“Generation”, Matthew 25, and Deuteronomy 28-30

[Bible2]

random person said in post 73:

It is not correct, therefore, to state that the church has REPLACED Israel.

That's right, for even though the church is Israel (Revelation 21:9,12; 1 Peter 2:9-10), the church doesn't "replace" Israel, because Gentiles in the church are grafted in to become only parts of an already-existing Israel (Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29, John 10:16), which also includes the Jews in the church (Romans 11:1).

That is, all genetic Jews in the church remain members of whichever tribe of Israel they were born into (Romans 11:1, Acts 4:36). And all genetic Gentiles in the church have been grafted into Israel (Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29), and so have been grafted into its various tribes (cf. Ezekiel 47:21-23). So the entire church is the 12 tribes of Israel (Revelation 21:9,12; 1 Peter 2:9-10). This is necessary, for all those in the church are saved only by the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6, Hebrews 9:15), which is made only with Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-34, John 4:22b). John 10:16 refers to the "other sheep" of believers who are Gentiles being brought into "this fold" of Israel, which is the "one fold" of the church (1 Corinthians 12:13, Ephesians 4:4-6, Revelation 21:9,12). A genetic Gentile believer can pray and ask which tribe of Israel he has been grafted into, and he will receive an answer from God, if he asks in faith (cf. Matthew 21:22), without any wavering (cf. James 1:6-7).

Also, all those in the church, no matter whether they are genetic Jews (Acts 22:3) or genetic Gentiles (Romans 16:4b), have become spiritually-circumcised Jews, if they have undergone the spiritual circumcision of water-immersion (burial) baptism into Jesus (Romans 2:29, Philippians 3:3, Colossians 2:11-13).

Also, immediately after the tribulation, at Jesus' 2nd coming (Matthew 24:29-30), all the still-living, unsaved, elect genetic Jews will become saved (Romans 11:26-28) by God's grace when they see the returned Jesus in person and believe in him (Zechariah 12:10-14). And so they will all become part of the church at that time, just as when genetic Jews believe in Jesus now they become part of the church. For now there are no believers outside of the church (Ephesians 4:4-6).

And the genetic Jews who will become believers at the 2nd coming will all become part of the church by receiving some measure of the Holy Spirit, who is "the spirit of grace and of supplications" in Zechariah 12:10 (Hebrews 10:29c, Romans 8:26), just as genetic Jewish believers today become part of the church by receiving some measure of the Holy Spirit. For it is by receiving some measure of the Holy Spirit that both genetic Jewish believers and genetic Gentile believers become part of the church (1 Corinthians 12:13).

Also, if the genetic Jews who will become saved at the 2nd coming had been religious Jews, they won't continue to mistakenly try to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, because they will then be believers in the truth that on Jesus' Cross, for both Jews and Gentiles (John 11:51-52), of all times, the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law was abolished (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18), disannulled (Hebrews 7:18), rendered obsolete (Hebrews 8:13, Galatians 3:2-25, Galatians 4:21 to 5:8), taken away and replaced (Hebrews 10:9) by the better hope (Hebrews 7:19), the better covenant (Hebrews 7:22, Hebrews 8:6-12), the 2nd covenant (Hebrews 8:7, Hebrews 10:9), of Jesus' New Covenant law (Galatians 6:2, John 1:17, Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 12:24, Hebrews 9:15), so that the law was changed (Hebrews 7:12).

All believers, both Jews and Gentles, of all times, are delivered from the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, and shouldn't keep it (Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Galatians 2:11-21), or have any desire to keep it (Galatians 4:21 to 5:8, Galatians 3:2-25). Believers keep the spirit of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Romans 7:6) by loving others (Galatians 5:14, Romans 13:8-10), by doing to others as they would have others do to them (Matthew 7:12).

random person said in post 73:

There is no more "Jew" and "Gentile" racial distinctions.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28).

Note that in Galatians 3:28, Paul can't possibly mean that there are no believers who are Jews or Gentiles in any sense, because elsewhere he shows, for example, that believers remain either genetic Jews (Acts 22:3) or genetic Gentiles (Romans 16:4b). Similarly, Galatians 3:28 doesn't mean that there are no believers who are males or females in any sense, for clearly we are still males or females with regard to our genitals, and with regard to other matters (1 Timothy 2:11-12; 1 Corinthians 14:34-37; 1 Corinthians 11:4-16; 1 Peter 3:7a).

So Galatians 3:28 can only mean that there is no distinction between believing Jews and Gentiles, or between believing males and females, with regard to them being "one in Christ" (Galatians 3:28b), in the sense of them being one body in Christ (Ephesians 4:4-6), without distinction with regard to their salvation (Romans 10:12; 1 Corinthians 12:13; 1 Peter 3:7b).

random person said in post 73:

Christ's kingdom is here now in fullness.

Not yet. For while presently the kingdom of God is in heaven (2 Timothy 4:18, Hebrews 12:22-24), and is on the earth spiritually within Christians (Romans 14:17, Luke 17:21), in the future the kingdom will come fully upon the earth as it is in heaven (Matthew 6:10). It will also be physically (Luke 22:30, Matthew 19:28) on the earth (Revelation 5:10), first during the future millennium (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 2:26-29, Psalms 66:3-4, Psalms 72:8-11, Zechariah 14:3-21), and then on the new earth (Revelation 21:1-8).

Jesus' kingdom is Israel (John 1:49, John 12:13-15, John 19:19, Luke 22:30). And at Jesus' 2nd coming, he will sit on the earthly throne of David (Luke 1:32-33, Isaiah 9:7), and restore the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6-7, Acts 3:20-21). Jesus is, in his humanity, the son of David (Matthew 1:1, Matthew 21:15-16, Romans 1:3), of the house of David (Luke 1:69). So at Jesus' 2nd coming, he will restore the tabernacle, the house, of David (Isaiah 16:5, Amos 9:11) to its royal glory (2 Samuel 5:12), which it had lost (2 Kings 17:21a). And Jesus will fulfill the prophecy and prayer of 2 Samuel 7:16-29. And he will bring salvation to all the still-living, unbelieving elect Jews of the house of David. For they (along with all other still-living, unbelieving elect Jews) will come into faith in him when they see him at his 2nd coming (Zechariah 12:10-14, Zechariah 13:1,6, Romans 11:26-31). And so they will all become part of the church at that time, for now there are no believers outside of the church (Ephesians 4:4-6).

After Jesus' 2nd coming (Revelation 19:7 to 20:3, Zechariah 14:3-5) will occur the millennium (Revelation 20:4-6, Zechariah 14:8-21), during which time the Gentile nations will come to seek the returned Jesus ruling the whole earth (Zechariah 8:22, Zechariah 14:9, Psalms 72:8-11) on the restored throne of David (Isaiah 9:7) in the earthly Jerusalem (Isaiah 2:1-4, Zechariah 14:8-11,16-19). And the physically resurrected church will reign on the earth with Jesus during the millennium (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29). For the church is Israel (Romans 11:1,17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29, Revelation 21:9,12; 1 Peter 2:9-10).

random person said in post 73:

All (who were a part of the true spiritual) Israel were saved and given the inheritance (Romans 11:26).

"There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer" (Romans 11:26) refers to Jesus' (never fulfilled) 2nd coming, when the still-living, unsaved, elect genetic Jews (Romans 11:28-29) will get saved when they see the physically returned Jesus in person and believe in him (Zechariah 12:10-14).

 

[Bible2]

parousia70 said in post 89:

So was James wrong to say the coming of the lord was already "at the door" back in his day? (James 5:8-9)

The holy scripture of James 5:8-9 must be understood from the viewpoint of God, not of any man (2 Peter 3:8-9; 2 Peter 1:20-21), because Jesus' 2nd coming has never happened.

 

[Bible2]

Danoh said in post 91:

What fools some continue to be on here - fact is that after only some of Israel returned to the land from Babylon, they remained "trodden down of the Gentiles," under the Persian, then, under the Greek, and then under Roman POLITICAL power - and have remained so "UNTIL the TIMES of the Gentiles" POLITICALLY "be fulfilled."

The treading down of Jerusalem during the "times" (Greek: kairos: G2540) of the Gentiles in Luke 21:24 refers to what will occur during certain years in our future, the same "times" (kairos: G2540), or years, referred to in Revelation 12:14b, during which the Gentiles will tread down Jerusalem as part of the Antichrist's future, literal 3.5-year worldwide reign (Revelation 11:2b, Revelation 13:5-18), during the 2nd half of the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24.

Similarly, when Paul says "until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in" (Romans 11:25), he means until a full number of genetic Gentile individuals have become saved, which won't happen until near the end of the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, right before Jesus' 2nd coming (Romans 11:26), immediately after the tribulation (Matthew 24:29-30).

In Romans 11:25, the Gentiles are genetic Gentiles, the people addressed throughout Romans 11:13-31, who aren't genetic Jews like Paul the apostle (Romans 11:1,14). Both individual genetic Jewish believers (natural branches) and individual genetic Gentile believers (engrafted wild branches) are branches in the good olive tree of Israel (Romans 11:17,24). For when Gentiles become believers they "come in" (Romans 11:25) to be part of Israel (Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29). The fruit of each individual branch would be the good works of each individual (Colossians 1:10). It is the genetic Jews who are "blind in part", meaning that some (in the sense of not all) of them are spiritually blind while others aren't (Romans 11:7-10). For "blindness in part is happened to Israel" (Romans 11:25) in its genetic sense (Romans 11:1,14), that is, genetic Jews (Acts 22:3). Also, in Romans 11:25-26, "Israel" includes elect genetic Jews who aren't yet believers (Romans 11:28), but who will become believers eventually (Romans 11:26).

 

[Bible2]

ebedmelech said in post 99:

Romans 9:6-8:
6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;
7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants will be named.”
8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

Amen.

Romans 9
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

All genetic Jews are part of genetic Israel (Romans 9:3-5). But being part of the true, spiritual Israel, the true, spiritual seed of Abraham, the promised seed, isn't based on genetics (Romans 9:6-24), but on God's election (Romans 9:11), which includes both some Jews and some Gentiles (Romans 9:24).

All believing Jews and all believing Gentiles are part of the true Israel (Ephesians 2:12,19, Romans 11:17,24, Revelation 21:9,12; 1 Peter 2:9-10, John 10:16), the seed of Abraham (Galatians 3:28-29, Romans 4:16-17), the promised seed, just as Isaac was (Galatians 4:28). And so all Gentiles in the church, along with all Jews in the church, are heirs of all the promises made by God to Israel (Ephesians 3:6, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29, Romans 15:27).

In Romans 9:8, by "the children of the flesh", Paul means genetic Jews, who are the genetic children of Abraham (Romans 11:1, Acts 13:26, John 8:37). And by "the children of God"/"the children of the promise", Paul means the elect, both some Jews and some Gentiles (Romans 9:24, Galatians 4:28). Romans 9:6-8 means that not all Jews are elect (John 8:37-47, John 10:26), and that some Gentiles are elect (Romans 9:24, John 10:16, John 11:52). Only a remnant of genetic Israel is elect (Romans 9:27), just as only a remnant of humanity in general is elect (chosen) (Matthew 22:14, Matthew 7:14).

 

[parousia70]

The holy scripture of James 5:8-9 must be understood from the viewpoint of God, not of any man (2 Peter 3:8-9; 2 Peter 1:20-21), because Jesus' 2nd coming has never happened.

Circular reasoning, and unusable/unknowable for James' original audience, rendering the interpretation unsupportable and therefore incorrect.

What about this?:

Matt 24:33
So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near—at the doors!

Is this "near" that Jesus used from the viewpoint of God and not any man as well?

Do you believe James was aware of Jesus above Proclamation when he penned James 5:8-9?

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[gospelfer]

Both Full-Preterism and Full-Futurism are not correct.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

My family contributes to Jews for Jesus and Word of Messiah ministries, because these two groups are evangelizing the Jewish people, in order to graft them back into the Olive tree of Romans 11.

Both Peter and Paul stated that God is not a respecter of persons. The middle wall of separation has been broken down.

Many modern Christians seem to think that Jews living in the modern state of Israel are in a correct relationship with God.

However the Old Testament has been replaced with the new.

.

I'm not sure that I disagree with you about anything. If dispensationalism means anything more than the obvious fact that God can do more than one thing at the same time, and that the story of the Jew will continue as outlined by scripture, it wrong. The new covenant is God's universal covenant, and Israel's disasterous failure to enter into it brought the extremis of national destruction and exile -- as foretold by Moses. I don't see anything to suggest that anything less than an acceptance of her Messiah will bring about the promised Mosaic "return". This astonishing event is about to happen; it has already started.

I'm not sure what you mean by the Old Testament being replaced by the New. If you are talking about the new and old covenant, I sort of agree. That is, the new covenant is a radical expansion of the old, both in its meaning, effect, and universalism. However, the new covenant still contains the old. This might seem a strange assertion, but Christ himself tells how this is so when he states that the entire law of Moses hangs upon two commandments -- though shalt love your God with all your heart, and you shall love your neighbor as yourself. Another way of saying this is, the rest of the Mosaic law is an expression (or instance) of these two primary laws. Thus, the rest of the law exists within those two statements. However, the two statement law is both wider and more exacting than the mosaic law. Any yet, the Mosaic law also contains those two statements. This is utter genius -- inhuman genius: the Mosaic law contains the seed of universalism and a more exacting love, and it also contains itself. This view harmonizes what Christ says in Matt 5 about not abolishing so much as a dot from law and Paul's fulmination against thrusting it upon Gentiles. There is no contradication at all -- which is what we should expect. The gentile follows the "royal" two-commandment law, and the new Jew follows it also; additionally the new Jew will follow the peculiar "mosaic" expression of the royal law which God uses to mark him as a Jew. Thus, the new covenant supercedes the old covenant, while still managing to enclose it. God's truths become deeper and more defined, but they never erase the old truths -- that would mean the old truths were wrong. Again, the fact that the new covenant ethics is contained in the old covenant, and yet it widens and deepens the old ones, is sheer genius -- and a very great evidence for the truth of our God.

As for the idea of God being a respecter of persons -- he never was. And being a Jew has never meant special treatment (if one means especially favorable treatment). And of course there is no spiritual division in the new Israel. But none of these truths prevents there from being a continuing historical division. Part of the world received the new covenant, part of it did not (historically speaking). This is such a division. For the 2000 years, the Jew did not have the new covenant; like the Irish nation in the 5th century, the Jewish nation is about to receive the new covenant. And as the Irish nation remained Irish after receiving the new covenant, so the Jewish nation will remain Jewish when it enters -- and Christ himself provides the grounds for this.
Matt 5:17 ff was aimed a Jews, to ease the way into the new covenant. It is the equivalent of the vision of the net divers animals -- but in reverse. Christians have never really understood those verses, and all the explanations do not explain, but rather explain away.

Anyways, this is all a very long winded way of saying "you are correct": the new covenant is the way forward for the Jew, but, as Christ says, this will not involve throwing away the old covenant for the Jew. Instead, it means subsuming the commandments of old covenant into their right relation within the new. It also means the Jew will have his own nation (like everybody else). The Jew will not be offended by the Irish's peculiar expressions of the new covenant, and the Irish will not be offended by the Jew's peculiar expressions of the new covenant (tallit, etc). Both will follow the royal law, both will be subjects of the King. One big happy family.

 

[Danoh]

Between Genesis two and Genesis three there is a change both in Adam's STATUS or IDENTITY before God, and a change in God's dealings with, or in what and how God DISPENSES unto him what He does "for the obedience of faith."

That is ALL that Dispensationalism BASICALLY is; a change in STATUS AND in what is DISPENSED TO man by God.

Including the CHANGE IN STATUS HE DISPENSES.

We see these IDENTIFYING changes throughout Scripture.

Romans 3's "BUT NOW the righteousness of God WITHOUT the Law," is another example of this BASIC governing principle as to what is Dispensational Bible Study BASICALLY is...

Another of the basic four [Promise, Law, Grace, Kingdom Fulness] being "THE Dispensation of THE Fulness of times" - in which man's PHYSICAL status is FOREVER altered WHEN "Death is swallowed up in victory."

 

[gospelfer]

Between Genesis two and Genesis three there is a change both in Adam's STATUS or IDENTITY before God, and a change in God's dealings with, or in what and how God DISPENSES unto him what He does "for the obedience of faith."

That is ALL that Dispensationalism BASICALLY is; a change in STATUS AND in what is DISPENSED TO man by God.

Including the CHANGE IN STATUS HE DISPENSES.

We see these IDENTIFYING changes throughout Scripture.

Romans 3's "BUT NOW the righteousness of God WITHOUT the Law," is another example of this BASIC governing principle as to what is Dispensational Bible Study BASICALLY is...

Another of the basic four [Promise, Law, Grace, Kingdom Fulness] being "THE Dispensation of THE Fulness of times" - in which man's PHYSICAL status is FOREVER altered WHEN "Death is swallowed up in victory."

Yes, in skimming the Stam book, I was a little surprised at by how little he meant by "dispensationalism". From the little I'd heard (and the comments of the anti-dispensationalists) I figured dispensationalism involved arguing the current sufficiency of the old covenant (at least for the Jews). But the book strictly disavows that idea. Unless I missed something, what is left is pretty much common sense stuff that any moderately perceptive reader will pull from scripture on his own.

 

[BABerean2]

I'm not sure that I disagree with you about anything. If dispensationalism means anything more than the obvious fact that God can do more than one thing at the same time, and that the story of the Jew will continue as outlined by scripture, it wrong. The new covenant is God's universal covenant, and Israel's disasterous failure to enter into it brought the extremis of national destruction and exile -- as foretold by Moses. I don't see anything to suggest that anything less than an acceptance of her Messiah will bring about the promised Mosaic "return". This astonishing event is about to happen; it has already started.

I'm not sure what you mean by the Old Testament being replaced by the New. If you are talking about the new and old covenant, I sort of agree. That is, the new covenant is a radical expansion of the old, both in its meaning, effect, and universalism. However, the new covenant still contains the old. This might seem a strange assertion, but Christ himself tells how this is so when he states that the entire law of Moses hangs upon two commandments -- though shalt love your God with all your heart, and you shall love your neighbor as yourself. Another way of saying this is, the rest of the Mosaic law is an expression (or instance) of these two primary laws. Thus, the rest of the law exists within those two statements. However, the two statement law is both wider and more exacting than the mosaic law. Any yet, the Mosaic law also contains those two statements. This is utter genius -- inhuman genius: the Mosaic law contains the seed of universalism and a more exacting love, and it also contains itself. This view harmonizes what Christ says in Matt 5 about not abolishing so much as a dot from law and Paul's fulmination against thrusting it upon Gentiles. There is no contradication at all -- which is what we should expect. The gentile follows the "royal" two-commandment law, and the new Jew follows it also; additionally the new Jew will follow the peculiar "mosaic" expression of the royal law which God uses to mark him as a Jew. Thus, the new covenant supercedes the old covenant, while still managing to enclose it. God's truths become deeper and more defined, but they never erase the old truths -- that would mean the old truths were wrong. Again, the fact that the new covenant ethics is contained in the old covenant, and yet it widens and deepens the old ones, is sheer genius -- and a very great evidence for the truth of our God.

As for the idea of God being a respecter of persons -- he never was. And being a Jew has never meant special treatment (if one means especially favorable treatment). And of course there is no spiritual division in the new Israel. But none of these truths prevents there from being a continuing historical division. Part of the world received the new covenant, part of it did not (historically speaking). This is such a division. For the 2000 years, the Jew did not have the new covenant; like the Irish nation in the 5th century, the Jewish nation is about to receive the new covenant. And as the Irish nation remained Irish after receiving the new covenant, so the Jewish nation will remain Jewish when it enters -- and Christ himself provides the grounds for this.
Matt 5:17 ff was aimed a Jews, to ease the way into the new covenant. It is the equivalent of the vision of the net divers animals -- but in reverse. Christians have never really understood those verses, and all the explanations do not explain, but rather explain away.

Anyways, this is all a very long winded way of saying "you are correct": the new covenant is the way forward for the Jew, but, as Christ says, this will not involve throwing away the old covenant for the Jew. Instead, it means subsuming the commandments of old covenant into their right relation within the new. It also means the Jew will have his own nation (like everybody else). The Jew will not be offended by the Irish's peculiar expressions of the new covenant, and the Irish will not be offended by the Jew's peculiar expressions of the new covenant (tallit, etc). Both will follow the royal law, both will be subjects of the King. One big happy family.

What I meant to say was that the Old Covenant was replaced by the New Covenant.

This is in the text from the Book of Hebrews, unless I am completely misreading the Book of Hebrews.

I apologize for the mistake and I appreciate your patience.


Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
(The New Covenant has replaced the Old Covenant.)

Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. (He took away the first covenant to establish the second.)

Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
(There is no need for renewed animal sacrifices. Christ was the ultimate sacrifice. He was God‘s one and only son.)

Heb 11:16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.


.

 

[Danoh]

What I meant to say was that the Old Covenant was replaced by the New Covenant.

This is in the text from the Book of Hebrews, unless I am completely misreading the Book of Hebrews.

I apologize for the mistake and I appreciate your patience.


Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
(The New Covenant has replaced the Old Covenant.)

Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. (He took away the first covenant to establish the second.)

Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
(There is no need for renewed animal sacrifices. Christ was the ultimate sacrifice. He was God‘s one and only son.)

Heb 11:16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.


.

Talk about passages relating a Dispensational change while rejecting the obvious that Dispensationalism BASICALLY is - a CHANGE in STATUS, and WITH THAT, a CHANGE in RESPONSIBILITIES...

 

[gospelfer]

BABarean2:

Yes, the new covenant has superceded the old covenant. In the same way that the old covenant superceded the Noahide laws. The Noahide laws were replaced. Except, that isn't quite true; they were subsumed into the old covenant. In fact, the Noahide laws are still with us, except they exist with in the new covenant.

So the end result of all this, is if one wants a relationship with God, one does it through the new covenant and Christ. This fact is proclaimed in both the old and new testaments. And of course this true for the jew as well as the gentile. But there will remain to the jew that peculiar mosiac expression of the two-commandment royal law which makes up the bulk of the Mosaic commandments. Thus the jew's tallit (commanded by God) are an expression of both of the royal laws, and express very much the same thing as a cross necklace does for a gentile. It is no better or worse than a cross, and quite frankly, a gentile (or jew) could still accomplish the royal commandment without either. But the sign that the man is a jew is simply this, that fulfills (or attempts) to fulfill the mosaic commandments in addition to the royal commandments. It is no longer a spiritual distinction (and I have serious doubts as to whether it ever was), but rather a national and historical one. Thus the mosaic commandments have no meaning unless they are an expression of "Love the Lord with all your heart", and "love your neighbor as yourself" -- but this is true for all our actions now, gentile or jew. Again, no spiritual distinction.

So for me, the story of the Jew is a historical story taking place in this world, a story through which God glorifies himself. As I said before, I can't explain why God has wound the Jew's story into the spiritual/historical worldly drama, but he has. That story isn't finished -- if it were, the Jew would have disappeared. The Jew won't disappear in the future either (speaking of wordly history now), he will still be there (but now believing in Christ), evidence that our God was and is the true God, and that everything he said through Moses (the threefold history) and the prophets was correct from the very start.

 

[Danoh]

Yes, in skimming the Stam book, I was a little surprised at by how little he meant by "dispensationalism". From the little I'd heard (and the comments of the anti-dispensationalists) I figured dispensationalism involved arguing the current sufficiency of the old covenant (at least for the Jews). But the book strictly disavows that idea. Unless I missed something, what is left is pretty much common sense stuff that any moderately perceptive reader will pull from scripture on his own.

Most come to that book not only long since married to their own notions, but determined to stay married to their notions.

And most of them will skim through the book; checking how this or that passage is handled in contrast to how their already set in stone notions have closed the book against any other view.

In this you're fortunate; it appears you actually sought to hear the book out at least somewhat.

Several on here frequently comment against it; their erroneous conclusions continually proving they never really read the book through, let alone, sought to give it an honest hearing.

Such dishonesty is a standard within Christianity; one of the most dishonest of "religions" out there on the part of far too many of its practitioners in many areas in general.

 

[Bible2]

parousia70 said in post 105:

Matt 24:33
So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near—at the doors!

Matthew 24:33 contains a never-fulfilled condition. For note that just as the highly detailed tribulation events of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 find no historical fulfillment, so the tribulation events of Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 find no historical fulfillment. For example, Luke 21:24 refers to the same future treading down of Jerusalem by the Gentiles as Revelation 11:2b, during the Antichrist's future, literal 42-month worldwide reign (Revelation 13:5-18), the details of which time period are shown from 4 different angles in Revelation chapters 11 to 14 (Revelation 11:2b-3, Revelation 12:6,14, Revelation 13:5,7, Revelation 14:9-13). The myriad details of these chapters have never been fulfilled. Similarly, Jesus' 2nd coming and the church's gathering together (rapture) in Matthew 24:30-31 (2 Thessalonians 2:1-8; 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17) have never been fulfilled, but must occur "immediately after" the future tribulation of Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, and Revelation chapters 6 to 18 (Matthew 24:29-31; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8, Revelation 19:2 to 20:6).

Also, the end of the 2nd temple building (also called Herod's temple building) in 70 AD didn't fulfill Matthew 24:2. For the stones of the 2nd temple's Wailing Wall (also called the Western Wall) still stand today one on top of the other, just as they did when Jesus spoke that prophecy. Matthew 24:2 included the Wailing Wall, for Matthew 24:2 wasn't referring only to the single, 2nd temple building which stood in the center of the Temple Mount and which contained the holy place and the most holy place, but was referring to "all these things", all the plural "buildings"/structures/oikodome (G3619) of the entire 2nd temple complex (Matthew 24:1). Indeed, Matthew 24:2 could even have been spoken just to the north and west of the Wailing Wall. For it was spoken just after Jesus had departed from the temple complex (Matthew 24:1), and one of the main temple complex exits (called Wilson's Arch and bridge by archaeologists) was just to the north of the Wailing Wall, and at the same level as the top of the Temple Mount (see the temple-complex map-insert in the December, 2008 issue of National Geographic magazine).

Also, in Matthew 24:2, the "here" can include not just the entire 2nd temple complex, but every structure throughout Jerusalem. For the similar statement in Luke 19:44 applied to the whole city (Luke 19:41-44). Matthew 24:2 and Luke 19:44 could be fulfilled at the very end of the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, right before and at Jesus' 2nd coming (Zechariah 14:2-21, Revelation 19:7 to 20:6).

At the very end of the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, the Antichrist (Daniel 11:45) and the world's armies will pillage Jerusalem right before Jesus' 2nd coming (Zechariah 14:2-21). And at the 2nd coming, there will be tremendous earth changes in the vicinity of Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:4-5). These events could result in all of Jerusalem's structures, including the 3rd temple and the Wailing Wall (also called the Western Wall), being broken down so that not one stone will be left on another (Luke 19:44, Matthew 24:2). Then the returned Jesus (Zechariah 14:4, Acts 1:11-12) will rebuild Jerusalem and make it the capital of the world (Zechariah 14:8-19, Micah 4:1-4). He will also build a 4th temple there (Zechariah 14:20-21, Zechariah 6:12-13). It will serve a similar function for the church during the future millennium (of Revelation 20:4-6) as the 2nd temple served for the church in the 1st century AD (Luke 24:53, Acts 2:46, Acts 22:17), and as the temple building in heaven (Revelation 11:19) serves for those in heaven (Revelation 7:15).

 

[Bible2]

gospelfer said in post 107:

This view harmonizes what Christ says in Matt 5 about not abolishing so much as a dot from law . . .

Matthew 5:17-18 means that Jesus came the first time not to abolish the prophecies in the Mosaic law and the Old Testament prophets regarding the Messiah's/the Christ's first coming, but to fulfill all those prophecies (Luke 24:44-48; e.g. Acts 3:22-26, Isaiah 53). Matthew 5:17-18 can't mean that Jesus came not to abolish the letter of the commandments of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, for he did come to do that, on the Cross (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Hebrews 7:18-19). Also, Matthew 5:17-18 can't mean that Jesus came to fulfill the letter of all the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments, for he couldn't possibly have done that. For example, some of those commandments applied only to women after childbirth (Leviticus 12:4-8), or to wives suspected of adultery by their husbands (Numbers 5:19-31).

As the Christ (Matthew 5:17, Luke 24:44-46), the mediator of the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 12:24, Hebrews 7:22, Hebrews 8:6-9), Jesus had the divine authority to contradict the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments and replace them with his own, even better, New Covenant commandments (Matthew 5:38-44, Matthew 19:7-9, John 8:5-7), such as those he gave in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:19 to 7:29) and in the epistles of Paul the apostle (1 Corinthians 14:37; 1 Thessalonians 4:2). And as the Christ, Jesus had the divine authority to allow his disciples to break the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments (Matthew 12:1-8).

gospelfer said in post 107:

Thus, the new covenant supercedes the old covenant, while still managing to enclose it.

Jesus shows in the Sermon on the Mount how his New Covenant, Christian commandments are stricter than the letter of the commandments of the Old Covenant Mosaic law. For the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law forbade murder (Matthew 5:21, Exodus 20:13), while Jesus' New Covenant law forbids even calling people names (Matthew 5:22). And the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law forbade adultery (Matthew 5:27, Exodus 20:14), while Jesus' New Covenant law forbids even looking at another woman with lust (Matthew 5:28). And the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law permitted divorce and remarriage (Matthew 5:31, Deuteronomy 24:1-2), while Jesus' New Covenant law forbids it (Matthew 5:32, Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18), except for a single exemption granted only to husbands who discover their newlywed wife isn't a virgin, but had committed fornication (Matthew 19:9).

Jesus also shows in the Sermon on the Mount that while his New Covenant, Christian law is stricter than the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, at the same time it is also more merciful. For the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law required taking an eye for an eye (Matthew 5:38, Deuteronomy 19:21), while Jesus' New Covenant law requires turning the other cheek (Matthew 5:39). And the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law required hatred for one's enemies (Matthew 5:43, Deuteronomy 23:6), while Jesus' New Covenant law requires love for one's enemies (Matthew 5:44). And the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, the ministration of death (2 Corinthians 3:7), required, for example, that adulterers be put to death (Leviticus 20:10), while Jesus showed mercy to the woman caught in adultery (John 8:4-11). And, for another example, the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law required that anyone who does any work on the sabbath is to be put to death (Exodus 31:14, Numbers 15:32-36), while Jesus allowed his disciples to work on the sabbath and said they were guiltless (Matthew 12:1-8), just as Jesus himself worked on the sabbath (John 5:17-18).

So in obeying Jesus' New Covenant commandments (Matthew 5:19 to 7:29, John 14:15; 1 Corinthians 14:37), believers, whether Jews or Gentiles, are both more merciful and loving, and also exceed in righteousness those who try to keep the abolished letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Matthew 5:20-48, Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Hebrews 7:18-19).

gospelfer said in post 107:

Thus, the new covenant supercedes the old covenant, while still managing to enclose it.

The New Covenant is a new law (Hebrews 7:12,18,19, Hebrews 10:1-23), consisting of Jesus' New Covenant/New Testament commandments (John 14:15), such as those he gave in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:19 to 7:29) and in the epistles of Paul the apostle (1 Corinthians 14:37). These commandments exceed in righteousness the abolished letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Matthew 5:20-48). So there is no reason why any believer should ever want to go back under the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Galatians 3:2 to 5:26). It was just a temporary schoolmaster (Galatians 3:24-25), a temporary shadow (Colossians 2:16-17), which God set up because of sins long after he had set up the original promise of the Abrahamic Covenant, and long before he brought that promise to fulfillment in Jesus' New Covenant (Galatians 3:16-29, Matthew 26:28).

The letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law has been made obsolete by the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:13). For example, the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law required an Aaronic priesthood (Exodus 30:30), while the New Covenant replaced the Aaronic priesthood with the Melchisedechian priesthood (Hebrews 7:11-28). And the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law required animal sacrifices for sin (e.g. Leviticus 23:19), while the New Covenant replaced these with the one-time sacrifice of Jesus (Hebrews 10).

The letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law is the Hagar to the New Covenant's Sarah (Galatians 4:22-25), so that those people, whether Jews or Gentiles, who try to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law are like Ishmael, while those people, whether Jews or Gentiles, who keep the New Covenant are like Isaac (Galatians 4:22-31).

The letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (including the letter of the 10 commandments) written and engraven in stones (2 Corinthians 3:7, Deuteronomy 4:13, Deuteronomy 27:8) was the ministration of death and condemnation (2 Corinthians 3:7,9). For example, see Leviticus 20:10, Exodus 31:14, and Numbers 15:32-36; and contrast these with the New Covenant's John 8:4-11 and Matthew 12:1-8.

The letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law has been done away (2 Corinthians 3:11), abolished (2 Corinthians 3:13b). But it is still able to spiritually blind some people as with a veil from beholding Jesus (2 Corinthians 3:14-16), while the New Covenant is the ministration of the spirit and righteousness (2 Corinthians 3:6,8,9b) which remains (2 Corinthians 3:11b), and which permits believers to remove the veil and to behold Jesus (2 Corinthians 3:16-18, Mark 15:38, Hebrews 7:18-19, Ephesians 2:15-18, Colossians 2:14-17).

But a mistaken spirit of Pharisaism can still sometimes deceive even Christians into thinking that they must keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law in order to be saved (Acts 15:1,5), or in order to become perfect (Galatians 3:2 to 5:26). This is a false, cursed gospel (Galatians 1:6-9). For if any believers are keeping any part of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law thinking that they must do so in order to be saved, or in order to become perfect, then Jesus will profit them nothing; they have fallen from grace (Galatians 5:2-8).

 

[parousia70]

Jesus' 2nd coming and the church's gathering together (rapture) in Matthew 24:30-31 (2 Thessalonians 2:1-8; 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17) have never been fulfilled, but must occur "immediately after" the future tribulation of Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, and Revelation chapters 6 to 18 (Matthew 24:29-31; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8, Revelation 19:2 to 20:6).

Note that From the point of view of God, "Immediately" could be anywhere from Decades to hundreds of years. (2 Peter 3:8-10)

 

[gospelfer]

Matthew 24:33 contains a never-fulfilled condition. For note that just as the highly detailed tribulation events of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 find no historical fulfillment, so the tribulation events of Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 find no historical fulfillment. For example, Luke 21:24 refers to the same future treading down of Jerusalem by the Gentiles as Revelation 11:2b, during the Antichrist's future, literal 42-month worldwide reign (Revelation 13:5-18), the details of which time period are shown from 4 different angles in Revelation chapters 11 to 14 (Revelation 11:2b-3, Revelation 12:6,14, Revelation 13:5,7, Revelation 14:9-13). The myriad details of these chapters have never been fulfilled. Similarly, Jesus' 2nd coming and the church's gathering together (rapture) in Matthew 24:30-31 (2 Thessalonians 2:1-8; 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17) have never been fulfilled, but must occur "immediately after" the future tribulation of Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, and Revelation chapters 6 to 18 (Matthew 24:29-31; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8, Revelation 19:2 to 20:6).

Also, the end of the 2nd temple building (also called Herod's temple building) in 70 AD didn't fulfill Matthew 24:2. For the stones of the 2nd temple's Wailing Wall (also called the Western Wall) still stand today one on top of the other, just as they did when Jesus spoke that prophecy. Matthew 24:2 included the Wailing Wall, for Matthew 24:2 wasn't referring only to the single, 2nd temple building which stood in the center of the Temple Mount and which contained the holy place and the most holy place, but was referring to "all these things", all the plural "buildings"/structures/oikodome (G3619) of the entire 2nd temple complex (Matthew 24:1). Indeed, Matthew 24:2 could even have been spoken just to the north and west of the Wailing Wall. For it was spoken just after Jesus had departed from the temple complex (Matthew 24:1), and one of the main temple complex exits (called Wilson's Arch and bridge by archaeologists) was just to the north of the Wailing Wall, and at the same level as the top of the Temple Mount (see the temple-complex map-insert in the December, 2008 issue of National Geographic magazine).

Also, in Matthew 24:2, the "here" can include not just the entire 2nd temple complex, but every structure throughout Jerusalem. For the similar statement in Luke 19:44 applied to the whole city (Luke 19:41-44). Matthew 24:2 and Luke 19:44 could be fulfilled at the very end of the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, right before and at Jesus' 2nd coming (Zechariah 14:2-21, Revelation 19:7 to 20:6).

At the very end of the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, the Antichrist (Daniel 11:45) and the world's armies will pillage Jerusalem right before Jesus' 2nd coming (Zechariah 14:2-21). And at the 2nd coming, there will be tremendous earth changes in the vicinity of Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:4-5). These events could result in all of Jerusalem's structures, including the 3rd temple and the Wailing Wall (also called the Western Wall), being broken down so that not one stone will be left on another (Luke 19:44, Matthew 24:2). Then the returned Jesus (Zechariah 14:4, Acts 1:11-12) will rebuild Jerusalem and make it the capital of the world (Zechariah 14:8-19, Micah 4:1-4). He will also build a 4th temple there (Zechariah 14:20-21, Zechariah 6:12-13). It will serve a similar function for the church during the future millennium (of Revelation 20:4-6) as the 2nd temple served for the church in the 1st century AD (Luke 24:53, Acts 2:46, Acts 22:17), and as the temple building in heaven (Revelation 11:19) serves for those in heaven (Revelation 7:15).

This is something of a quibble, but while its clear that some of the 2nd temple stone are still in there original places, the Roman destruction was sufficiently complete to regard it as being accomplished.

I agree with your overall conclusion, but we need to realize that scriptural language is often a little poetic and exaggerated.

Both sides need to realize that.

 

[rdclmn72]

Generation as in the last one before the end of the Judahite kingdom where both the last revival and the falling away happened.