Replacement Theology

[Clare73]

Does MacArthur address:

"Therefore, I tell you that the kingdom of heaven will be taken from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. . .When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus' parables, they knew he was talking about them." (Mt 21:43-45)

Yes he does Clare. He argues that the parable speaks of a temporary situation, rectified when the Jews finally inherit their kingdom. He also argues that Reformed believers should take special note, because if God reneges on His promises to Abraham, given in a unilateral covenant and therefore not conditional on Abraham's or the Jews behaviour, then who's to say He won't renege on His promises of salvation to the Church.

Thanks, crimsonleaf,

I dunno'.
I see a couple of points with bearing on what MacArthur says.

First the "unilateral" (unconditional) covenant (Ge 15:9-21) was a land grant, fulfilled under Solomon (1Kgs 4:21, 24-25 cf 2Sa 710-11).
God didn't renege on his promise of Canaan to Abraham, he fulfilled it.

And then Heb 11:13-16 shows that Abraham's hope was not in earthly land/country (Canaan) which he never received
(nor did Isaac or Jacob), but in heavenly land/country which he did receive.

So God reneged neither on his promise made personally to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob, which he fulfilled in heavenly land, nor on his promise to Israel, which he fulfilled in earthly land in 1Kgs 4:21, 24-25.
The land promise has been fulfilled.

And then secondly, Jesus said that his kingdom is not of this world (Jn 18:36).
In fact, he refused the earthly kingdom of their hopes (Jn 6:15).
The temporal Messianic kingdom is not of this world, because it is of the spiritual world (Mt 3:2).
Jesus said it is invisible (Lk 17:20), and within us (Lk 17:21).

Jesus rules and reigns in his kingdom set up in the hearts of men who believe in him.
And it is now (Eph 2:6; 1Pe 2:5, 9), set up during the last Roman empire (Da 2:44), and it endures forever (Da 2:44).

In light of these two points, I'm not sure MacArthur is correct.
I'm not sure that he really has addressed Mt 21:43-45, above.

What think ye?

In the faith,
Clare

 

[crimsonleaf]

Thanks, crimsonleaf,

I dunno'.
I see a couple of points with bearing on what MacArthur says.

.......

What think ye?

In the faith,
Clare

Clare, I am but a babe when it comes to eschatology, but I'm learning all the time. I understand that most Reformed believers are amil, and that ultimately I'll end up buying the arguments, but much comes down to the view which was expounded more completely and first to the individual, which tends to be the view against which others are defended. In my case it was the premil argument, so every other argument is a counter to that and needs investigation, but I do see your points and yes, they seriously dent the premil argument, so I'm getting there! Thanks for your help.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Clare, I am but a babe when it comes to eschatology, but I'm learning all the time. I understand that most Reformed believers are amil, and that ultimately I'll end up buying the arguments, but much comes down to the view which was expounded more completely and first to the individual, which tends to be the view against which others are defended. In my case it was the premil argument, so every other argument is a counter to that and needs investigation, but I do see your points and yes, they seriously dent the premil argument, so I'm getting there! Thanks for your help.

However, her arguments are not based upon actual facts.

God was quite specific concerning his land grant to Abraham and his descendants. Even under Solomon the entirety of the land was not possessed. The Philistines remained entrenched enemies and a source of problems. Thus, it is premature to believe that God fulfilled His promise to Abraham and that Romans 11 is to only be applied spiritually to the church rather than to Israel.

God, in fact, has not rejected His people, Israel. Otherwise, Paul, at best, would have been mistaken when he wrote Romans 11 or a liar, this impolicating God as either mistaken or a liar. Of all the usages of "Israel" in the NT all but one clearly refer to the Jewish people and not to the church. The one exception does not clearly indicate either possibility.

 

[Clare73]

However, her arguments are not based upon actual facts.

God was quite specific concerning his land grant to Abraham and his descendants.
Even under Solomon the entirety of the land was not possessed

Hi, bbbbbbb,

Now, are you sure about that?

Check those boundaries again:

Ge 15:18 - "On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, 'To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt (probably modern Wadi el-Arish in northeastern Sinai) to the great river, the Euphrates--the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites
(Philistea and Phoenicia not included)."

Ex 23:31 - "I will establish your borders from the Red Sea (southeastern border) to the Sea of the Philistines (western border), and from the desert (southern border in northeastern Sinai) to the River (Euphrates, northern border)."

Dt 11:24 - "Your territory will extend from the desert (south) to Lebanon (Pheoenicia, east), and from the Euphrates River (north) to the western sea (Mediterranean)."

Josh 1:4 - "Your territory will extend from the desert (south) to Lebanon (Phoenicia, east), and from the great river, the Euphrates (north)--all the Hittite country--to the Great Sea (Mediterranean) on the west.

The facts are the following:

1Kgs 4:21, 24-25 - "And Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the River (Euphrates) to the land of the Philistines, as far as the borders of Egypt (limits promised to Abraham). . .he ruled over all the kingdoms west of the River (Euphrates), from Tipshah (west bank) to Gaza (southernmost city of the Philistines) and had peace on all sides. During Solomon's lifetime Judah and Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, lived in safety, each man under his own vine and fig tree."

Josh 21:43-45 - "Now the LORD gave Israel all the land he had sworn to their forefathers, and they took possession of it and settled there. The LORD gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their forefathers . .Not one of all the LORD'S good promises failed; everyone was fulfilled.

The entirety of the land promised to Abram was possessed under Joshua and fully occupied under Solomon (although rebellion was brewing in Edom and Damascus).
So the land promise has been fulfilled.

The Philistines remained

Philistea was not included in the land promise, nor was Lebanon (Phoenicia).

Solomon ruled over all that was included in the land promise.
So the land promise has been fulfilled.

In the faith,
Clare

 

[bbbbbbb]

Hi, bbbbbbb,

Now, are you sure about that?

Check those boundaries again:

Ge 15:18 - "On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, 'To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt (probably modern Wadi el-Arish in northeastern Sinai) to the great river, the Euphrates--the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonite, Hittites, Perizites, Rephaties, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites'
(Philistea and Phoenicia not included)."

Ex 23:31 - "I will establish your borders from the Red Sea (southeastern border) to the Sea of the Philistines (western border), and from the desert (southern border in northeastern Sinai) to the River (Euphrates, northern border)."

Dt 11:24 - "Your territory will extend from the desert (south) to Lebanon (Pheoenicia, east), and from the Euphrates River (north) to the western sea (Mediterranean)."

Josh 1:4 - "Your territory will extend from the desert (south) to Lebanon (Phoenicia, east), and from the great river, the Euphrates (north)--all the Hittite country--to the Great Sea (Mediterranean) on the west.

The facts are the following:

1Kgs 4:21, 24-25 - "And Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the River (Euphrates) to the land of the Philistines, as far as the borders of Egypt (limits promised to Abraham). . .he ruled over all the kingdoms west of the River (Euphrates), from Tipshah (west bank) to Gaza (southernmost city of the Philistines) and had peace on all sides. During Solomon's lifetime Judah and Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, lived in safety, each man under his own vine and fig tree."

The entirey of the land promised to Abram was possessed under Solomon (although rebellion was brewing in Edom and Damascus).
So the land promise has been fulfilled.


Philistea was not included in the land promise, nor was Lebanon (Phoenicia).

Solomon ruled over all that was included in the land promise.
So the land promise has been fulfilled.

In the faith,
Clare

Yes, I am quite certain. Israel, under Solomon's reign, exercised influence over those areas which you enumerated. However, Solomon was not sovereign of the entire territory. Rather, he executed treaties with the various kings of outlying areas as evidenced by his many wives. When a ruler wished to gain access to another's kingdom it was common to sign a treaty and seal the treaty with marriage to a princess. Solomon's marriages to these foreign women were for political reasons.

I Kings 11:1-3

Now King Solomon loved many foreign women along with the daughter of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women, 2 from the nations concerning which the Lord had said to the sons of Israel, “You shall not associate with them, nor shall they associate with you, for they will surely turn your heart away after their gods.” Solomon held fast to these in love. 3 He had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away.

 

[Clare73]

Yes, I am quite certain. Israel, under Solomon's reign, exercised influence over those areas which you enumerated.

The only problem with that is Josh 21:43-45, which reports otherwise:

"Now the LORD gave Israel all the land he had sworn to their forefathers, and they took possession of it and settled there. The LORD gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their forefathers . .Not one of all the LORD'S good promises failed; everyone was fulfilled.

God had promised they would not occupy the land all at once (Ex 23:29-30), only incrementally for practical reasons, but the campaign to take possession of the land was over in Jos 21:43-45, and Israel was established in the promised land, with no power left in Canaan to remove her.

"Rest on every side" means secure borders, peace with neigboring countries and no threat within the land from enemies.

The promised incremental occupation of their secure possession of the promised land was completed under Solomon (1Kgs 4:21), and David (2Sa 8:3).

The Biblical testimony seems pretty clear that the land promised to Abraham was securely possessed and then occupied,
and its promise fulfilled.

In the faith,
Clare

 

[Knee V]

It is often assumed (and it is assumed by MacArthur, apparently), that the covenant made with Israel via Moses on Mt Sinai is the the conclusion/fulfillment of the covenant made with Abraham; that that covenant is the heir to the Abrahamic covenant. But it is not. The Mosaic covenant is not was God was pointing to when He made His covenant with Abraham. The Mosaic covenant was conditional and, may I say, "parenthetical". The true heir and fulfillment of the covenant with Abraham was the covenant that Christ made. The "Old" covenant was merely a shadow to teach and prepare for the true covenant that God would make with His people, to be the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. The "New" covenant does all the the "Old" covenant could not do, and it is the covenant that God has intended for mankind from the very beginning.

 

[Barraco]

I guess you could say I've been doing some research and am amazed by the number of different things I've heard people say they believe or don't.

What are your thoughts on replacement theology, also called supersessionism?

Supersessionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think that Romans 11's example of the cultivated olive tree makes the best sense of the question.

The cultivated tree is Israel, the children of faith. The cultivated branches are the national Israelites, the Hebrew people of the Abrahamic Covenant. The wild olive branches that were grafted in are those who were originally excluded from the covenant but found a place through faith.

So there is no replacement. There is only having a place in the Covenant.

Paul explained that many Jews rejected Jesus and were thus like cultivated olive branches cut off from the root because of unbelief. In their place, the many of the wild olive branches were hewn from the wild root and grafted onto the cultivates root, that is, into the Nation of Israel (by faith.)

Now, Paul warned against such pride as replacement theology, insisting that the cultivated branches were only temporarily blinded for the sake of the wild ones. Since they naturally came from the cultivated root, how much more naturally can they be grafted on?

And so, while the Israelites by nation (the Jews) are blinded, the Gentiles by faith are included until all that can be grafted on are grafted. When the fullness of Gentiles has come, there will be a harvest. During that harvest, like the parable of the wheat and the weeds, the fruitful Gentiles will be gathered to the Lord while the unfaithful and unfruitful Gentiles will be like wild olive branches hewn from the cultivated root.

And that will be the occasion for the natural branches, the Israelites by nation, to be grafted back on the cultivated root, the Covenant Israel.

That is what Revelation 12 meant by the woman fleeing to the wilderness while her offspring take the ropes. That is also what is meant by the 144,000 of the 12 tribes of Israel being sealed and standing on Mount Zion in Rev. 14.

When the Times of the Gentiles are fulfilled, the national Israelites of the seed of Jacob will see again and will mourn for their Savior, whom they pierced.

"In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness." (Zechariah 13:1 KJV)

 

[Ashlantal]

The only problem with that is Josh 21:43-45, which reports otherwise:

"Now the LORD gave Israel all the land he had sworn to their forefathers, and they took possession of it and settled there. The LORD gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their forefathers . .Not one of all the LORD'S good promises failed; everyone was fulfilled.

God had promised they would not occupy the land all at once (Ex 23:29-30), only incrementally for practical reasons, but the campaign to take possession of the land was over in Jos 21:43-45, and Israel was established in the promised land, with no power left in Canaan to remove her.

"Rest on every side" means secure borders, peace with neigboring countries and no threat within the land from enemies.

The promised incremental occupation of their secure possession of the promised land was completed under Solomon in 1Kgs 4:21, and David (2Sa 8:3).

The Biblical testimony seems pretty clear that the land promised to Abraham was securely possessed and then occupied,
and its promise fulfilled.

In the faith,
Clare

It is often assumed (and it is assumed by MacArthur, apparently), that the covenant made with Israel via Moses on Mt Sinai is the the conclusion/fulfillment of the covenant made with Abraham; that that covenant is the heir to the Abrahamic covenant. But it is not. The Mosaic covenant is not was God was pointing to when He made His covenant with Abraham. The Mosaic covenant was conditional and, may I say, "parenthetical". The true heir and fulfillment of the covenant with Abraham was the covenant that Christ made. The "Old" covenant was merely a shadow to teach and prepare for the true covenant that God would make with His people, to be the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. The "New" covenant does all the the "Old" covenant could not do, and it is the covenant that God has intended for mankind from the very beginning.

I think that Romans 11's example of the cultivated olive tree makes the best sense of the question.

The cultivated tree is Israel, the children of faith. The cultivated branches are the national Israelites, the Hebrew people of the Abrahamic Covenant. The wild olive branches that were grafted in are those who were originally excluded from the covenant but found a place through faith.

So there is no replacement. There is only having a place in the Covenant.

Paul explained that many Jews rejected Jesus and were thus like cultivated olive branches cut off from the root because of unbelief. In their place, the many of the wild olive branches were hewn from the wild root and grafted onto the cultivates root, that is, into the Nation of Israel (by faith.)

Now, Paul warned against such pride as replacement theology, insisting that the cultivated branches were only temporarily blinded for the sake of the wild ones. Since they naturally came from the cultivated root, how much more naturally can they be grafted on?

And so, while the Israelites by nation (the Jews) are blinded, the Gentiles by faith are included until all that can be grafted on are grafted. When the fullness of Gentiles has come, there will be a harvest. During that harvest, like the parable of the wheat and the weeds, the fruitful Gentiles will be gathered to the Lord while the unfaithful and unfruitful Gentiles will be like wild olive branches hewn from the cultivated root.

And that will be the occasion for the natural branches, the Israelites by nation, to be grafted back on the cultivated root, the Covenant Israel.

That is what Revelation 12 meant by the woman fleeing to the wilderness while her offspring take the ropes. That is also what is meant by the 144,000 of the 12 tribes of Israel being sealed and standing on Mount Zion in Rev. 14.

When the Times of the Gentiles are fulfilled, the national Israelites of the seed of Jacob will see again and will mourn for their Savior, whom they pierced.

"In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness." (Zechariah 13:1 KJV)

This thread is gold .

 

[bugkiller]

Wrong. The covenant given to Abraham and the one given to Moses are not the same. Paul used Abraham over and over as a type of the covenant of faith. Faith was not a requirement for the old covenannt. Only outward compliance to a set of laws. The bible is clear that Abraham did obey God's word and commandments but it was by faith. If we look at Abraham's performance, he lied several times, he killed and went to war and showed a lack of faith when he listened to his wife and slept with Hagar. Not a shining example of commandment keeping.

I am sorry that you think I said the covenant made with Abraham is the same as the covenant made with the Israelites. Christians partake of Abraham's covenant while not part of it. The Christian is under the New Covenant promised in Jer 31. This is not the covenant made at Mt Sinai nor is it like that covenant. There are some similarities, but that is all - just similarities.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Yes he does Clare. He argues that the parable speaks of a temporary situation, rectified when the Jews finally inherit their kingdom. He also argues that Reformed believers should take special note, because if God reneges on His promises to Abraham, given in a unilateral covenant and therefore not conditional on Abraham's or the Jews behaviour, then who's to say He won't renege on His promises of salvation to the Church.

It's an interesting listen if you have eight hours to spare (!)

Then the kingdom is not Israel. I can agree with that.

bugkiller

 

[Barraco]

I agree but if you study the first five books of the bible (Torah) - faith was not a requirement. God said over and over to the Israelites, keep my commandments and do them. He wasn't concerned with motive only outward compliance. Therfore the old or Mosaic covenant was far different than the Abrahamic covenant and herein lies the problem.

Not necessarily. If you remember Matthew 23:23, Jesus recognized weightier parts of the Law. These were called the justices. The less weightier parts of the Law were called the jobs.

Here is an example: ""When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the Lord your God. "You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; you shall not lie to one another. You shall not swear by my name falsely, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord . "You shall not oppress your neighbor or rob him. The wages of a hired servant shall not remain with you all night until the morning. You shall not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind, but you shall fear your God: I am the Lord . "You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor. You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand up against the life of your neighbor: I am the Lord . "You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord." (Leviticus 19:9-18 ESV)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Clare73 Does he address:

"Therefore, I am saying to ye, that the kingdom of heaven will be taken from ye and given to a nation who will produce its fruit. . .
When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus' parables, they knew he was talking about them." (Mt 21:43-45)

In the faith,
Clare

One think I like about Jesus here, is most always took the gloves off when confronted the Judean rulers [not also Matthew 23]

 

[Jack Terrence]

John MacArthur is interesting on this subject. He describes himself as a "leaky dispensationalist" and decries replacement theology as unbiblical. His main point is that the covenant made with Abraham by God was unilateral, ie had no promise or agreement from Abraham. God acted alone in making the covenant and on that basis there is nothing Abraham (the Jews) can do to break it. Because (MacArthur argues) God still sees the covenant as valid, all His promises are valid, and the Jews will eventually get their kingdom, with all references to "Israel" in the bible applying to Israel literally, and not the Church as some would have it.

His whole argument is about 8 hours long on mp3, and can be found free on the Grace to You website, under eschatology.

John MacArthur is incorrect. The kingdom promises to Israel were conditional.

6 “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?” says the Lord. “Look, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will REPENT of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will REPENT concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it. Jeremiah 18:6-10

If the kingdom promises to Israel were unconditional, then Jesus erred in saying that the kingdom "shall be TAKEN AWAY from you."

 

[Ashlantal]

John MacArthur is incorrect. The kingdom promises to Israel were conditional.


If the kingdom promises to Israel were unconditional, then Jesus erred in saying that the kingdom "shall be TAKEN AWAY from you."

They were unconditional .

 

[Jack Terrence]

They were unconditional .

Either you or Jesus have erred. Jesus said that the kingdom would be "taken away" from them and given to a nation "bearing the fruit of it."

 

[Clare73]

Does he address:

"Therefore, I tell you that the kingdom of heaven will be taken from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. . .When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus' parables, they knew he was talking about them." (Mt 21:43-45)

Yes he does Clare. He argues that the parable speaks of a temporary situation, rectified when the Jews finally inherit their kingdom.

A couple of points of clarification.

Jesus' statement above is not part of a parable.
It is his application of a parable.

The chief priests and the Pharisees knew Jesus was talking about them in his parables (plural), not just that one.

He also argues that Reformed believers should take special note, because if God reneges on His promises to Abraham, given in a unilateral covenant and therefore not conditional on Abraham's or the Jews behaviour,

Only the land promise of Ge 15:18-21 was a unilateral covenant (v.17).

The covenant of Ge 17:2-8 to be their God (v.7) was bi-lateral and conditional, "As for me," (v.4), and "As for you," (v.9).
It was conditioned on circumcisional total consecration to God.

There was no promise of the "kingdom of God" in the Abrahamic covenant.

then who's to say He won't renege on His promises of salvation to the Church.

Taking the kingdom of God away from the Jews does not renege on any promise of God in the Abrahamic covenant.

It's an interesting listen if you have eight hours to spare (!)

Eight hours!

 

[Jack Terrence]

Yes he does Clare. He argues that the parable speaks of a temporary situation, rectified when the Jews finally inherit their kingdom. He also argues that Reformed believers should take special note, because if God reneges on His promises to Abraham, given in a unilateral covenant and therefore not conditional on Abraham's or the Jews behaviour, then who's to say He won't renege on His promises of salvation to the Church.

It's an interesting listen if you have eight hours to spare (!)

Jesus said nothing about the taking away of the kingdom being a temporary situation. The nation that now possesses the kingdom will continue to possess it unless it stops bearing fruit.


The church has possessed the kingdom once and for all. Paul said that the resurrection and the rapture which was was promised to Israel has been given to the church:

The resurrection and the rapture was promised to Israel:

I will be your King; Where is any other,
That he may save you in all your cities?
And your judges to whom you said,
‘Give me a king and princes’?

I gave you a king in My anger,
And took him away in My wrath.

“The iniquity of Ephraim is bound up;
His sin is stored up.

The sorrows of a woman in childbirth shall come upon him.
He is an unwise son,
For he should not stay long where children are born.


“I will ransom them from the power of the grave;
I will redeem them from death.
O Death, I will be your plagues!
O Grave, I will be your destruction!

The resurrection and the rapture given to the church:

in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”

“O Death, where is your sting?
O Hades, where is your victory?”

The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

In Hosea Christ says TO ISRAEL "I will be your king" and that "I will ransom you from the grave."

Paul said TO THE CHURCH that the words of Hosea are fulfilled when WE are resurrected and raptured and that God gives US the victory.

 

[Clare73]

He also argues that Reformed believers should take special note, because if God reneges on His promises to Abraham, given in a unilateral covenant and therefore not conditional on Abraham's or the Jews behaviour,

Only the land promise of Ge 15:18-21 was a unilateral covenant (v.17).

The covenant of Ge 17:2-8 to be their God (v.7) was bi-lateral and conditional, "As for me," (v.4), and "As for you," (v.9).
It was conditioned on circumcisional total consecration to God, based in faith in the promises to Abraham.

There was no promise of the "kingdom of God" in the Abrahamic covenant.

And even more importantly, only those who believed in the promise to Abraham were the children of Abraham:

Ro 4:12 - "he is the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised (Ge 15:6)."

The promise that all peoples of the earth would be blessed through Abraham's offspring (Ge 22:18) was a promise of Christ.

Those Jews who did not believe in the Promise (Christ) were not the children of Abraham (Ro 4:12).

Jn 8:39-41, 44 - "If you were Abraham's children, then you would do the things Abraham did (believe in the Promise). . .You are doing the things your own father does. . .You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire (to kill me, v.40)."

Because they violated the bilateral (Ge 17: 3, 9) covenant of Ge 17:3-14 by unbelief in the Promise (Christ), they were not the children of the covenant and had no claim to the promises to Abraham. They disinherited themselves from any kingdom of God.

God reneged on no promise in taking the kingdom of God away from unbelieving Jews and giving it to the NT church of both believing Jews and Gentiles, who would produce its fruits by faith through grace (Mt 21:43).

 

[Revelations 2]

Can you explain the difference between the "Abrahamic covenant" and the "new covenant"?

If the old covenant is an everlasting covenant, then is the new covenant in addition to the old?