oct 8, 2019

Dave-W said:
That is replacement theology which I categorically reject.

So you reject Christ?

Dave-W · Oct 8, 2019

jgr said:
So you reject Christ?

Not at all. I reject replacement theology; which (if read correctly) so did the apostles.

Christ and the Church did NOT replace or become a “new” or “spiritual” Israel.

jgr · Oct 8, 2019

Dave-W said:
Not at all. I reject replacement theology; which (if read correctly) so did the apostles.

Christ and the Church did NOT replace or become a “new” or “spiritual” Israel.

Do you reject Galatians 3:16, 2 Corinthians 1:20, and Hebrews 1:1,2?

Dave-W · Oct 8, 2019

jgr said:
Do you reject Galatians 3:16, 2 Corinthians 1:20, and Hebrews 1:1,2?

Of course not. But I probably have a very different take on them than you do.

jgr · Oct 8, 2019

Dave-W said:
Of course not. But I probably have a very different take on them than you do.

What is your take on them?

Dave-W · Oct 8, 2019

If you want to know that you can go ask in the Messianic folder, as we are getting way off topic here.

jgr · Oct 8, 2019

Dave-W said:
Oh - you like how “this is a statute forever” in various places throughout the Law means “only until Messiah comes?”

If Forever does not really mean forever, then it seems only logical that all may not mean all.

Exodus 21:6
Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

5769 [e]
lə·‘ō·lām.
לְעֹלָֽם׃
forever
Prep‑l | N‑ms

◄ 5769. olam ►
Strong's Concordance
olam: long duration, antiquity, futurity
Original Word: עוֹלָם
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: olam
Phonetic Spelling: (o-lawm')
Definition: long duration, antiquity, futurity

jgr · Oct 8, 2019

Dave-W said:
If you want to know that you can go ask in the Messianic folder, as we are getting way off topic here.

Not off topic at all. Scripture is identifying for us Who is the Heir to "all the land", and all else. (Hebrews 1:2).

There's no mistaking "all", and there's no mistaking "Who".

pasifika · Oct 9, 2019

claninja said:
The old covenant was an agreement between the nation of Israel and God: If Israel obeyed the laws of Moses, then God would bless (Deuteronomy 28:1-14). If Israel did not obey the laws of Moses, then God would curse (Deuteronomy 28:15-68). And if after the blessings and curses were poured that Israel returned to the Lord, he would restore them from captivity and back to the land of Israel (Deuteronomy 30:1-5). Thus, the Promises and Curses of the Law of Moses were CONDITIONAL upon the nation Israel's obedience.

As we can see in scripture:

-Israel was blessed according to the law of Moses (1 kings 8:56)
-Israel was cursed according to the law of Moses (Daniel 9:13)
-Israel was restored to the land after Babylonian exile (Jeremiah 29:10-14, Psalm 85:1, 2 Chronicles 36:21-23).
-Christ was born, in the flesh, under the law, in the land after Israel had been restored (Galatians 4:4, Luke 2:1-7)

The law of Moses was added AFTER the promises were made to Abraham, so as not to annul them (Galatians 3:17). The Laws of Moses were added because of sin (Galatians 3:19) and to give knowledge of sin (Romans 7:7). The Law of Moses was a guardian (Galatians 3:24).

The Law was temporary. It was only to be until the time of the coming of Christ in the flesh, until the time of reformation (Galatians 3:19, Galatians 3:24, Hebrews 9:10).

And So when Christ came in flesh, He did not abolish the Law, but brought it to its completion (Matthew 5:17, Luke 24:44), for He is the reality of the shadow (Colossians 2:17, Hebrews 10:1). And by its completion in Christ, the righteous standards of the Law are now fulfilled in us (Romans 8:4), for Christ is the yes to all the promises of God (2 Corinthians 1:20).

What was made obsolete by the work of Christ, was the CONDITIONAL old covenant agreement, which was superseded by the new covenant (Hebrews 8:13) and its BETTER promises (Hebrews 8:6) due to a fault in the old covenant. Not a fault on the part of God or the righteous standards of the laws themselves, but in the fault of the people who could not keep their end of the agreement (Hebrews 8:7).

And some of the Better promises of the new covenant include:
- the forgiveness of sin (Ephesians 1:7)
- reconciliation with God (colossians 1:22)
- eternal life (John 3:16)
- fruit of the Spirit (galatians 5:22)
- inheritance in the kingdom (matthew 25:35, Hebrews 12:28)
- resurrection from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:54)
- the imputed righteous standards of God through Christ (romans 8:4)

So, as land restoration was already fulfilled following the Babylonian exile, and the old covenant was made obsolete and superseded by the new covenant with its better promises, IS LAND RESTORATION A PART OF THE NEW COVENANT, AND IF SO WHAT NEW TESTAMENT VERSES CLEARLY AND EXPLICITLY SUPPORT THIS?

Please follow forum policy when providing answers:

"When you disagree with someone's position, you should post evidence and supporting statements for your position. This policy, sometimes referred to as "X means Y because of Z", must be followed especially when posting claims that are widely considered to be controversial."

Hello, Yes the land of Israel is part of the new covenant...the old covenant has no effect on the condition of the land because it was given by God as a promise to Abraham and to his seed (singular ) but also his children ie (children of the promise ) both Israel and Gentiles...

A good verse to start with is Ephesians 2:12,13....and verse 19...

Ephesians 2:12,13...Remember that at time you (gentiles ) were separate from Christ, EXCLUDED from CITIZENSHIP in Israel and Foreigners to the covenants of the Promise, (Covenant made with Abraham ) without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you (gentiles ) who once far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

Verse 19...
Consequently, you (gentiles ) are NO longer Foreigners and strangers but fellow Citizens with God's people (Israel ) and also member of His household..

So both gentiles and Israel are fellow citizens in Israel...

Nige55 · Oct 9, 2019

Dave-W said:
Not at all. I reject replacement theology; which (if read correctly) so did the apostles.

Christ and the Church did NOT replace or become a “new” or “spiritual” Israel.

Absolutely. I usually refer back to Romans 11:25, but I know I've had this debate with some posting here regarding Jew & Gentile.
I put the replacement down to simply spiritual jealousy.
We all know what the premise of this thread is, and it's thinly covered.
To me, replacement theology is utterly flawed as it supposes that Israel in a position of CURRENTLY rejecting Christ can/ will never come to him in the same way that someone who is currently an atheist (and therefore also currently rejects Christ) can/ will never come to him. And yet, that very transformation happens every day.

claninja · Oct 9, 2019

Dave-W said:
I am actually not saying I know exactly. What ever meaning it has seems to leave other land to be occupied by the Jews.

So, in other words the literal reading of Joshua 21:34, which clearly and explicitly states God gave all the land that was promised to the fathers, to the nation of Israel is incorrect? The line that "not one of all of the Lord's good promises to the house of Israel failed" is incorrect as well.

"Thus the LORD gave Israel all the land He had sworn to give their fathers, and they took possession of it and settled there. And the LORD gave them rest on every side, just as He had sworn to their fathers. None of their enemies could stand against them, for the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand. Not one of all the LORD’s good promises to the house of Israel failed; everything was fulfilled.

You state the polar opposite of scripture, and then offer no evidence or reason for your belief by stating " I am actually not saying I know exactly".

Dave-W said:
While Solomon may have expertises “authority” over “kingdoms,” between the Jordan and the Euphrates, it never said Jews lived there. THat only indicates a vassal relationship between Solomon and those other kingdoms.

Dave-W said:
So what ever was meant, it did NOT indicate the promise of God was completely fulfilled.

You say not fulfilled, scripture says fulfilled. I'll stick with scripture.

Joshua 21:43-45 "Thus the LORD gave Israel all the land He had sworn to give their fathers, and they took possession of it and settled there. And the LORD gave them rest on every side, just as He had sworn to their fathers. None of their enemies could stand against them, for the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand. Not one of all the LORD’s good promises to the house of Israel failed; everything was fulfilled.

1 Kings 4:24-25 For Solomon had dominion over everything west of the Euphratesd —over all the kingdoms from Tiphsah to Gaza—and he had peace on all sides. Throughout the days of Solomon, Judah and Israel lived in safety from Dan to Beersheba, each man under his own vine and his own fig tree.

1 kings 8:56 “Blessed be the LORD, who has given rest to His people Israel according to all that He promised. Not one word has failed of all the good promises He made through His servant Moses.

Dave-W said:
BTW - the promise was to Abraham, so it is part of the Abrahamic covenant and not the Mosaic that you so insist is gone and done. THe Abrahamic covenant is NOT done.

I agree the old covenant with the nation of Israel does not annul the promise made to Abraham. Paul is very clear that is doesn't. But Paul is very clear that the promises (plural) were made to Abraham and his offspring, who is Christ, not to offsprings.

Galatians 3:16-17 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say, “and to seeds,” meaning many, but “and to your seed,”g meaning One, who is Christ. What I mean is this: The law that came 430 years later does not revoke the covenant previously established by God, so as to cancel the promise. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God freely granted it to Abraham through a promise.

claninja · Oct 9, 2019

Dave-W said:
Not at all. I reject replacement theology; which (if read correctly) so did the apostles.

You reject that the new covenant replaces the old covenant, and that the wild branches replaced the broken off natural branches?

Dave-W said:
Christ and the Church did NOT replace or become a “new” or “spiritual” Israel.

What scripture do you have to support that Israel and church are separate entities?

Paul clearly calls gentiles who have come to Christ "former gentiles". If they are former gentiles, what does that make them now? Paul clearly states that gentiles were "at a time" alienated from commonwealth of Israel, but NOW they have brought near by Christ. Jew and gentile have become ONE new man in Christ.

Ephesians 2:11-14 Therefore remember that formerly you who are Gentiles in the flesh and called uncircumcised by the so-called circumcision (that done in the body by human hands)— remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has torn down the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing in His flesh the law of commandments and decrees. He did this to create in Himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace

Paul clearly states all that are in Christ are Abraham's seed.

galatians 3:29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise.

Were the branches that were broken off, broken off from the church or Israel?

Romans 11:19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” That is correct: They were broken off because of unbelief, but you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid

Is land restoration a part of the new covenant?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Well-Known Member

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Well-Known Member

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Well-Known Member

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads