That's a straw man argument. If God's promises under the old covenant were UNCONDITIONAL then your argument would work. If God could go back on unconditional promises, how could we ever trust Him? I agree with that logic. However, the old covenant does not consist of Unconditional promises. The old covenant promises are CONDITIONAL upon Israel's obedience (detueronomy 28:1-68). If Israel obeyed, then God was faithful to fulfill his part of the agreement through blessing them. If Israel disobeyed, God was faithful to His part of the agreement by cursing Israel.
It also goes on to say that if Israel repented, the curses would be lifted and the blessings would be restored. The Apostle Paul said that "if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?" (Rom. 11:12) Clearly he believed that principle to still be in effect. He no doubt knew that the wrath of God was upon that generation of Jews who rejected the Gospel and chose enmity with Christ, but at the same time, he also believed that if they did not continue on their rejection of the Gospel, all the blessings pertaining to them could be restored.
If he did not believe that, Romans chapter 11 as we know it today would not exist.
But this agreement ended (
Hebrews 8:13 and
Hebrews 10:9). This agreement was only meant until the time of Christ (
galatians 3:24). It was superseded by the new covenant. So which new testament scripture explicitly and clearly tells us that land restoration is a part of the new covenant agreement?
Show which New Testament scripture explicitly declares that land restoration is no longer in effect. We already know what has explicitly been canceled out because the scripture declares what has been canceled out.
That's a vague answer. It's a simple question, is the natural olive tree that the natural branches were broken off of, Israel or the Church?
What does the olive tree represent? Tell me what the olive tree represents and that will determine what the branches represent. One thing for sure is that if the natural branches spared because of their unbelief, the grafted branches will not be spared either if they should fall into sin and unbelief, but those branches, even the natural branches, can be grafted back in if they do not remain in unbelief.
Again, the gentiles are never mentioned in
hosea 1.
Hosea 1 consists of the northern kingdom becoming no longer God's people, but one day they would again be His people and would be reunited with the southern kingdom under on leader.
Ezekiel 37 has the northern kingdom being reunited with the southern kingdom under one leader.
Paul interprets
hosea 1, which is about the northern kingdom being reunited with the southern kingdom under one leader, as being fulfilled with the gentiles being included with the Jews in the vessels of mercy (
romans 9:23-26). As
Hosea 1 is about the same thing as
ezekiel 37, why would we not apply this same principle that Paul does?
Paul does not interpret passage with Hosea that he cites as pertaining to the reunification of Israel. He does not even say anything about a divided kingdom. His premise pertains to the unification of Jew and Gentile in Christ. That is what he declared to be a fulfillment of Hosea.
From a genealogical and anthropological stand point, that makes no sense. The assyrians would relocate their captives. This is evidenced in 2 kings. They would do this so that intermarrying would occur. the scattered, divorced, and exiled descendants of ephraim would have mixed with the peoples that assryia would have placed them with. And if they moved from there, their descendants would have mixed with the nations they moved to.
Chances are, if you do a DNA test, you are not 100% from one nation. You probably have a mixture of nations in your DNA. I also have Jewish DNA, so somewhere down the line my Jewish ancestors mixed with surrounding nations.
Whatever degree of mixing took place would have been limited for several reasons. Despite being dispersed throughout the nations, the ethnicity of the Israelites has still been preserved.
No disagreements here. But do you agree that Greece became a nation again after a very long period of time?
The difference between them and Israel is that Israel was not spread abroad before the exile. The Greeks, on the other hand, were present throughout various lands before their Diaspora.
Paul states the exact opposite, it is only the children of promise that are counted as offspring, so you may want to rephrase.
Romans 9:8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.
Verses seven and eight, when put together give clarification as by what the children of promise are defined:
"Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham are they children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh..."
Isaac was the promised lineage from whom all Jews are descended. That is why Paul called the Jews the children of the promise but yet called them the children of the flesh to distinguish them from the children of God.
Paul wanted to make clear that being a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in and of itself, did not make one a child of God, but that being a child of God required a spiritual rebirth in Christ.
So then you would agree, that those of the modern nation of Israel, that are in no way related to the pre desolation hebrews, culturally, economically, or religously, who reject Christ, are not his people?
That depends on what you mean by pre-desolation Hebrews. They have faced two desolations. One by the Assyrians which was later completed by the Babylonians. The second, by the Romans.
Nor is jesus Christ a literally lamb or brick and mortar temple building, and yet they were pictures.
But the illustrations used are consistent with what they were intended to represent.
Can anyone of modern day Israel prove, through genealogical records as was required by the OT, as to which tribe they belong to? Can you name one Jew who can prove their tribal ancestry that traces their genealogical record all the way back to pre desolation Judiasm?
Apparently God did not require that to re-establish them as a nation, but if they are required for further fulfillment, they will be found. I do not know how that will be made possible, I just know that God will do what is necessary to fulfill what has been foretold.
why would I answer a straw man argument that doesn't even pertain to the point I made?
It did pertain to the point you made, but if you had an answer to it, you would have given it.
Peter is quoting from Exodus, which applies to the Israel. Thus the body of Christ and true Israel are one. Christ is Israel. Anyone who is in Christ is an offspring of Abraham.
What Peter is quoting is a promise that the nation of Israel and the Church share in common but they still remain distinct entities. Israel is a divinely established nation with territory and borders. The Church is a divinely established institution that transcends nations and geographical boundaries.
Good, we agree that marriage is a picture of christ and the church
That it is used as an illustration of the relationship between Christ and the Church.
Yes, the explanations are found only in Christ. for all the promises of God are yes in Him. for the law, psalms, and prophets all testified to him.
scripture literally tells us that through moses God spoke clearly and without ridde, but to the prophets that were raised up in Israel, God spoke in visions, dreams, and riddles (numbers 12:6-8). So, as scripture instructs, would should likewise interpret.
But those visions and riddles have been explained and where they have been explained, there is no dispute, but we cannot assign interpretation where one is not given.
It's a vision
Ezekiel 40:1-2 In the twenty-fifth year of our exile, at the beginning of the year, on the tenth day of the month, in the fourteenth year after the city was struck down, on that very day, the hand of the LORD was upon me, and he brought me to the city.
a In visions of God he brought me to the land of Israel, and set me down on a very high mountain, on which was a structure like a city to the south
Thus it is riddle/parable/shadow/picture pointing to the reality in Christ. There are no NT scriptures that mention future worship under the new covenant in a temple building with animal sacrifices.
If one can't understand the earthly pictures, how will they ever understand the heavenly?
Visions that are symbolic are explained, but when no interpretation is given, that is a strong indicator that the vision is a literal depiction. It would take an in depth study to explain the eight chapters of Ezekiel that are devoted to this subject.
Good, so we agree that whether we are at his footstool (earth) or at his throne (heaven) we are never separated from God. and thus you have the body of Christ, that dwells at his footstool (earth) and his throne (heaven). That sounds an awful lot like the ezekiel temple (
ezekiel 43:7) which pointed to the true temple of God, us.
Ezekiel's Temple is about the reign of Christ on earth. We are not a building with the detailed and elaborate descriptions given to the Temple that Ezekiel saw in his vision. We, however, are a dwelling place for the Holy Spirit until the day we meet Christ face to face.