Is the land restoration to the nation of Israel found in the new covenant?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You don't see the great Second Exodus of God's people to the holy Land, because you have another belief about what you want God to do in the end times.
Not knowing just who God's people are today, thinking the Jews still are the 'chosen' people, is the great error of many.
WE Christians are the Israelites of God, His Victorious ones and the Promises of God to His Israelite Overcomers for Him, pertain to us. 2 Corinthians 1:20

The many prophesies that tell about the gathering of His people into all of the holy Land, soon after the Lord has cleared and cleansed that entire area, do mostly mention Israel, which confuses people like you who wrongly think the Jewish State of Israel is the only Israel.
But prophesies like Ezekiel 34:11-16, Isaiah 35:1-10, do not mention Israel, they DO support the truth that every faithful Christian will live in peace and prosperity in all of the holy Land during the end times. Also Romans 9:24-26 clearly states that Christians will be called the sons of the Living God, in the same place as ancient Israel was rejected. Isaiah 66:18b-21, Revelation 5:9-10


There is nothing in scripture that suggests that the people who will be forever dwelling in the land of Israel will be, in a predominant sense, anyone other than they who are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Granted that there will be some Gentiles who will take part in the inheritance among them but there may be reasons for this in that after the tribulation, there will be Gentiles from nations and peoples who either perished during the tribulation or, because of their allegiance to the Anti-Christ against Christ, are not allowed into the Kingdom He will establish upon the earth.

The Gentiles out of those nations and peoples who will not exist in the millennial kingdom may be too few to be able to survive apart from any other people, that they will be absorbed into the nation of Israel.

As for the cited passages you claim do not pertain to Israel, they do pertain to Israel.

And the cited passage from Romans in no way suggests that ancient Israel was to be rejected; in fact Romans chapter 11 goes on to state quite the opposite.
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
The Gentiles out of those nations and peoples who will not exist in the millennial kingdom may be too few to be able to survive apart from any other people, that they will be absorbed into the nation of Israel.
.
There is no literal earthly reign of Christ except in and thru us.......the True Israel of God....

THE TRUE "REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY/SUPERSESSIONISM" OF THE BIBLE

What/who is "the Israel of God"?

G.K. Beale - Peace and Mercy Upon the Israel of God:
Peace and Mercy Upon the Israel of God: The Old Testament Background in Galatians 6:161
By G.K. Beale
Biblica 80 (1999) 204-223

Discussions of the Old Testament background of "new creation" in Gal 6,15 and its relation to v. 16 have heretofore been general and have not targeted any particular OT passage. This essay sets out to demonstrate that the phrase "peace and mercy" has its most probable background in the Old Testament promise of Israel’s restoration in Isaiah 54. In the light of this background the mention of the "marks" of Jesus on Paul’s body in v. 17 makes excellent sense.

from exile: "Lovingkindness and truth have met together, and righteousness and peace have kissed each other" (Ps 84,10).

Outside of Isa 54,10 e!leoj ("mercy") and ei)rh/nh, ("peace") occur in close combination (within a seven-word range) in the LXX only in Ps 84,11 (= MT 85,11)15 and Tobit 7,12 (the latter occurring in only one version of the LXX in an insignificant context which refers to a personal wish of blessing bestowed on one person to another)16. Outside of these passages, the combination does not occur elsewhere (in an eight-word range) until the use in Galatians and in subsequent early Christian literature of the early church fathers17. This evidence shows that the combination of "mercy and peace" was not a typical part of formulaic benedictions in early Judaism nor a part of typical conclusions in early Hellenistic epistolary literature.

The occurrence in the LXX of Ps 84,11 is a literal rendering of the Hebrew given above, yet the combination of e!leoj and ei)rh/nh also occurs only two verses earlier in vv. 8-9 in almost the same close proximity: "Show us your mercy (e!leoj) and give to us your salvation............................

SUMMARY

This essay has contended that Paul’s reference to "new creation" and the pronouncement of "peace and mercy" on the readers in Gal 6,15-16 is best understood against the background of Isa 54,10 and the surrounding context of similar new creation themes elsewhere in Isa 32–66, which are echoed also earlier in Galatians, especially in 5,22-26. The analysis confirms those prior studies which have concluded that "the Israel of God" refers to all Christians in Galatia, whether Jewish or Christian. Lastly, the demonstration of an Isaianic background for the concept of new creation in Gal 6,15-16 falls in line with Paul’s other reference to "new creation" in 2 Cor 5,17 and John’s allusion to new creation in Rev 3,14, where Isa 43 and 65–66 stand behind both passages. Isa 54,10 was likely not the sole influence on Gal 6,16, but such texts as Psalm 84 (LXX), the Qumran Hymn Scroll (1QH 13,5), and Jub 22,9 may have formed a collective impression on Paul, with the Isaiah text most in focus; alternatively, the texts in Qumran and Jubilees may be mere examples of a similar use of Isaiah 54 on a parallel trajectory with that of Paul’s in Galatians 6.
=========================

Replacement Theology, supersessionism: Christians are God's Jews. The church is true Israel.
Continuing............

A. The Parable of the Landowner: Israel replace by Church/Christians


1. "Listen to another parable. There was a landowner who PLANTED A VINEYARD AND PUT A WALL AROUND IT AND DUG A WINE PRESS IN IT, AND BUILT A TOWER, and rented it out to vine-growers and went on a journey.
When the harvest time approached, he sent his slaves to the vine-growers to receive his produce. "The vine-growers took his slaves and beat one, and killed another, and stoned a third.
"Again he sent another group of slaves larger than the first; and they did the same thing to them.
"But afterward he sent his son to them, saying, 'They will respect my son.' "But when the vine-growers saw the son, they said among themselves, 'This is the heir; come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.' "They took him, and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.
"Therefore when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vine-growers?" They said to Him, "He will bring those wretches to a wretched end, and will rent out the vineyard to other vine-growers who will pay him the proceeds at the proper seasons."
Jesus said to them, "Did you never read in the Scriptures, 'THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone; THIS CAME ABOUT FROM THE LORD, AND IT IS MARVELOUS IN OUR EYES'? "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it. "And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust."
When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them. When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet. " (Matthew 21:33-46)

============================
============================
2. In a parable so crystal clear only a premillennialist could get it wrong, the Jews, as a nation, were going to be replaced by something new, the church.

3. "He will bring those wretches to a wretched end" happened in 70 AD.

4. Now clearly the entire leadership of the apostolic church and most of the Elders in the churches were Jewish. But they had become Christians who stopped keeping the Sabbath and abandoned the Mosaic system of Judaism. They began immediately worshiping god on the first day of the week, the Lord's day.

5. Jesus went to the Jews first but they rejected Him as the Messiah. The church, (the kingdom) is now open to both Jew and Gentile equally. Both must believe, repent, confess Jesus as Lord and be baptized for the remission of their sins. There is only one way to get saved! Jews have no special route to heaven that gentiles do not have. They all must believe and do the same things to be saved.

6. Paul always began his evangelism in a new city by preaching in the Jewish synagogues. When the Jews rejected the gospel, he turned to the gentiles: "But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began contradicting the things spoken by Paul, and were blaspheming. Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, "It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. " (Acts 13:45-46)

7. "This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve, [Israel] "THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE VERY CORNER stone," and, "A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed. But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED MERCY. " (1 Peter 2:7-10)

a. Notice that the "you are a chosen, holy nation of priests", which was originally applied to fleshly Israel at the foot of Mt. Sinai is now applied to Christians to the exclusion of physical Israel unless they believe.

i. "and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel." " (Exodus 19:6)


ii. ""For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. " (Deuteronomy 7:6)

b. Notice that the text applies these special blessings of being "you are a chosen, holy nation of priests" to the gentiles and that fleshly Israel was "appointed to doom".
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You are also attempting to turn the word "remnant" into "whole".

Rom 9:27 Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel: "THOUGH THE NUMBER OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL BE AS THE SAND OF THE SEA, THE REMNANT WILL BE SAVED.


.


When placing Romans 9:27 and 11:26 together, we find the remnant who is saved will be whoever remains of the nation when all of Israel is saved.
 
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
There is no literal earthly reign of Christ except in and thru us.......the True Israel of God....


The context of Revelation chapter 20 does not suggest anything but a literal reign of Christ on earth.
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
The context of Revelation chapter 20 does not suggest anything but a literal reign of Christ on earth.
That is the view of most carnal Futurists.......

Children in the Rapture?

One must first be "Resurrected" before one can be "Raptured"....that is both logical and biblical

Ezekiel 37:10
And I prophecy as He instructed and the spirit/breath is coming in them and they are living and are standing on their feet, an army/host, great, exceedingly-exceedingly. Ezekiel 37:11 And He is saying to me "Son of Adam, the bones, these are whole house of Yisra'el they behold! ones saying ' bones of us dry, our hope perishes, we are severed to ourselves'. [Luke 2:34/ Reve 11"11]

Luke 2:34
And Simon blesses them and said toward Mariam His mother,
"behold! this-One is set/lying into a Fall and Resurrection/standing-up<386> of many in the Israel, and into a Sign being spoken against"

Matthew 19:28
And Jesus said to them, 'Verily I say to you, that ye who did follow me, in the regeneration, when the Son of Man may sit upon a throne of his glory, shall sit -- ye also -- upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel; [Luke 22:30/Revelation 20:]

Acts 1:8
But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you,
and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

Notice first that a breath of life comes in them and they "STAND"

Revelation 11:11
And after the three days and half days, a breath of life out of the God entered in them and they stand upon their feet and fear great fall upon the ones observing them.

The "Rapture" happens after they resurrect before the wrath and tares being burned.
This is during the "Harvest":

12 And they hear a Voice great out of the Heaven saying to them "ascend ye here!"

And they ascended into the heaven in the cloud....
Mat 13:30
suffer both to grow together till the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, 'Gather up first the darnel, and bind it in bundles, to burn it, and the wheat gather up into my storehouse'.'[Revelation 14:15]
Revelation 20:4
And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them,...............

Revelation 20:5
The rest of the dead not live until should be being finished<5055> the thousand years,
This is the first Resurrection<386>
=================================
Reigning With Christ: | Partial Preterism

Reigning With Christ:
Revelation 20:1-6 In Its Salvation-Historical Setting


*SNIP*

The letter to the church in Smyrna (2:8-11) presents another parallel to 20:4-6. Here the risen Christ promises the "crown of life" to those who are "faithful unto death;" it is they who will not be "hurt of the second death" (vv. 10b-11). In addition, 2:9-10; 20:2-3, 7-10 speak of the activity of Satan. Kline also raises the possibility that there is a relationship between the numerical symbols of the ten days of tribulation (2:10) and the thousand years of reigning (20:4, 6). "The intensifying of ten to a thousand together with the lengthening of days to years might then suggest that the present momentary tribulation works a far greater glory to be experienced in the intermediate state as the immediate issue of martyrdom."76

(3) Next, we must pay brief attention to the fate of "the rest of the dead" (v. 5a). According to v. 4, John sees both a broader and a narrower circle of believing dead. In 4a are envisaged all those seated on thrones, to whom judgment has been committed, a probable allusion to Dan 7:22, which foresees judgment as a prerogative of the saints of the Most High, as well as of the Son of Man (vv. 9-14). In 4b, John beholds in particular the martyrs, who had not worshipped the beast nor received his mark on their foreheads or hands.

In contrast, v. 5a adds parenthetically that there is a category of the dead who are to be distinguished from those who are reigning with Christ, a group, in other words, who do not partake of the first resurrection and who, consequently, are to be affected by the "second death" and do not come to life until the thousand years are completed. It is true that the author predicates the same verb (ezêsan) of them as of the believing dead. However, as we observed with Kline, this is an instance of the irony and paradox employed by John in his treatment of Christ's people and his enemies respectively. The believer dies and yet is raised to sit with Christ in the heavenly places; the unbeliever comes to life, but, as we recall from John 5:29, he rises to "the resurrection of judgment."77

As any other passage of Scripture, Revelation 20 must be set within the parameters of salvation history. Accordingly, a hermeneutic must be applied to the particular question of the thousand year reign of Christ which seeks to be sensitive to the overall biblical architecture of promise and fulfillment. The principal points of such a hermeneutic may be reduced to the following. (1) Christ and his people are the sum and substance of the OT. Passages such as Luke 24:25-27, 44-49 and 1 Pet 1:10-12 provide the paradigm for the Christian interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. (2) Within the schema of God's new creation plan, Israel existed to typify the latter-day people (1 Cor 10:6, 11), those upon whom the end of the ages has come (1 Cor 10:11) and without whom the saints of old could not be perfected (Heb 11:40); in them is Christ, the hope of glory (Col 1:27). Consequently, (3) the prophetic outlook on Israel's future salvation, though cast in terms comprehensible to the original hearers, is modified by its apostolic interpretation, with God's ultimate intention being clarified by its actual historical fulfillment. The nationalistic and militaristic language of the prophets has been transposed into another key, that of the universal reign of Christ, the Prince of Peace, who accepts all without distinction, Jew and Gentile (Rom 15:7-12).83

It is these broader perspectives provided by a salvation-historical hermeneutic which place a control over the exegete's conception of the thousand years of Revelation 20. This control is two-sided. On the negative side, methodological consistency will dictate that the reign of Christ is not to be understood in terms of a precise thousand year period, during which the theocratic hopes of Israel are "literally" realized. Rather, the "millennium," as an integral part of the salvific process, is coextensive with the "latter days," during which the nations are summoned to render the obedience of faith to king Jesus (Gen 49:10; Ps 2:8-9; Rom 1:5).84 It is that time foretold by the prophets when the strangers to the commonwealth of Israel would be accepted as the equals of the ancient covenant people (Eph 2:11-22). Far from reinforcing the Jew/Gentile divide, this "day of salvation" (2 Cor 6:1) obliterates such distinctions forever.

Consequently, to put it positively, the "millennium" of Revelation 20 is organically one with the new era inaugurated with the first advent of Jesus Christ, and is to be situated within the larger framework of the arrival of the eschaton "at the end of these days" (Heb 1:2). It is here that the phrase "intermediate state" is misleading. To be sure, from one point of view the existence of deceased believers is "intermediate" in relation to final resurrection (the "second resurrection"); it is an interim period. Nevertheless, in the most meaningful sense it is not intermediate at all; it is but the continuation and higher experience of the newness of life to which the Christian has been admitted by faith. At most, it can be called the "meantime" of the believer's redemption,85 because it is none other than his present reign with and rest in Christ, which are to be protracted forever, when his body is made like the glorious body of Christ (Phil 3:21).86

In short, the "millennial reign" of Rev 20:1-6 is eternal life intensified: the reign of Christ and his saints is a piece of realized soteriology. Nothing could have been more relevant for John's readers to know. Contrary to what appears to be true, the throne room scene of Revelation 20 assures suffering Christians that those who have gone before actually "reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ" (Rom 5:17). The blessedness of the first resurrection is a partial but very real bringing to pass of the promise of Rev 2:10: "Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life." It is for this reason that the risen Christ was revealed to John on Patmos.87
 
  • Winner
Reactions: jgr
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

BABerean2

Newbie
Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
When placing Romans 9:27 and 11:26 together, we find the remnant who is saved will be whoever remains of the nation when all of Israel is saved.

Are you expecting many Israelites to be saved on the day of His Second Coming, no matter what He said in Matthew 25:1-13?

.
 
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Are you expecting many Israelites to be saved on the day of His Second Coming, no matter what He said in Matthew 25:1-13?

.


What is to be expected is that since the scriptures declare that all Israel shall be saved, that is exactly what will happen and Matthew 25:1-13 does not specifically pertain to Israel but the world at large.
 
Upvote 0

BABerean2

Newbie
Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What is to be expected is that since the scriptures declare that all Israel shall be saved, that is exactly what will happen and Matthew 25:1-13 does not specifically pertain to Israel but the world at large.


Are you saying that Matthew 25:1-13 does not apply to the modern State of Israel?
Who was Jesus talking to when He spoke those words?


.
 
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Are you saying that Matthew 25:1-13 does not apply to the modern State of Israel?
Who was Jesus talking to when He spoke those words?


.


Whom Jesus had in mind when He spoke those very words was the entire world, not just Israel.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BABerean2

Newbie
Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Whom Jesus had in mind when He spoke those very words was the entire world, not just Israel.

Then if it does also apply to Israel nobody will come to salvation on the day of His Second Coming, which agrees with what Paul said below.

Two witnesses, Christ in Matthew 25:1-13, and Paul below reveal the same thing.

2Th 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
2Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
2Th 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
2Th 1:10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

.
 
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Then if it does also apply to Israel nobody will come to salvation on the day of His Second Coming, which agrees with what Paul said below.

Two witnesses, Christ in Matthew 25:1-13, and Paul below reveal the same thing.

2Th 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
2Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
2Th 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
2Th 1:10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

.


They will come to salvation prior to His return. It is those who have sided with Satan who will be destroyed at His coming.
 
Upvote 0

keras

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy
Feb 7, 2013
13,563
2,480
82
Thames, New Zealand
Visit site
✟290,794.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
There is nothing in scripture that suggests that the people who will be forever dwelling in the land of Israel will be, in a predominant sense, anyone other than they who are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
May I suggest CE, that you read and understand ALL the prophesies before you make such wild and inaccurate statements:

Jeremiah 7:30-34 & 8:1-13 The people of Judah have done wrong, they worship idols and have no regard for their Creator....Therefore, the time is coming when I shall fill the valley of Topeth with their corpses.......All the survivor’s of this wicked race, from wherever I have banished them, would rather die than live. Isaiah 22:14

...Judah is incurable in their waywardness......I listen, but I hear not one word of remorse ....My people do not know the Judgements of the Lord. How can you say: We are wise and we have the Law of God, when your scribes and priests have falsified it? The wise are shamed and where is wisdom in them?

Therefore I will give their wives to others and give their land to new owners, for all of their prophets and priests are frauds....on My Day of reckoning, they will fall with a great crash. I shall surely consume them says the Lord and there will be no grapes on the vine, [Israel] and no figs on the fig tree. [Judah]

The NEW OWNERS of all the holy Land will be every faithful Christian, from every tribe [of Israel] every race, nation and language. God's holy people and they are there BEFORE Jesus Returns. Ezekiel 20:34-38, Psalms 37:29
The Prophesies are full of the proof of this truth and if people cannot see it, it is because of beliefs in false theories, which blinds them to what God wants and will do.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BABerean2

Newbie
Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
They will come to salvation prior to His return. It is those who have sided with Satan who will be destroyed at His coming.

I will give you this.
At least you are attempting to make your doctrine agree with the Bible, which is more than many of the promoters of your doctrine have done.

I have heard many claim that the whole nation will come to salvation, at His Second Coming.

Now if you can come to completely understand the fulfillment of the New Covenant, you will see the error of modern Dispensational Theology.

I have friends who are Dispensationalists.
I will continue to pray for you, and them.



Great Errors in Dispensational Eschatology: Pastor John Otis


.
 
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
May I suggest CE, that you read and understand ALL the prophesies before you make such wild and inaccurate statements:

Jeremiah 7:30-34 & 8:1-13 The people of Judah have done wrong, they worship idols and have no regard for their Creator....Therefore, the time is coming when I shall fill the valley of Topeth with their corpses.......All the survivor’s of this wicked race, from wherever I have banished them, would rather die than live. Isaiah 22:14

...Judah is incurable in their waywardness......I listen, but I hear not one word of remorse ....My people do not know the Judgements of the Lord. How can you say: We are wise and we have the Law of God, when your scribes and priests have falsified it? The wise are shamed and where is wisdom in them?

Therefore I will give their wives to others and give their land to new owners, for all of their prophets and priests are frauds....on My Day of reckoning, they will fall with a great crash. I shall surely consume them says the Lord and there will be no grapes on the vine, [Israel] and no figs on the fig tree. [Judah]

The NEW OWNERS of all the holy Land will be every faithful Christian, from every tribe [of Israel] every race, nation and language. God's holy people and they are there BEFORE Jesus Returns. Ezekiel 20:34-38, Psalms 37:29
The Prophesies are full of the proof of this truth and if people cannot see it, it is because of beliefs in false theories, which blinds them to what God wants and will do.


The passages foretelling judgment upon Israel that you cited already came to pass and met their fulfillment when Judah was taken into exile by the Babylonians. Ezekiel is foretelling a regathering of a people who had been scattered and the people who had been scattered are the people of Israel and while I do agree that the promised land will be inherited by the righteous, the designated stewards of the land will predominantly be the Jewish people. Any Gentiles among them will have their share of the inheritance within which ever tribe they will happen be dwelling. (Ezek. 47:23)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"Stranger" in 1 Peter 1:1 is not used in the same sense as stranger is used in Leviticus 25:23 in which stranger is used to refer to the Israelites in the sense they were not native to the promised land, nor is it used in the same sense as it is used in 1 Chronicles 29:15 in which it is used in the sense that our time on earth is only temporary and that our everlasting home is elsewhere.

Furthermore, the Greek word for "stranger" is called "parepidemos" which is defined as being foreigner, stranger, or pilgrim, but it is not used to define exile. According to that definition, there is no way that Peter was writing to exiles. All we know about his audience is that, because they were called strangers, they might not have been native to the Roman realm and were scattered due to unknown circumstances.

They could not have been Jews and yet at the same time were not called Gentiles. How that can be possible, there is no answer outside of the fact that it has been known that people of mixed blood have found themselves not being claimed as one of either of the peoples from whom they descended, thereby suggesting the possibility that this mysterious people to whom Peter was writing were not claimed as being either Jew or Gentile.

Let's start with the greek words
From Helps and Thayer

pároikos (from 3844 /pará, "close beside" and 3624 /oíkos, "house") – properly, someone living close to others as a temporary dweller, i.e. in a specific locale as a non-citizen with limited rights (identification). In the Scriptures a stranger, foreigner, one who lives in a place without the right of citizenship; (R. V. sojourner);

From Helps and Strongs and Thayer
parepídēmos – a sojourner (foreigner) – literally, someone "passing through" but still with personal relationship with the people in that locale (note the prefix, para, "close beside"). This temporary (but active) relationship is made necessary by circumstances. (These are defined only by the context.) residing in a strange country; subst: a stranger, sojourner. παρεπίδημος, παρεπιδημον (see ἐπιδημέω), properly, "one who comes from a foreign country into a city or land to reside there by the side of the natives; hence, stranger; sojourning in a strange place, a foreigner" (Polybius 32, 22, 4; Athen. 5, p. 196 a.); in the N. T. metaphorically, in reference to heaven as the native country, one who sojourns on earth: so of Christians

As we can see parakois has its emphasis on non citizenship and limited rights while living in a foreign country, while parepidemos has its emphasis on coming from a foreign land with the intent of "passing through", which can mean temporary dwelling. Both are temporary, both refer to strangers residing in foreign lands.

1 Peter 1:1 uses parepidemos, but when we look to the LXX, Leviticus 25:23 and 1 Chronicles 29:15 use parakois. The use of parakois in the LXX let's us know that the nation of Israel was to only live temporarily in the promise land as non citizens. Parepidemos doesn't seem to be found in the LXX OT, as least that I could find. However, your only argument was that Israel was never referred to as strangers, without specifying the "type" of stranger. However, we know Israel was in fact referred to as strangers in the OT.
I actually agree that "exile" is probably not the best translation of parepidemos. Peter applies "parepidemos" to those of the dispersion living in Asia. We know the Jews lived in the very areas that Peter was writing to.


1 Peter 1:1 To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia

Acts 2:5-9Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia

As Asian minor was part of the roman empire, it would only make sense for Peter to call gentiles parepidemos in 1 of 2 cases: 1.) he knew the gentiles were not originally from Asia minor, or 2). he is using parepidemos the same way the author of Hebrews (Hebrews 11:13) applies it to Abraham and Sarah in regards to being strangers on earth.
However, in 1 peter 1:1, parepidemos is an adjective used to the describe the noun "diaspora"


The greek word for Dispersion, when it comes to scripture, typically refers to the Israelites living among the gentiles.
From Strongs:

scattering abroad of seed by the sower, hence: dispersion, used especially of the Jews who had migrated and were scattered over the ancient world.

As parepidemos is describing the "dispersion", which typically refers to Jews living among the nations in scripture, and Peter is a known as the apostle to the circumcised, it lends evidence that Peter is writing to a mainly Jewish audience. Although I would agree that this Jewish audience includes the gentiles.
If you perform a simple google search on who is peter's audience you will find that this is a highly debated topic. One I don't think we'll answer here. I think its safe to "cut the metaphorical baby in half" and say that Peter was writing to the body of Christ that consisted of Jews and gentiles.

But in a figurative/spiritual sense. The figurative Israel still does not replace the people and nation of Israel who are still counted as descendants of Abraham. In fact, the Church is only called Israel in the figurative once throughout the entire New Testament and that was for the purpose of drawing a contrast between the children of God by faith in Christ and they who are not the children of God though they be of Israel by blood.

The distinction between the Church and the nation of Israel is still maintained.

"Distinction of Church and nation of Israel is maintained". What I've learned from all this is that the distinction between the nation of Israel and the church, that is created by the doctrine of dispensationalism, is based on the belief that conditional promises of the old covenant are still in affect, even though the old covenant is declared obsolete by the NT. Your argument seems to be that because the NT does not declare the conditional promises of the old covenant as obsolete, then they are still in affect. This would be an argument from ignorance and is always a fallacy in informal logic.
To me there is definitely a distinction, but it differs from your statement: Those in Christ and those outside of Christ. Those in the new covenant, and those not in the new covenant. If there are believers in modern day Israel, they are in the body of Christ and under the new covenant. If there are those that reject Christ in modern day Israel, they are no different than those that reject Christ in America, Austalia, Mexico, Africa, etc....



Under the new covenant there is only one people of God: those in Christ.


Except for the Levites, the rest of the nation had not attained to the priesthood due to their unbelief. The only reason why have we have attained to the priesthood is because we have believed.

One day, the nation of Israel will become the kingdom of priests that God created them to be.

And peter applies exodus 19:6, which was about the nation of Israel, to his audience in the 1st century.

That you insist that the parable of the hidden treasure has no explanation to it makes it all the more apparent that you do not know what the intended point of the parable was for if you did, you might know whether I take the parable as an actual event that took place.

Just prove me wrong on my "insisting that the parable of the hidden treasure has no explanation" by providing scripture where Jesus explains the said parable to his audience. It's as simple as that. Stop deflecting and just simply post the verse to prove me wrong and I will concede.

You have not yet been able to prove that my argument is one of ignorance other than the assumption that land restoration was canceled when the Old Covenant was canceled. You cite the canceling of the Old Covenant as evidence that land restoration to the Jews, even if they repent and receive Christ, is no longer in effect, but the cancelization of the Old Covenant in and of itself is not evidence that land restoration is no longer in effect.

That is an assumption that Preterist doctrine has made but assumptions are not evidence. Evidence would be scripture either declaring or giving indication that land restoration has been forever lost to the people of Israel.

What we accept as having passed away with the Old Covenant is what scripture has declared as having passed away with the Old Covenant.

If the scripture had not declared an end to animal sacrifices, we would still be offering up animal sacrifices and even if we were not offering them up for the forgiveness of sins, we would still be offering them up for other purposes.
If the scripture had not declared us no longer bound to the dietary and cleanliness laws, we would still be observing them.
If the scripture had not declared us no longer required to keep the sabbath on a certain day of the week, our Sabbath day would still be the same as that of the Jews.
If the New Testament had commanded us to observe all the Jewish feasts and new moons, we would be observing them.
If the New Testament had not declared the outward circumcision null and void, we would still be circumcising our sons.

For had the scripture declared the old passed away without declaring what passed away with the old, we would have no basis for declaring the observance of those things associated with the Old Covenant no longer required of us despite our trust in Christ alone for our salvation and to declare the aforementioned laws, ordinances, and observances no longer required of us without a declaration of abolishment of those things from the New Testament would be an act of heresy; assuming that they no longer apply to us just because we are under a New Covenant, in and of itself, would not be enough. It requires a declaration from scripture for a matter to be settled.

Land restoration is no different. While the scripture has declared the animal sacrifices and outward circumcision no longer necessary, and has rendered the obeying of the dietary and cleanliness laws no longer applicable to us, and has declared the observation of certain holiday, feasts, new moons, and sabbaths on a specific day of the week no longer required of us, it has never said that land restoration for the Jews is no longer in effect.

Land restoration is not only a promise that is found in the Old Covenant, but it is also a prophecy found throughout the scriptures. Promises and prophecies must be fulfilled. They cannot be canceled. Therefore what prophecies were left unfulfilled under the Old Covenant, and there are still some that have not met their fulfillment, must meet their fulfillment under the New Covenant as prophetic fulfillment is evidence of God's faithfulness. (Heb. 10:23)

It has been foretold that there would be a time in which Israel would be regathered to the promised land, never to be driven out again. (Ezek. 37:25, Am. 9:15) If that is what was prophesied, then that is what will happen and must happen. Otherwise, Christ has failed to fulfill all the words of the prophets.

When Christ said He came to fulfill the law and the prophets, (Mt. 5:17) He came to fulfill all things pertaining to not only Himself, but also to the nation of Israel and the entire world and in order for all things to be fulfilled, they have to be fulfilled word-for-word. Otherwise, there is no fulfillment.

The argument that because the NT does not mention the cancellation of land restoration, then therefore land restoration must still be in affect, is an argument from ignorance. There is no way around that. If you would simply provide a scripture that provides clear and explicit mention of land restoration, and not a debatable interpretation, then you could prove your point. So far you have not done this.
Is land restoration a part of the old covenant? yes: Deuteronomy 30:1-5
The old covenant as a whole was made obsolete: Hebrews 8:13
New wine cannot be poured into old wineskins: Luke 5:37
Is land restoration a part of the new covenant? The new testament doesn't mention it, but if you believe it to be, just provide NT scripture that clearly and explicitly mentions land restoration.
Land restoration was fulfilled under the old covenant following the return from Babylonian exile (Jeremiah 29:10-14, Psalm 85:1). I would argue the purpose of land restoration was for the messiah to be born in the promise land under the law (galatians 4:4). By Christ being born in the promise land, conducting his ministry in the promise land, dying in the promise land, resurrecting in the promise land, ascending to heaven from the promise land, and sending the spirit in the promise land, He fulfilled everything written about Him in the law and the prophets and the psalms (matthew 5:18, Luke 24:44). For Israel had not returned to the promise land following the Babylonian exile, Christ could not have fulfilled what was written about him.
The writings of the prophets are visions, dreams, and parables as testified to by the OT scripture (numbers 12:6-8, hosea 12:10). When we turn to Ezekiel 37, which consists of vision/dreams/parables, we see that Israel would live in the land that their fathers were given forever and David would be their prince forever. It is then that God would make an everlasting covenant of peace with them and would make his dwelling amongst them. From NT scripture we know the land of Israel is not the hope, but the resurrection and inheriting the kingdom (acts 24:15, matthew 25:34, 2 timothy 4:18, 2 Corinthians 5:1-5, philippians 3:20, Hebrews 11:16). From NT scripture, we know it isn't literally David, but Jesus who is the prince/shepherd forever (john 10:11-14). From the NT we know, we know the covenant is the new covenant (luke 22:20, ephesians 2:17). From the NT we know that God dwells among his temple, which is the body of Christ (ephesians 2:20-22, 2 Corinthians 6:16). Thus the NT reveals the heavenly truth of the earthly picture that was given to Ezekiel.
Similar to Amos 9, which is a vision/dream/parable. Amos 9:11-12 was declared as fulfilled in the 1st century (acts 15:14-18). Christ's resurrection and ascension to heaven is the fulfillment of David's fallen booth being rebuilt and the gentiles coming to God. Israel's fortunes were restore upon return from Babylonian exile (jeremiah 29:10-14, psalm 85:1) in the earthly picture, but wouldn't fully be restored until Christ died for the forgiveness of sins to set the captives truly free (the heavenly picture). Thus the NT reveals the heavenly truth of the earthly picture that was given to Ezekiel.
The OT prophecies are similar to Jesus' parables. Jesus used real world events (earthly pictures) to display a heavenly truth. Many of these earthly pictures contain prophecies, but their fulfillment is not necessarily fulfilled literally in the sense of the earthly picture. For example, Jesus compares the kingdom of heaven to a fishing net that catches all kinds of fish, which are then separated, the good from the bad. The earthly picture of the net and fishing only paints a picture of what the kingdom is like, the kingdom is not literally a net catching fish. This parable also prophesies of a future separation of the good and the bad. This is fulfilled not in literal good and bad fish being separated, but in the resurrection of the just and unjust.
We have already agreed that the NT declares parts of the 613 commands of Moses as fulfilled and no longer in place under the new covenant. But you would say it is heresy to declare what was made obsolete from the old covenant if the new covenant doesn't declare it as obsolete? The NT doesn't declare laws for skin diseases, laws for menstrual cycles, laws for nocturnal emission, laws against crossbreeding farm animals, laws for standing up in the presence of the elderly, etc....as obsolete. Does that mean those laws are still in affect and it would be heresy to state they are not? I disagree.
The NT declares the old covenant obsolete (Hebrews 8:13)
The NT declares the new covenant is not like the old covenant (Hebrews 8:9)
The NT declares the new covenant has better promises (Hebrews 8:6)
The NT is absent of any mention of land restoration.
 
Upvote 0

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What I said is that they did not become Gentiles.

And I would disagree with your conclusion.

No, it is your understanding of the prophecy concerning Ephraim and Paul's reasoning for citing Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 that is incorrect.



You have still not shown how my reasoning is incorrect. I'll break it down and maybe you can then show where my conclusion is off.


1.) Ephraim's descendants were prophesied to become a fullness of nations (genesis 48:19)

2.) Ephraim was mixing with the nations (hosea 7:8)

3.) Ephraim was divorced by God (jeremiah 3:8) and resettled among the Assyrian empire (2 kings 17:23)

4.) Ephraim became no longer God's people (hosea 1:9)

5.) However, God promised to one day call northern kingdom his people again and reunite with the southern kingdom under one head (hosea 1:10-11)

6.) Paul quotes hosea 1:10 as being fulfilled with the inclusion of the nations with the Jews in the vessels of mercy (romans 9:23-26).



My conclusion is that the divorced and scattered descendants of Ephraim/the northern kingdom who became no longer God's people were as the gentiles. Thus by God including the gentiles, of whom some descended from the divorced and scattered northern kingdom, with the Jews in the vessels of mercy, he fulfills his promise from Hosea 1. This same conclusion is supported by several commentaries, and I have found no commentaries that oppose my conclusion.


Elliots commentary

The original of the prophecy in Hosea relates to the pardon and reconciliation promised to the apostate and idolatrous people of the northern kingdom. It is here typically and prophetically applied to the Gentiles. Those who had ceased to belong to the chosen people, and those who had never belonged to it, were to all intents and purposes in the same position.



Jamieson-Fausett

I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved—quoted, though not quite to the letter, from Ho 2:23, a passage relating immediately, not to the heathen, but to the kingdom of the ten tribes; but since they had sunk to the level of the heathen, who were "not God's people," and in that sense "not beloved," the apostle legitimately applies it to the heathen, as "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise



Vincent words studies

The exiled Israelites being mingled with the Gentiles, and forming one homogeneous mass with them, cannot be brought to God separately from them





Actually it does in the sense that Paul never applied the cited passage to the northern kingdom.

The divorced northern kingdom is not mentioned at all in the NT. Only Jew and gentile are mentioned in the NT. Paul applies the passage from hosea 1, which is about the northern kingdom, to the gentiles of the 1st century. Paul could only apply a passage about the northern kingdom to the gentiles, if in fact the northern kingdom had become as gentiles.

That much is true but much too in depth to debate here.



I agree.





I did and the scripture does not say IF Abraham is blameless THEN God will make a covenant.


Genesis 17:1-2 When Abram was ninety-nine years old the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am God Almighty;a walk before me, and be blameless, and I shall make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly.”





It was Patriarchal, but was it not you who pointed out a change to the law?

Correct, according to the law of Moses one could only be a high priest according to the line of Aaron if there was patriarchal descent from Aaron. According to the book of Hebrews, the law changed as Christ is not from the line of Aaron, and is now our high priest forever.

If you haven't found the explanation for the sword, you need read Revelation chapter 19 again. One thing for sure, is that the armies who will attempt to make war against Christ will literally be killed by it. Once again, birds do not feed on figurative corpses. Find the explanation to the sword and you will have insight into what I believe concerning the sword.

Revelation 19:15 states the sword that comes from his mouth strikes the nations. That doesn't tell us what the sword actually is though. It tells us what is does, but not what it is.
However, I would argue that Hebrews tells us what the sword is: the gospel, the word of God.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Thus I don't believe the sword in the mouth of Jesus is a literal sword. It would be pretty strange for a literal Jesus to come down from heaven riding on a horse, holding a sword in his mouth, and swinging his head around to cut down the nations. That is not how Jesus went into heaven. We are told Jesus would return the same way he ascended into heaven. Last time I checked Acts 1, Jesus didn't ascend into heaven on a horse with a sword in his mouth.

Yes. What other Christ would I be referring to besides the Risen Savior?

Oh Good, then we are in agreement that Jesus is currently sitting on David's throne, as David spoke about the resurrection of Christ when he knew God would put a descendant on his throne.

The reason why I am only looking at the root word is because the source I have (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance) only has the root word "Sperma." It does not contain "Spermati."
Neither does Blue Letter Bible. What Blue Letter Bible does do is apply Sperma to both the Greek singular and plural wording for "seed." But not all sources apply "Spermati" which indicates disagreement amongst the different sources.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/inflections.cfm?strongs=G4690&t=MGNT&ot=MGNT&word=σπέρματί
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lan...gs=G4690&t=MGNT&ot=MGNT&word=σπέρματί[/QUOTE]

Right, you are using only the concordance which only provides the root word. It does not provide the inflections, which are actually found in the greek writing. In the actual greek of galatains 3:16 the singular inflection spermati is found.

But what about for His second coming?

Second coming? Jesus stated that John the Baptist is the Elijah who was to come. It's been fulfilled (matthew 11:14).

Their expansion is in regards to their territory and borders, but because this will all be brought to completion when the Messiah returns, naturally, the fulfillment will take place when the Kingdom of Heaven is extended to earth through Christ's reign.

So you believe the kingdom of God is still the size of a mustard seed?

If Jerusalem has no present role in the New Covenant, then it should not even exist and yet it continues to abide. That it continues to abide and is presently under Jewish control ought to make it evident enough that the role of the presently existing Jerusalem has not been fulfilled.

And while we are made members of the forthcoming heavenly Jerusalem in Christ, that heavenly Jerusalem will not manifest itself until the creation of the new heaven and the new earth.

this argument makes no sense. The world was not destroyed with the implementation of the new covenant. the land where the temple stood still exists as the world was not destroyed. Under the new covenant It no longer matters where we worship. Jerusalem is no longer the center of worship according to Jesus (john 4:21). The earthly Jerusalem served its purpose under the old covenant. According to Paul in Galatians 4:21-30, the earthly Jerusalem is tied to the old covenant and inherits nothing with those who are of the new covenant (heavenly Jerusalem). In fact Paul says to cast out the slave woman and her son (old covenant; earthly Jerusalem; and those under the old covenant). Earthly Jerusalem may exist, as the world has not been destroyed, but it isn't a part of the new covenant.

The event during which the wrath of God upon the world causes a slaughter so immense that the amount of blood shed is roughly 200 miles long and the height of a horses' bridle (roughly six feet high)

Again, assuming your interpretation of a highly symbolic and apocalyptic book is correct.
 
Upvote 0

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Where is it written that covenant acceptance determined whether one was a Jew or Gentile?

My point was that those who are in covenant with God, are his people. Those not in covenant with God are not His people.

Strangers who sojourned with Israel and agreed to the old covenant were to be considered native born Israelites.
Leviticus 19:33-34 When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
And those who decided to forsake the covenant became no longer God's people (hosea 1:9)

A jew is not defined by being a physical descendant Abraham. Ishmaelites were not Jews, Edomites were not Jews. (Romans 9:6). But Children of the promise are reckoned as being Jews.
Romans 9:7-8 Nor because they are Abraham’s descendants are they all his children. On the contrary, “Through Isaac your offspring will be reckoned.” So it is not the children of the flesh who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as offspring.

According to Paul, a man is not a Jew because he is a descendant of Abraham only (outwardly), but is one Inwardly.
Romans 2:28-29 A man is not a Jew because he is one outwardly, nor is circumcision only outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew because he is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man’s praise does not come from men, but from God.g nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
Gentiles who accept Christ are no longer gentiles. As we can see Paul declares those who are called uncircumcision "once gentiles" when they are brought to Christ.
Ephesians 2:11-13 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
Thus if someone was "once" a gentile prior to Christ, what would they be after coming to Christ?


But did they remain in Assyria since the writing of the cited passage?



The books of Kings are believed to have been written around or after the time of the Babylonian exile, so somewhere between 600 and 500 BC. The author of kings, mentions the northern kingdom remaining in Assyria "to this day". This would have been between 150 and 200 years after the Assyrian Exile (2-3 generations).


2 kings 17:23 So Israel was exiled from their homeland into Assyria, where they are to this day.




And why were the ones who remained not granted national sovereignty so they could rebuild their nation?



I would argue because the land required it's sabbath rests. So God used the Babylonians to make sure the land would get its missed sabbath rest.


2 Chronicles 36:21 So the land enjoyed its Sabbath rest all the days of the desolation, until seventy years were completed, in fulfillment of the word of the LORD through Jeremiah.




That may be true in some cases but not in every case. The commissioning of the 144,000 is such case in which there is no evidence of their commissioning being symbolic.

Interestingly enough the tribes of Dan and Ephraim are missing from 144,000.
Revelation 14:4 They have been redeemed from among men as firstfruits to God and to the Lamb.

I would argue, using scripture to interpret scripture, the 144,000 of revelation are the first fruits of the 1st century, as James declares him and them so.
James 1:1, 18 To the twelve tribes in the Dispersion. Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creation.

Hebrews 10:19 says otherwise in spite of the Temple still standing. And how could the post-exile Temple be called the first tabernacle when the Mosaic tabernacle and the pre-exile Temple preceded it?

We know the earthly temple was a copy of heavenly order. The most holy place being an earthly copy of heaven, where God's presence resides.
Hebrews 9:23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these

The author of Hebrews states, in relation to the high priest going into the most holy place once a year, that the way into the holy places is not yet open while the 1st tabernacle is having (present tense) a standing (often used in scripture in regards to sedition or dissension). The author even adds WHICH IS SYMBOLIC FOR THE PRESENT AGE

Hebrews 9:8-9 By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is not yet opened as long as the first tabernacle is still standing (which is symbolic for the present age).

We know Jesus went behind the curtain (heaven) as a forerunner for us. A forerunner is someone who arrives a place prior to others. Thus, Jesus arrived to heaven prior to us.
Hebrews 6:19-20 We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.


Considering the book of Hebrews explains that the most holy place was only a copy of the heavenly realms, then it stands that we do have confidence to enter heaven by the blood of Christ. For he is the WAY, the truth and the life.
Hebrews 10:19-20 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way opened for us through the curtain of His body,




After wandering in the wilderness for forty years, the people of Israel obtained the promised land. And between the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Christ and the destruction of the post-exile Temple, the Jews did not obtain the freedom offered them because they persisted in their unbelief which resulted in the destruction of the Temple, the days of which might have been prolonged had they not rejected Christ.

But because of their rejection of Christ, there was no release from bondage for them.

The crucifixion of Christ was dated to have taken place in 33 A.D., not in 30 A.D.; therefore rendering the time span between His crucifixion and the destruction of the Temple to be 37 years instead of forty.

Well this is another debatable topic that probably deserves its own thread. 30AD and 33AD are the 2 dates considered for Jesus crucifixion. There is evidence for both.

3 key dates

1.) Herod's death: 4BC or 1BC, and how hold was Jesus when Herod died?


2.) Tiberius reign: was the 15th year of Tiberius' reign in 26 or 29AD? Should the start of Tiberius' reign begin when he was co-regent with Augustus in 11AD or should it be when August died in 14AD?


3.) When did the census take place during Quirinius "governing"? Evidence suggests between 8 and 5BC:
Quirinius the Governor of Syria


The forty year wandering in the wilderness was not a thing that had to be, but could have been avoided if the people of Israel had trusted God to empower and help them obtain the promised land.

The testing of Jesus was planned by God to demonstrate that He could be tempted and not sin as evidence of His moral perfection and His qualification for being the sacrifice needed to take away our sins forever.

That is why the scripture never calls the wandering in the wilderness on the part of Israel a foreshadow of the tempting of Christ in the wilderness and what the scripture does not apply as a foreshadow, I cannot.

Right, where Israel failed at the exact same testing, Jesus fulfilled and even quotes the verses from the Deuteronomy.
So it's just a coincidence that Israel was tested in the wilderness for 40 years with the exact same temptations that Jesus faced in the wilderness for 40 days?
 
Upvote 0

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Jeremiah 30:11 stated that though God would make an end of all other nations, He would never make an end of the nation of Israel. They have been chastised, scattered, and persecuted, but preserved through it all and re-established as a sovereign nation once more. It is further foretold that a day would come when the people of Israel would be regathered to their land once more to remain their forever. (Ezek. 37:25, Am. 9:16)

No other people or nation has ever been given that kind of a promise. The best that can be offered to them is to become a part of an entity that, besides the nation of Israel, has also been granted an everlasting existence and that is the Church.

I agree that Israel would never cease to be a nation.

What more is there to elaborate on other than Zechariah 13:9 tells us the size of the remnant who will be saved and consist of the entire nation of Israel in that day?

And what is the inheritance that we share with Christ?

Just to name a couple:

Eternal life (john 3:16)
The kingdom (matthew 25:34)
The world, life, death, present future, all things (1 corinthians 3:21-23)


That depends on whether you are asking about Jews or Gentiles.

I would disagree. Gentiles are "fellow heirs".
Ephesians 3:6 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are fellow heirs, fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus.

Additionally, didn't you agree that gentiles inherit the land as found in Ezekiel 47?


The reason why their heart remains uncircumcised is because they rejected and still continue to reject their Messiah and because they rejected their Messiah at His first coming, the circumcision of their heart was not fulfilled in that day and so, the cycle of rebellion against God and repentance/restoration continues.

When the Jews rejected Christ, judgment was poured out on them.

They were re-established as a sovereign nation in 1948 and given full control of Jerusalem in 1967.

What we are awaiting is the circumcision of the heart which will result in the spiritual transformation that will lead the nation to repentance.

While the promise of land restoration does apply to the end of the Babylonian captivity, that did not bring the cycle of blessings, curses, repentance and restoration to an end. It might very well have come to an end if they had embraced Jesus when He first came, but because of their blindness and the hardness of their hearts, the cycle has persisted.
Hearts remained uncircumcised? There was a remnant in the 1st century who belonged to Christ (romans 11:5). Many from Israel repented and came to Christ, Just read the book of Acts.

Cycle persisted? that is exactly why God did away with the old covenant (hebrews 8:6-13).

Its end will be in eventual repentance. Wherein lies the argument from ignorance is the assumption that land restoration is forever lost to the Jews just because the Old Covenant is no longer in effect. What we can declare as being no longer applicable to us is what the scripture says is no longer applicable to us. The argument from silence is but a red herring. It is not an argument. It offers no rebuttal.

Laws and ordinances may be set aside and the basis for obeying them may be changed. But promises made and prophecies declared are never set aside or canceled even if one covenant is exchanged for another.

It's not an argument from ignorance, it's an argument from silence. There is a difference.
An argument from silence is based on a writer's failure to mention a certain topic and is distinct from an argument from ignorance. As in my case, the NT is silent on land restoration and thus land restoration is not a part of the new covenant.

You are proposing a positive: land restoration is still in affect
I am proposing a negative: land restoration is not in affect
In arguments, the burden of proof is on the one proposing the positive. However, by using an argument of ignorance (because the NT doesn't mention the cancellation of restoration then land restoration is still in affect, which equals a negative proof), you attempt to shift the burden of proof onto me. This is a logical fallacy



And loving God and others is upon which obedience to the law is founded; that and gratitude for the gift of salvation we receive in Christ and for the grace and mercy given us.

I agree

How does land restoration interfere with the aforementioned promises?

Living in Jerusalem would no more interfere with the promises of the new covenant, than living in America, Australia, Europe, Africa, ect....
For the time has come when it no longer matters location wise. (john 4:21)
But notice that none of the promises of the new covenant have nothing to do with land restoration. Which gospel tells us to preach land restoration?


Then you agree that in order for a prophecy to be fulfilled, the fulfillment must match the foretelling. Symbolic fulfillments do not count as fulfillments.

I'm not sure what you mean by "symbolic fulfillment". I believe the visions/dreams/parables have literal fulfillment. For example, in parable of the weeds, the weeds are separated from the wheat by the harvesters. The weeds are burned and the wheat is stored in the barn. I do not believe the fulfillment of this parable is found in literal weeds being pulled by farmers and thrown into the fire, nor literal wheat being put into a barn. I believe the fulfillment is found in the resurrection of the just and unjust.
Another example, in Malachi 4:5 , the vision/dream/parable states that Elijah will come before the great and awesome day of the Lord. I don't believe this fulfilled with a literal Elijah coming, as Jesus tells us, that this was fulfilled with John the Baptist preparing the way for Jesus (Matthew 11:14).
Another example, In Jeremiah 31:15, the vision/dream/parable states that rachel weeps for her children. From Matthew 2:18, we know that this wasn't fulfilled with Rachel literally weeping, as she had been dead. Its fulfilled in herod killing the children under the age of 2.
This does not preclude that some characters in the visions/parables/dreams as being literal. For example, in the parable of the wedding feast, the king throws a wedding for His son. We know the King is God and the son is Christ.
Another example of this is zechariah 9:9, where it is claimed the the king comes to zion, riding on a donkey. Jesus literally fulfilled this by riding on a donkey (john 12:15).
So again, I'm not sure what you mean by "symbolic fulfillment". I believe God spoke to the prophets in visions/parables/dreams as confirmed by scripture (numbers 12:6-8, hosea 12:10). Parts of these visions/dreams/parables are symbolic and other parts are literal. But the fulfillment is always literal.


The remnant is made in reference to who will remain of the nation of Israel when they are saved. Zechariah 13:9 gives us further insight.

Wouldn't that be the remnant present in the 1st century?

Romans 11:5 In the same way, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if it is by grace, then it is no longer by works. Otherwise, grace would no longer be grace.

Romans 9:27 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the Israelites is like the sand of the sea only the remnant will be saved.


But when Jacob has obtained his spiritual restoration, he will then become the prosperous and exalted nation that he was meant to be. He will be the priestly nation that he was created to be because the scriptures have foretold it and therefore must be fulfilled.

And what does the scripture say what it means to be born again? Does it mean to be born into the world a second time or does it require a spiritual transformation? And what things of the Old Covenant were declared and earthly picture of the heavenly? You have already listed them yourself in previous posts.

Peter declares the Body of Christ the priestly nation in 1 Peter 2:9.
from scripture, we know being born again is not literally coming through your mother womb, but spiritual transformation. However, if we were to assume literal interpretation of the earthly picture, then it would be literally coming through your mother's womb a 2nd time. And we know from Jesus' response, that would be incorrect.

Your assumption that land restoration is canceled is even more up for debate in the sense you lack a scripturally solid basis to make that declaration as the cancelization of that promise made to Israel is not listed among the things that the New Testament has declared no longer applicable to us.

That which the scripture has declared to be of no effect under the New Covenant, we can also declare to be of no effect, but if that which was declared to have died with the Old Covenant had not been declared dead, then we ourselves could not make that declaration and all that which died with the Old Covenant would continue to be observed throughout much of the Church today, but because they have been declared dead, they are not observed.

Ironically, your dispensationalist argument also lacks a scripturally solid base to say that land restoration is still in affect, as there is not one clear mention of land restoration anywhere in the NT.
So we have the dispensationalist argument, that because the NT does not declare land restoration "cancelled", then it is still in affect. However, this is an argument from ignorance and is always a fallacy in informal logic.
And we have the Preterist/Amil argument, that because the NT declares the old covenant obsolete and there is no mention of land restoration, then land restoration is not a part of the new covenant. This is an argument from silence, which is not always a fallacy in informal logic unlike the argument from ignorance.



Show us in where in the New Covenant it is declared that prophecies and promises are subject to cancelization.

They are not cancelled nor are they destroyed. They are fulfilled/brought to their completion in Christ, as the NT states:
Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them

Luke 24:44 Jesus said to them, “These are the words I spoke to you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.”

2 Corinthians 1:20 For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I will give you this.
At least you are attempting to make your doctrine agree with the Bible, which is more than many of the promoters of your doctrine have done.


I have heard many claim that the whole nation will come to salvation, at His Second Coming.


A failing on their part is that they have neglected to explain that much of the nation will perish before the remainder of the nation is saved.


I have friends who are Dispensationalists.
I will continue to pray for you, and them.


We will keep you in our prayers as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BABerean2
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.