The Fatal Flaw in Dispensationalism

yeshuaslavejeff said:

And as seen in this site and thread, the meaning is not even known today by many. (it is obvious, but only to a few, correctly) Yes.

Click to expand...

"... there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you." 1 Corinthians 11:19

You know - I think that this "test" by God concerning the study of theology isn't just to see who will get it right and who will not.

I think it's, as much as that, a test to see who will make up straw men and such and misrepresent people as we so often see in the soteriology debates and who will choose to play games such as these and who will argue fairly and not in a disingenuous manner such as we are starting to see now.

Al Touthentop said:

You actually haven't done that. There is no example you've provided where the word ταχυ can be translated "a very long time from now."

Click to expand...

Actually I have. Over 2000 years is obviously a very long time to wait for Him to come again to this earth with His rewards.

Al Touthentop said:

You have said that because you believe the events haven't occurred yet, that therefore the word doesn't mean quickly. However, that is circular logic.

Click to expand...

I have simply taken your pointing out the word and showed how it does not necessarily mean what you insinuated it did.

By the way - we all that kind of thing when making an argument for a case.

You will not that I have never refused to consider your arguments fairly just because I may or may not agree with them.

There's not "circular logic" theology going on at all. Just good systematic theology.

Al Touthentop said:

The word's meaning is intact as written.

Click to expand...

I have not idea what that means. No one has "disassembled" the word. I have simply shown where the word may not mean what you say that it does (a very few years) when it is used by God.

Listen - this misrepresenting my obviously correct point is wearing thin with me.

What do you choose to do about it? Shall I just drop out since you are now playing games - as anyone can see?

His student said:

Actually I have. Over 2000 years is obviously a very long time to wait for Him to come again to this earth with His rewards.

Click to expand...

That thought has nothing to do with the meaning of the Greek word. It is in no way at all dealing with the Greek definition. You provide no examples elsewhere that allows a person to redefine what that word means to something other than it's accepted meaning, determined by usage of Greek speakers and writers.

That's how words are defined, by usage. And over time that usage might change. The word "cool" in English for instance, was once related to temperature and temperament. Thus a cool surface or a cool attitude.

Today, we talk about somebody who is well-liked or popular. And as somebody has also pointed out "gay" was previously never used to describe a homosexual.

Your perception, that Revelation never came to pass, has no bearing on the word's meaning. That's like saying that because you are unaware of Hitler's rise to power, the holocaust therefore never occurred.

You can't use ignorance as a proof of anything. You're right, 2000 years is a long time. But that phrase, "I am coming quickly" does not mean the second coming. It can't obviously because it contradicts itself. Quickly was a word that the people of that time understood to mean quickly. Shortly. Not a long time.

What you're asserting is that Jesus was intentionally trying to confuse them, when the better explanation is that you are the one confused and he wasn't talking about a second coming but the events foretold which would affect the people being addressed.

Imagine how that kind of exegesis effects the rest of the scriptures. Whenever God imposes a time on events in the scriptures, it happens exactly in the time he stated. Here we have to assume that it is the one place where he didn't mean things to happen in the time he said he meant them to happen.

What does that say about the 120 years he told Noah [edited] was left for those alive before the flood, or the 400 years that would elapse after Joseph entered Egypt, or the 70 weeks that were to elapse from the time of the order to rebuild the temple until Christ's arrival during the Roman occupation of Jerusalem?

Dale said:

Most criticism of Dispensationalism has centered on the Rapture, the most well known belief of Dispensationalists. Much criticism has been focused on their treatment of Jews and Israel, which sometimes sets up a two-tiered scheme of salvation. A lot of criticism has been focused on Dispensationalism as a surprisingly recent belief system. Dispensationalists are extreme literalists but this doesn't mean that they agree with other literalists.

As we shall see, the Dispensationalists say that the crucifixion of Christ and the entire church age that followed, is only a "parenthesis" in God's plan. God's original plan is on hold. Most Christians find this rather jarring, considering the emphasis that Paul put on "Christ crucified." A critic would say that the whole notion of a parenthesis is only needed to make their end-of-the-world calculations come out right.

This thread focuses on the most basic idea of Dispensationalism, besides dispensations. Dispensationalism claims that God offered the Jews a chance to make Jesus their earthly King. Jesus would then have overthrown the Romans and established Israel as a theocratic Kingdom, eventually covering the world. Since this was God's original plan, Christianity came about when the Jews rejected the Kingship of Jesus. God went to Plan B, which included the (crucifixion), the (resurrection), the (ascension), (Pentecost), and the (church age).

"This offer of the kingdom which was extended through Christ, John, and the disciples to the nation [Israel] was rejected by that nation, notwithstanding the fact that it was in complete fulfillment of every divinely given prediction. It was a bona fide offer and, had they received Him as their King, the nation's hope would have been realized."

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. The Collected Works of Lewis Sperry Chafer - Seven books in one. Jawbone Digital. Kindle Edition. The Kingdom in History and Prophecy, Chapter V: The Kingdom Rejected and Postponed, Kindle location 3470-3473.

Chafer (1871-1952) founded the Dallas Theological Seminary. He is one of the most frequently quoted Dispensationalists. According to Chafer, there are seven Dispensations in the Bible. Other interpreters have added or subtracted from this. More conventional theologians say there are only two, the Old Testament and the New Testament.

The claim of a Kingdom offer made by Chafer and other Dispensationalists is flatly contrary to the Bible. It also leaves Christian theology in chaos.

"14 After the people saw the sign Jesus performed, they began to say, “Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world.” 15 Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself."
John 6: 14-15 NIV

According to John, it was not the Jews who rejected the offer of a Kingdom, but Jesus who fled from those who wanted to make Him a King. Jesus did not intend to lead a revolt against Rome and local monarchs like Herod.

There are other Gospel verses that contradict Chafer's notion of Jesus setting up a theocratic Jewish kingdom.

20 Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, 21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.”[c]
Luke 17:20-21 NIV
c:Luke 17:21 Or is within you

20 Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; 21 nor will they say, ‘Lo, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”[c]
Luke 17: 20-21 RSV
c: Luke 17:21 Or within you

When the Pharisees ask when is the Kingdom coming, Jesus doesn't say that the Jews have to accept a theocratic kingdom for it to happen. Instead He says that the Kingdom of Heaven is more subtle than the one they are expecting.

Rev. Chafer's notion that the crucifixion wasn't planed from the beginning is apparently contradicted by this verse.

70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” 71 He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him.
John 6:70-71 RSV

It looks like Judas was chosen as an Apostle precisely because the crucifixion was the plan from the beginning.

Click to expand...

I do not have time to read through and answer 16 pages of nonsense. So am just going to hit some of the high points from the first page.

First, dispensationalists do not, and never did, teach that the church is God's
"plan B," as it were. Nor do they now nor ever did, teach that the church age is either a parenthesis in or a change in God's overall plan. It is essential to dispensational thinking, and has been taught since ancient times, that the various dispensations are all arranged in an overall plan that God has had in place from before the very beginning. What they DO teach, is that the church age is a parenthesis in God's plan FOR ISRAEL. That is a very different concept from its being either a parenthesis in or a change in God's overall plan.

God indeed made Israel a very valid offer of the coming of their great Messiah. But He knew from the beginning that they would not accept that offer.

And the claim that dispensationalism was never taught during the first 1800 years of the church, though widely circulated, has been COMPLETELY disproved. Two books which contain that proof are "Dispensationalism Before Darby," by William C. Watson, and "Ancient Dispensational Truth," by James C. Morris. Both of these books are easily available via Amazon.com .

Guojing said:

He didn't change it, he amplified it.

Click to expand...

Jesus fulfilled the law.

Biblewriter said:

First, dispensationalists do not, and never did, teach that the church is God's
"plan B," as it were. Nor do they now nor ever did, teach that the church age is either a parenthesis in or a change in God's overall plan.

Click to expand...

Sorry but that is just not true. I was taught exactly that when I was in the Plymouth Brethren. I have also been told the same on some IFB forums.

David Kent said:

Jesus fulfilled the law.

Click to expand...

Yes no one is saying otherwise, your point?

yeshuaslavejeff said:

Stick with Scripture. What does Scripture say.

Click to expand...

The difficult part with this approach is that the person reading the scripture is indeed influenced with their own theological background.

This is not avoidable and is the reason why disagreements exist. This is further complicated with the translation of scriptures into English and preferences on which translation to use, etc.

As such, I don't think there is a clear answer to this unless a strong consensus exists among people from various denominations and backgrounds.

As an example, consider Romans 9 and how to interpret scriptures from that chapter. Your conclusions after reading the scriptures will depend very strongly on if you are into reformed Calvinist theology or if you are not into that.

I'm not saying the reformed interpretation is wrong. I'm only using this as an example of where possible differences can arise when someone 'goes to the scriptures' so to speak.

Because of this, for me, it makes sense to ask for opinions from knowledgeable people so that they can offer answers from a certain theological point of view.

Bible Highlighter said:

Jesus talks about the temple's utter destruction whereby every stone will be thrown down (Matthew 24:1-2).

The disciples replied,

....Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of t"he end of the world?"
(Matthew 24:3).

Jesus then lays out the end times for them that will involve the sign of His coming, and of the END OF THE WORLD. This is the "Consummation" (i.e. End) mentioned in Daniel 9.
How so? Because Jesus points to the Abomination of Desolations from Daniel 9!!!

Where exactly does the "End of the World" happen in Christ's Olivet Discourse for you?
Most likely it simply does not happen.

Also, we can see parallels between the Olivet Discourse and Revelation (of which we know Revelation is still yet future - unless of course you know of an event in history that compares to it - which would be pretty silly).

In the Future:

The Beast Takes Jerusalem & The Temple Sacrifices Are Stopped:
(And the Gentile Nations Will Trod Down Upon the City for 42 Months):

• Daniel 11:31a NIV
"His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice."

• Revelation 11:2 NLT
"The nations ... will trample the holy city for 42 months."​

See!!! Revelation is talking about the same thing that Daniel is talking about.

We see it again. Watch this:

"and unto the end of the war desolations [i.e. plural desolations] are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:" (Daniel 9:26).

One Desolation is the temple sacrifice shall cease.

"he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." (Daniel 9:27) (KJV).

"he will put an end to the sacrifices and offerings. And as a climax to all his terrible deeds, he will set up a sacrilegious object that causes desecration, ....” (Daniel 9:27) (NLT).​

In Revelation (Which is clearly a description of the End) we see another desolation that takes place.

• Revelation 17:16

"And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the harlot, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire."

• Revelation 18:19

"And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate."​

See how it all lines up?

Daniel 9 talks about "desolations" (plural desolations), and we see that Mystery Babylon or the harlot is brought desolate by the beast's kingdom. Clearly an honest reading of Revelation will lead the reader to conclude that those things within Revelation have clearly not happened yet. It describes some really unforgettable things that no human in history will ever forget.

Click to expand...

.

Bible Highlighter said:

"....Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"
(Matthew 24:3).

Click to expand...

Two questions. Only one that was anything to do with Jesus' comment. Remember that the disciples wer astonished when Jesus said to the pharisees "Your house is left unto you desolate." The disciples brought Jesus attention to the wonderful and great stones when Jesus said that one stone would not be left upon another. And they said ..Tell us, when shall these things be? Jesus gave the answer "When you see the abomination of desolation," Which Luke is more ope about. When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, Then know that its desolatgion is near.
To the second question Jesus answered "But" change of subject Matthew 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. The second question answered.

"One Desolation is the temple sacrifice shall cease."
Yes the temple sacrifice ceased, According to Josepus from the time Jerusalem was surrounded by armies till the sacrifice ceased was 1290 days. He gives the dates, it was also 45 days from then till the temple was destroyed mking 2300 days altogether. I am not certain that has any bearing as there is at least one other understanding.

I would rather you use the KJV instead of the corrupt NIV

Daniel 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

The first Part refers to Antochus Epiphanes who poluted the temple but didn't desolate it. Josephus said Jerusalem was taked several time, but only desolated twice, by Nebuchadnezzar then Titus. The second part refers to the Romans who arrived in the Ships of Chittim to stand against Antiochus, and ordered him to stop invading Egypt. The Roman ambassador drew a line in the sand around him and said "If you cross that line without giving an answer, you will be at war with Rome". They were the ones who placed the abomination of desolation.That is the Romans, they were the "They" Antochus was the "He and him".

The Revelation is not all future, neither is it all past. It is being fulfilled in history.

yeshuaslavejeff said:

Isolated this one statement. It is obviously false.

Click to expand...

Are you saying Jesus wasn't behind the destruction of Jerusalem?

Al Touthentop said:

Your perception, that Revelation never came to pass, has no bearing on the word's meaning.

Click to expand...

My perception is only that Jesus hasn't come with His rewards yet. Since He said He was coming quickly and it's been 2000 years now since He said it we know that Jesus at least used it in a different way than you say most Greeks used it.

I don't care about how Aristotle or Alexander the Great used the word. I care about how Jesus uses the word. If He uses it in two different ways in two different passeges then that's His prerogative. He's the one who invented the languages of the world.

Take it up with Him.

Al Touthentop said:

But that phrase, "I am coming quickly" does not mean the second coming ......... he wasn't talking about a second coming but the events foretold which would affect the people being addressed.

Click to expand...

Riiiiiight - and He brought His rewards with Him in 70 A.D. or so and gave them to certain people from just the 7 churches the book was addressed to before He had the Romans level the great city.

Actually I don't know what you believe. Did He just come to the towns of those 7 churches the book is addressed to? That's what you seem to say everything you've said considered.

Look I certainly wouldn't mind getting my rewards a little early. But I'll pass on what He brought with Him in addition to those reward (if what you teach about that particular coming is correct - which, fortunately it isn't).

This isn't exactly rocket surgery. You're just being silly because you know that you are wrong. You can always find other ways to present your view. But this one isn't working out for you.

Like I said, you are doubling down on your mistake in spite of the obvious.

Actually I couldn't care less what your position is and I won't be reading your other posts here to find out. I only know that the things we have been discussing between us two show you to be full of beans, at least in this one line of inquiry, and you are unwilling to admit it..

I have no further interest in discussing the matter with you since you apparently want to play games with this Greek word and not present an argument for your position that holds water.

I hope to see you on the other side. But that will likely do it for now.

Guojing said:

Yes no one is saying otherwise, your point?

Click to expand...

When the law was fulfilled there is no more use for it.

David Kent said:

When the law was fulfilled there is no more use for it.

Click to expand...

I see that you also quoting Paul here which is correct but let’s not anticipate revelation first.

So why do you think the resurrected Christ not tell the 11 that but instead, told the 11 in Matt 28 great commission that they are to teach others to obey all that he commanded them?

Al Touthentop said:

So we can just put our own meaning into the text. Jesus didn't actually die for the Gentiles too, just the Jews. Then later he said, "OK, I guess I better go ahead and change the plan and allow some Gentiles in even though this was never the plan.

So when he said, "And if I am lifted from the earth I will draw all peoples to myself" and John comments that this was in reference to the manner in which he would die, he really wasn't meaning "all peoples" he meant "just the Jews (for now)."

Click to expand...

You misunderstand the intent of my post. The grand plan of God to save the Gentiles, thru the rejection by Israel, was a plan hidden in God since the foundation of the world (Ephesians 3:1-9 and Romans 11:11).

Before that can happen however, the Jewish nation must be given a legitimate choice whether or not to accept Jesus as their King. I saying what Jesus meant in John 3:16 was to appeal to the Jews to believe in his as their promised Messiah and King.

Jesus indeed will die for the whole world but his earthly ministry was confined to the Jews and he was preaching to them the Gospel of the Kingdom, which did not require the Jews to believe in his death burial and resurrection.

Dale said:

Most criticism of Dispensationalism has centered on the Rapture, the most well known belief of Dispensationalists. Much criticism has been focused on their treatment of Jews and Israel, which sometimes sets up a two-tiered scheme of salvation. A lot of criticism has been focused on Dispensationalism as a surprisingly recent belief system. Dispensationalists are extreme literalists but this doesn't mean that they agree with other literalists.

As we shall see, the Dispensationalists say that the crucifixion of Christ and the entire church age that followed, is only a "parenthesis" in God's plan. God's original plan is on hold. Most Christians find this rather jarring, considering the emphasis that Paul put on "Christ crucified." A critic would say that the whole notion of a parenthesis is only needed to make their end-of-the-world calculations come out right.

This thread focuses on the most basic idea of Dispensationalism, besides dispensations. Dispensationalism claims that God offered the Jews a chance to make Jesus their earthly King. Jesus would then have overthrown the Romans and established Israel as a theocratic Kingdom, eventually covering the world. Since this was God's original plan, Christianity came about when the Jews rejected the Kingship of Jesus. God went to Plan B, which included the (crucifixion), the (resurrection), the (ascension), (Pentecost), and the (church age).

"This offer of the kingdom which was extended through Christ, John, and the disciples to the nation [Israel] was rejected by that nation, notwithstanding the fact that it was in complete fulfillment of every divinely given prediction. It was a bona fide offer and, had they received Him as their King, the nation's hope would have been realized."

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. The Collected Works of Lewis Sperry Chafer - Seven books in one. Jawbone Digital. Kindle Edition. The Kingdom in History and Prophecy, Chapter V: The Kingdom Rejected and Postponed, Kindle location 3470-3473.

Chafer (1871-1952) founded the Dallas Theological Seminary. He is one of the most frequently quoted Dispensationalists. According to Chafer, there are seven Dispensations in the Bible. Other interpreters have added or subtracted from this. More conventional theologians say there are only two, the Old Testament and the New Testament.

The claim of a Kingdom offer made by Chafer and other Dispensationalists is flatly contrary to the Bible. It also leaves Christian theology in chaos.

"14 After the people saw the sign Jesus performed, they began to say, “Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world.” 15 Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself."
John 6: 14-15 NIV

According to John, it was not the Jews who rejected the offer of a Kingdom, but Jesus who fled from those who wanted to make Him a King. Jesus did not intend to lead a revolt against Rome and local monarchs like Herod.

There are other Gospel verses that contradict Chafer's notion of Jesus setting up a theocratic Jewish kingdom.

20 Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, 21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.”[c]
Luke 17:20-21 NIV
c:Luke 17:21 Or is within you

20 Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; 21 nor will they say, ‘Lo, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”[c]
Luke 17: 20-21 RSV
c: Luke 17:21 Or within you

When the Pharisees ask when is the Kingdom coming, Jesus doesn't say that the Jews have to accept a theocratic kingdom for it to happen. Instead He says that the Kingdom of Heaven is more subtle than the one they are expecting.

Rev. Chafer's notion that the crucifixion wasn't planed from the beginning is apparently contradicted by this verse.

70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” 71 He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him.
John 6:70-71 RSV

It looks like Judas was chosen as an Apostle precisely because the crucifixion was the plan from the beginning.

Click to expand...

dale,

1.
a). Parenthesis doesn’t have nothing to do with a plan b in redemption of the cross for redemption came in despite the Jewish nation rejecting Christ.
Genesis 3:15 was the first Messianic prophecy about redemption at Calvary.
b). Parenthesis has nothing to do with God having to think of another plan because of Israel’s failure to receive the Messiah.
The church was predestined before the foundation of the world Ephesians 1:3.
Israel was only prophesied to reject the Messiah Isaiah 53:3; and was confirmed by the forerunner of Christ, John the Baptist John 1:11.
c). Parenthesis has nothing to do with God changing his mind about the end of the world.
In the Garden of Eden Adam was given rule over the physical garden and had the spiritual rule of God in his heart for he was sinless.
Eve was tempted by the serpent who Satan used to work through though Adam was given the command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil before Eve came to be Genesis 2:17.
Adam was there with Eve when she was tempted Genesis 3:6.
God gave the judgement on the serpent, woman and man Genesis 3:14-19.
Genesis 3:22-24 shows they had to be kicked out of the garden so they wouldn’t eat of the tree of life and live eternally in sin without a chance to be saved.
So the physical and spiritual rule had to be restored.
The Jewish nation was chosen of God to bring forth the Messiah through Abraham Genesis 12:1-3; Isaac Genesis 17:19; Jacob Genesis 28:1-4.
Israel did bring the Messiah in Matthew 1; Galatians 4:4.

2. Jesus came to seek and save that which was lost Luke 19:10.
The Kingdom of Heaven physical earth Matthew 4:17 and the spiritual Kingdom of God Matthew 6:33 Luke 17:20-21 had to be restored.

3. Jesus taught this message to the Jewish nation in line with the prophecies concerning the eternal covenants of Abraham Genesis 12:1-3-15 and David 2 Samuel 7:13-16; 1 Chronicles 28:1-8. These are eternally unconditional as will come to pass but conditional to repentance which they will do in the future Romans 11-25-29.

4. The spiritual kingdom was restored at Calvary Matthew 26:28.
The physical kingdom of creation is still groaning Romans 8:22 and will not be restored until the millennial kingdom when the kingdoms of this world have become the Lord’s Revelation 11:15.

5. The KoH physical offer was bonefide because Jesus offered it Matthew 4:17 and the KoG spiritual was the way for them to gain entrance into it.
This is Israel’s earthly calling concerning their position in the Kingdom of Heaven on earth Isaiah 2:2-4;9:6-7; Ezekiel 37:16-28 etc.
Jacob’s trouble Jeremiah 30:7; Daniel 12:1; Matthew 24:21; Revelation 12 etc. is about and separate from the church’s heavenly calling which is earthly 2 Timothy 2:12 and Heavenly Colossians 1:16 universal rule.
As far as what would have happened if Israel would have accepted the offer as a nation is neither here more there because it was only prophesied Israel would reject Christ Isaiah 53:3; and confirmed by John; John 1:18.
Matthew 21:43 shows that the KoG spiritual would be given to another nation who would bring forth the fruits which would be the church Romans’ 11:11. They fell and we are to provoke them to jealousy so they will come back to Christ.

6. I don’t know what you mean by a two tier scheme of salvation.
There is only one New Covenant concerning redemption which Matthew 26:28 calls the New Testament in his blood and New Covenant in Hebrews 8:6-7.
It was originally made with Israel first Jeremiah 31:31-34 because there was no New Testament church then.
It was rejected by Israel Matthew 23:37-39 in Jesus ministry.
The mystery of the church was ratified at Calvary Ephesians 2:14-15 though not fully manifested till Acts 10 when Peter was given the vision of the clean and unclean and more fully in Paul’s ministry to the gentiles Ephesians 3:1-6.

7. Israel as a nation is backslidden and will not be fully saved until the time of the gentiles be come in Romans 11:25.
Jacob’s name was changed to Israel Genesis 32:28; and his twelve sons were named the tribes of Israel and Jacob told them what would befall them in the last days Genesis 49:1-28. Ezekiel 37 :16-28 shows how Israel and Judah will become one stick with David as their king.

8. So, no matter what you think Chafer said or meant or didn’t like his usage of words you highly miss the overall context of the subject according to the truth of the scriptures. Jerry Kelso