So You Think Israel Is Finished?

[rollinTHUNDER]

Is God Finished with Israel?
Seeds of Holocaust
By Hal Lindsey

These people are variously called Preterists, Dominionists, Kingdom Now, Post Millennialists and/or Amillennialists. They believe that most of the Book of Revelation, Matthew chapter 24, etc., have already been fulfilled.
These people have caused a resurgence of the old anti-Jewish attitude that reigned in the Church for a good part of the centuries from the early 5th century Theologian Augustine until the beginning of the 19th century. Basically this was a period in which Bible prophecy was interpreted allegorically. Augustine initiated this practice in his monumental work called The City Of God.
Using this method of interpretation enabled Church Theologians to transfer the unconditional covenants made to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their descendants to the Church. Israel was viewed as forever rejected because of disobedience and rejection of Jesus as Messiah. According to the Preterists, the Church replaced Israel in God’s plan. All of the covenants were transferred to the Church. Any hope of God restoring Israel to their ancient homeland and being reborn as a nation was branded as Jewish arrogance and falsehood.
To the ‘Preterists’, the modern state of Israel is an imposter and the Jews have no right to be in Palestine. According to them, the United States should not be helping Israel to usurp Muslim land. At the very least, the U.S. should help the Palestinians get a state in the West Bank and Gaza.

Warning to Israel’s Enemies

What the prophet Micah predicted about the Israelites in the last days sounds very applicable to what the Preterists are saying:
Do not rejoice over me, O my enemy. Though I fall I will rise; Though I dwell in darkness, the Lord is a light for me. I will bear the indignation of the Lord Because I have sinned against Him, Until He pleads my case and executes justice for me. He will bring me out to the light, And I will see His righteousness. Then my enemy will see, And shame will cover her who said to me, “Where is the Lord your God?” My eyes will look on her; At that time she will be trampled down, Like mire of the streets. It will be a day for building your walls. On that day will your boundary be extended. It will be a day when they will come to you From Assyria and the cities of Egypt, From Egypt even to the Euphrates, Even from sea to sea and mountain to mountain. And the earth will become desolate because of her inhabitants, On account of the fruit of their deeds. (Micah 7:8-13)
Clearly, this prophecy is about the time just preceding the coming of the Messiah to fulfill the covenants concerning the land promised them. It predicts the “extending of Israel’s boundaries”. It is at a time when the whole earth is judged in the process. These factors are clearly part of the Tribulation prophecies about the events surrounding the Messiah’s coming.
The prophecy speaks of Israel’s enemies taunting her while she is under God’s discipline. They will say, “Where is the Lord your God?” believing that God has forsaken Israel forever. They will rejoice over Israel’s calamity. But these enemies refuse to see that the same prophets who predicted Israel’s discipline also predicted her restoration.
There are two kinds of people who fit this description. First, the Muslims. Second, the Christian Preterists. Both view the Jews as forsaken by God and finished as a people and nation.

Paul’s Warning to Anti-Jewish Christians

The early Church was developing an anti-Jewish attitude. This is evident by many references the Apostle Paul made in his Epistles. It was especially in view when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans.
In Romans chapter eleven, Paul delivers a dire warning to Christians who become anti-Jewish. He does this in the form of an allegory.
The chapter begins with a question concerning the minority of Israelites who have not stumbled in unbelief. Paul writes, “I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew …” (Romans 11:1-2)
Paul’s second question concerns the majority of Israelites who have stumbled in unbelief, “I say then, they did not stumble so as to [permanently] fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. Now if their transgression be riches for the world and their failure be riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be!” (Romans 11:11-12)
So Paul answers his major question, “God has not rejected His people, has He?” in two ways. First, God’s rejection of the Israelites is not total (verses 2-10). Second, God’s rejection of the Israelites is not permanent (verses 11-29).

The Great Olive Tree Allegory

Read carefully Paul’s argument for Israel’s future in this allegory of the Olive Tree:
If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches. If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree! (11:16-24 NIV)

Identifying The Symbols

It is important to note the difference between an allegory and a parable. A parable is designed to convey one basic point. But an allegory is designed to convey many truths with point-by-point analogies. Let us identify the important symbols of this allegory.
The “root” of the tree is symbolic of the Patriarchs in possession of the covenants and promises with which God created the Nation of Israel and through which salvation was brought to the world.
The “cultivated olive tree” symbolizes the place of blessing through those covenants and promises. Whoever is in the olive tree partakes of those covenants and promises. Whichever group (composed of either Israelites or Gentiles) is predominant in the tree becomes God’s preeminent corporate vessel for evangelizing the world.
The “natural branches” symbolize Israel as the covenanted national people physically descended from the Patriarchs.
The “wild olive branches” symbolize the Gentiles as a corporate people. The symbol emphasizes that the Gentiles are unnatural partakers in Israel’s covenants and promises. Indeed, Gentile salvation is clearly presented as dependent on Israel’s covenant relationship to God, since their “root: and “their tree” give us salvation and not vice versa.
The figure of “grafting wild branches into the cultivated olive tree” symbolizes a corporate group being placed into the covenant blessings and established as the principle channel for God’s work on earth. Gentiles could be saved in the old economy – but they had to become Jews, since they were God’s chosen representatives. Now the reverse is true. An Israelite can be saved in the new economy, but he must come to a Church in which Gentiles are the predominant and the chosen representatives of God on earth. They do not have to become Gentiles, but they do cease being Jews. God sees three kinds of people on earth in this economy according to 1 Corinthians 10:32, “Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God.” When either a Jew or a Greek (meaning Gentile) believe in Jesus as Savior, they become one in Christ in the Church of God.
Paul’s argument in this chapter is how the Israelites will return to their place of preeminence as God’s chosen representatives on earth.
God is the Husbandman who supernaturally removes or grafts in the Israelites and the Gentiles.
The allegory of “branches broken off from the tree” symbolizes the corporate removal of a group from the place of God’s covenant blessing.
There are two points that must be kept constantly in mind in interpreting the ‘olive tree allegory’. First, this allegory does not have in view individual Israelites or Gentiles, but rather each general group as a whole. Second, All through this inspired allegory, the Church and Israel are presented as two distinct programs of God.
Theologian Everett F. Harrison writes clearly about this all-important issue, “Paul treats the Gentile element in the church as a unit, addressing it as ‘you’ (singular in the Greek). This should not be understood on an individual basis as though Paul were questioning their personal salvation. The matter in hand is the current Gentile prominence in the church made possible by the rejection of the gospel on the part of the nation of Israel as a whole.”

 

[rollinTHUNDER]

Preeminence Is Precarious

The main point of this allegory to the Roman Christian’s attitude of anti-Jewishness is, “Gentiles beware, because your predominance in God’s community will come to an end just as the Israelites’ did – and for the same reason.”
From the call of Abraham until Israel’s official rejection of Jesus as the Messiah at the time of His triumphal entry to Jerusalem (commonly known as Palm Sunday), the nation of Israel was God’s special chosen representative to bring His message to the world. Israel was the recipient of God’s revelation and the focus of His special grace. Though a few Gentiles were saved during this period, Israelites were predominant and preeminent in His plan.
But from the birth of the Church at the Advent of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost the situation has been reversed. The Church, which is called God’s holy nation, has replaced the Nation of Israel as God’s channel of blessing for the world. In the Church, Gentiles are predominant and preeminent as God’s chosen representatives. During this age, Israel’s covenant blessings are conveyed on the believer through personal union with Christ Himself. God’s special grace is now focused on the Gentiles.
I was surprised to find that even Postmillennialist John Murray admitted the following as he commented on Romans chapter eleven:
The root is surely the patriarchs. Furthermore, in verse 28 (unbelieving) Israel are said to be “beloved for the father’s sake.” In the one case it is the consecration belonging to Israel, in the other it is the love borne to Israel. But booth are derived from the patriarchal parentage … This fact of consecration derived from the patriarchs is introduced here by the apostle as support for the ultimate recovery of Israel. There cannot be an irremediable rejection of Israel; the holiness of theocratic consecration is not abolished and will one day be vindicated in Israel’s fullness and restoration.
Paul specifically warns the Gentiles as a group in God’s program to not be arrogant against the fallen Israelites, “But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you.” (11:17-18)
We Gentiles are only grafted in to Israel’s covenants though our union with Christ. It is considered an ‘unnatural’ arrangement. Our salvation does not depend upon a covenant made with us, but upon a covenant made with the Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all their descendants.
And if we Gentiles should boast that Israel was broken off in order that we might be grafted in, Paul replies, “Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will He spare you.” (11:20-21)
Just as the Israelites were judged because apostasy took over the nation, even so God is going to judge the Gentiles when the predicted apostasy takes over the Church.

God Vow’s To Restore Israel As His Representatives

Paul writes, “Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in; for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more shall these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?” (11:22-24)
The logic of God’s argument is irresistible. If He could graft “Gentile wild olive branches” into the cultivated olive tree against nature, then He can certainly graft the “Israelite natural branches” back into their own tree.

God’s Time Table Revealed

Paul warns that this whole affair is part of one of God’s greatest mysteries. He warns Gentiles not to be ignorant concerning this mystery that involves God’s overall plan for the Gentiles’ role in His program.
Paul writes, “I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part UNTIL the full number of the Gentiles has come in.” (11:25 NIV)
Israel has suffered a partial hardening only UNTIL the FULL NUMBER of Gentiles are saved. There is a point in the near future when the last Gentile God chose to be saved fills out the pre-arranged number. That will be the button that ignites the blast off of the Church into heaven.

What Happens Next?

Paul reveals the next stage of God’s mystery after the full number of Gentiles is saved, “And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: ‘The deliverer will come from Zion; he will remove ungodliness from Jacob.’” (11:26)
When it says, “All Israel will be saved,” it has to be viewed in the light of Paul’s definition in Romans chapter nine. Paul writes, “But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; neither are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: ‘through Isaac your descendants will be named.’ That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.” (9:6-9)
Paul shows that even Isaac and Rebekah’s twin sons were not both true Israelites. Isaac was a believer and therefore was in the chosen line. Esau was an unbeliever and was rejected from the covenant’s eternal blessings.
This shows that a true Israelite has to not only be a physical descendant of Abraham, but also a believer in God’s offer of salvation. This is why John the Baptist said to the Israelites, “But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, ‘You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance; and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.” (Matthew 3:7-10)
But a person must have both to qualify as a true Israelite. A Gentile with faith in Jesus as Messiah is not a true Israelite. He must also be physically descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And it must be after the “fulness of the Gentiles has come in.” When an Israelite believes today, he ceases to be a Jew and becomes a member of “the Church of God.”
So once the Church is removed by the Rapture, all Israelites who believe in Jesus as Messiah will be saved and go into the Millennial Kingdom to inherit all the covenants made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Zechariah predicts the number who will become “true Israelites” in that day, ‘“And it will come about in all the land,’ Declares the Lord, ‘That two parts in it will be cut off and perish; But the third will be left in it. ‘And I will bring the third part through the fire, Refine them as silver is refined, And test them as gold is tested. They will call on My name, And I will answer them; I will say, ‘They are My people,’ And they will say, ‘The Lord is my God.’”
(Zechariah 13:7-9) So one third of all living Israelites will believe and be saved. It is about these that Zechariah predicts, “And I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me [Jesus] whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him, like the bitter weeping over a first-born.” (Zechariah 12:10)
Paul concludes his argument for the future of Israel by saying, ‘“The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob. And this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.’ From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God ARE IRREVOCABLE.” (11:26-29)

Warning To Replacement Theology

The Apostle Peter gravely warned of those who would come from within the Church in the last days, “This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles. Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, ‘Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.’” (2 Peter 3:1-4)
The scoffers against literal interpretation of prophecy are legion within the Church today, fulfilling this prophecy.
Ezekiel predicted the scoffer’s words about Israel’s future in the last days, “… behold, they say, ‘Our bones are dried up, and our hope has perished. We are completely cut off.’”
To these scoffers, God replies, “Therefore prophesy, and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God, Behold, I will open your graves and cause you to come up out of your graves, My people; and I will bring you into the land of Israel. Then you will know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves and caused you to come up out of your graves, My people. And I will put My Spirit within you, and you will come to life, and I will place you on your own land. Then you will know that I, the Lord, have spoken and done it,’ declares the Lord.” (Ezekiel 37:11-14)
Likewise, Jeremiah warns the replacement theologians, “The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: ‘Have you not noticed that these people are saying, “THE LORD HAS REJECTED THE TWO KINGDOMS HE CHOSE”? SO THEY DESPISE MY PEOPLE AND NO LONGER REGARD THEM AS A NATION. This is what the LORD says: ‘If I have not established my covenant with day and night and the fixed laws of heaven and earth, then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them.’” (Jeremiah 33:23-26 NIV)
The coming of Jesus for His Church is very near. Make sure that you are not numbered among the scoffers. But rather take the Biblical prophecies literally and seriously. Seek to help the ‘natural branches’ as much as possible to stay in security in their own land. Let’s win as many Gentiles and Jews as possible to faith in Jesus before the trumpet sounds and we launch into eternity.
Maranatha!

 

[Serapha]

Hi there!



"Is God Finished with Israel?"


In a word..... "no".

Why?

"the remnant"


~malaka~

 

[rollinTHUNDER]

Hi there!



"Is God Finished with Israel?"


In a word..... "no".

Why?

"the remnant"


~malaka~

Amen malaka!!

I thought for sure the preterists would like a shot at this one. I remember how well they always loved Hal Lindsey!

 

[Brain Damage]

I thought for sure the preterists would like a shot at this one. I remember how well they always loved Hal Lindsey!

Give them time RT.

And BTW , good OP mate.

No God is not finished with Israel , and as you also know , she has an end time role to play regardless of what any preterists may think.

 

[Hitch]

Well Hal enjoys a perfect record. all his major predictions have failed.

Is it true that the NT teaches that the church is;

The children of God ,,R 8;6

The household of God... E 2;9

The children of Abe...G 3;7

Abe's seed G 3;29

The children of the Promise... R 9;8

A people his own ,,,Ti 2;14

The elect of God.. Col 3;12

Heirs of God...R 8;17

Heirs according to the Promise... G 3;29

The temple of God...C 3;16

The circumcision...P 3;3

The Israel of God.. G 6;16

A chosen generation...Pete 2;9

A royal priesthood

An holy nation

A peculiar people

Heirs of the Kingdom... J 2;6

Kings and priest unto God.. Rev 1;6

The new Jerusalem Rev 3;12

The people of God;.,,, H 4;9

Mount Sion... H 12;22

the city of the living God

the heavenly Jerusalem


If the church makes up the heirs of the Kingdom, the people and nation of God, the royal priesthood, the elect ,the circumscsion , heirs according to the promise,,, what is left for the old nation?

Take care

Hitch

 

[patrick]

Paul said a very interesting thing about the natural Israeli.



Gal 4:21-31 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? (22) For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. (23) But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. (24) Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which engendereth to bondage, which is Hagar. (25) For this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. (26) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. (27) For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not; for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath a husband. (28) Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. (29) But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. (30) Nevertheless what saith the Scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. (31) So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.



Paul was just a little insulting when he called natural Jerusalem Ishmael. He did not even consider them the promised seed. Paul said that Jerusalem and her children are in bondage, even till now. Now you can look at the church and Jerusalem of today that are more interested in the literal seen kingdom of God coming to Jerusalem and you can be assured of a couple of facts. One they are in bondage, and two their hand is against everyone and everyone hand is against them which was a prophecy Ishmael received. Jesus said that the Kingdom of God did not come with observation So why is the church looking so hard for it everywhere outside of where He said it was?

God has promised to make all natural Israel into spiritual Israel.(Rom 11) But at this moment if your emphasis is the natural seed then you are in bondage just like your mother. The true seed of promise is New Jerusalem,who is the church the bride of Christ. Compare Hebrew 12:18-29



I am not trying to be argumentative but Paul did say this concerning Israel.



Grace and Peace Patrick

 

[Hitch]

Yup.

H

 

[Hitch]

Zechariah 13:7-9) So one third of all living Israelites will believe and be saved. It is about these that Zechariah predicts, “And I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me [Jesus] whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him, like the bitter weeping over a first-born.” (Zechariah 12:10)


John 19:34-37
34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.
(KJV)

So do you believe Hal or John?

You believe Hal

Take care

Hitch

 

[Hitch]

The words of Hal the Race Baiter;


'Using this method of interpretation enabled Church Theologians to transfer the unconditional covenants made to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their descendants to the Church.'

'is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.” (9:6-9)
Paul shows that even Isaac and Rebekah’s twin sons were not both true Israelites. Isaac was a believer and therefore was in the chosen line. Esau was an unbeliever and was rejected from the covenant’s eternal blessings. '


LOL Somebody needs to call Hal (the race baiter) and ask him to make up his mind. See even God cant have an unconditional covenant with conditions.

Take care

H

 

[Hitch]

Is Hal a heretic?


'Paul concludes his argument for the future of Israel by saying, ‘“The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob. And this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.’


OK Hal says 'for the future of Israel'... the Deliever will come..

I will proclaim that the Deliever has come and came to do the work of the cross


Luke 1:69-78
69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;
70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,
74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,
75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.
76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;
77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,
78 Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited
(KJV)

and I will proclaim that this and only this is the method whereby sins can be taken away and I will further proclaim that now is the time.


Isa 49:3-8
3 And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.
4 Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the LORD, and my work with my God.
5 And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.
6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.
7 Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee.
8 Thus saith the LORD, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages;
(KJV)

And so by Apostolic authorty that time is decalred to be the present


2 Cor 6:2
2 (For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)
(KJV)


Now who is the foul racist and anti semite? How dare any one say to the jew that his time of salvation is anything but NOW.

Such is heresy.

Hitch

 

[Linda8]

Why was the church started by Israelites Jews if some of them were to use a different route for salvation?

The Church is made up of many Jewish saints/apostles.. who were part of the Israelite nation.

John, Peter, James, Paul etc all Jews..

 

[patrick]

Hi Linda 8

I can say Amen to the fact that the church is filled with many jewish believers. God wanted the church to be started by the Jews. And the only way that natural jews can be spiritual jews is to accept Jesus.

In the scripture there is a principle that says first the natural then the spiritual.

I Cor 15:46 Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

God has always worked by establishing truth that we can relate to in the natural world around us , then He fullfills them in a spiritual way.

That which is natural is usually called the shadow. And the spiritual is the real application.

God set up the passover lamb as a example. There was a literal lamb offerred up for each household and the blood had to be placed on the door post for the angel of death to passover the house. That is the shadow. The spiritual reality is Jesus the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world.

The jewish nation was a shadow of true believers everywhere. the reality is the church, made up of both jews and gentiles, who would become the God's true Jew circumcised in the heart and not just in the flesh.

I hope that this helps.

Grace and peace Patrick

 

[Hitch]

Perf!

H

 

[rollinTHUNDER]

The Achilles Heel of Dominionism

Is Apocalypse Future or Past?

These are the words of a leading Dominionist Theologian, the late David Chilton, who died suddenly in his early forties. The whole dominionist and/or preterist movement wreaks havoc with the Book of Revelation. In order to establish their view of prophecy, they must make virtually all of the prophecies of the Book of Revelation apply to Israel’s holocaust in AD 70. These are the ones who teach that Israel has no future as a distinct people and nation with God.

A Word Of Explanation

I have written previously about this movement that is denying the relevance of clear fulfillments of prophecy related to the Second Coming of Christ. Their system is based on the great error of interpreting virtually all prophecy in an allegorical sense. They are from the historic Theological systems called Amillennialism and Postmillennialism. Amillennialism believes there will be no millennial reign of Christ on earth. Postmillennialism believes that the Church will bring in the millennium of peace and Christ will come at the end.

I believe in Premillennialism, which teaches that Christ comes at the end of a seven-year Tribulation and then reigns on the earth for a thousand years of peace. It is during this period that all of the covenants and promises made to the believing remnant of the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will be fulfilled.

The biggest problem with the whole Preterist movement is that they constructed an elaborate philosophically based system of prophetic interpretation, then went to the Scriptures and sought to find justification for it. They had to use allegory to establish their Scriptural basis because the literal meaning of Bible prophecy blows their whole system out of the water.

But as we will see, they also use considerable liberty with interpreting their beloved Church history when it doesn’t fit their system.

A Major Error

The Dominionists do not believe that the Jesus’ prophecies given on the Mount of Olives in Matthew chapter 24 refer to the 2nd Coming of Christ. So it isn’t surprising that they also claim the Book of Revelation doesn’t either.

According to another prominent Dominionist, Gary North, David Chilton’s commentary on Revelation (The Days of Vengeance) sets forth the official position of the Dominionist movement. North uses extravagant words of praise to describe Chilton’s commentary, “This book is a landmark effort, the finest commentary on Revelation in the history of the Church. It sets the standard …” To say the least, that is a hard standard for any book to live up to.

Holy Smoke!

By their own testimony, the whole Dominionist/Preterist view of prophecy stands or falls with one main issue: “When was the Book of Revelation written?” This is true for the following reason. Since Chilton’s book, Days of Vengeance, represents the official view of Dominionist eschatology (by their own acclamation), and since the validity of Days of Vengeance depends entirely upon a pre-AD70 writing date for Revelation, their case stands or falls with this issue.

Even a like-minded Postmillennialist Theologian agrees with this. Kenneth L. Gentry, not only holds the same basic view as Chilton, but also lavished praise upon it. He nevertheless recognized, “If it could be demonstrated that Revelation were written 25 years after the Fall of Jerusalem, Chilton’s entire labor would go up in smoke.”

As a matter of fact, if it can be shown that Revelation was written even one day after the Holocaust of AD70 was finished, it would destroy not only Chilton’s book, but also the whole Dominionist system of prophecy. It would also force Dominionists to admit that the Olivet Discourse and other similar New Testament prophetic passages are yet to be fulfilled, since they deal with the same subject.

Gentry made another revealing admission in his review: “Chilton only gives four superficially argued pages in defense of what is perhaps the most crucial matter for consistent preterism: the pre-AD 70 date for the composition of Revelation.” (Emphasis mine)

Theologian Thomas D. Ice correctly notes:

"It must be pointed out, that if Revelation was written before AD 70, then Chilton’s view may be correct. But if the Apocalypse was penned before AD 70, it would not by itself rule out the futurist and premillennial view (i.e., Revelation is still prophetic of the future. The futurist view could still be correct if it was written when Chilton says it was, since the date is not determinant to the validity of its view. However, if Revelation was written even one day after the fall of Jerusalem, then it ceases to be a prophecy concerning the destruction of Jerusalem."

It is important to consider what fellow preterist Kenneth L. Gentry termed “Chilton’s four superficially argued pages".
”It is important because they defend the whole foundation that supports their ‘enormous superstructure’ of philosophically argued theology." The following are Chilton’s arguments for the early dating of the Book of Revelation.

The “John’s Poor Memory” Argument

Days of Vengeance declares, “St. John’s intimate acquaintance with the minute details of Temple worship suggests that ‘the book of Revelation and the Fourth Gospel must have been written before the Temple services had actually ceased.’”

This argument does not take into consideration the doctrine of the Divine Inspiration of Scripture. The inspiration doctrine teaches that the Holy Spirit supernaturally brought to remembrance and revealed the data the inspired writers used to compose the books of the Bible.

The Holy Spirit miraculously guided the writers as to exactly how to write the message. The is exactly what the Lord Jesus promised, “I have much more to say to you, more that you can now bear. But when He, the Spirit of Truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what He hears, and He will tell you what is yet to come.” (John 16:12-13 NIV)

The second reason is that the Apostle John clearly testifies how he received and wrote the book of Revelation. He carefully records that the Lord Jesus and His angel through supernatural visions revealed the entire content to him. This fact is greatly emphasized by the frequent repetition of the command to John to write only what he saw and heard. He repeatedly says, “I looked, I saw and I heard.”

John solemnly testifies that he wrote the whole Book of Revelation in strict accordance with what he actually saw and heard, “I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me.” (Revelation 22:8 NIV)

Even if John’s familiarity with the Temple were required to write the Book of Revelation, it would not be necessary for the Temple to still be standing, since persons are capable of remembering things of the past in great detail. Especially if the Holy Spirit gives them Divine inspiration.

In the light of this, shouldn’t we expect the information concerning the Temple to be both minute in detail and extremely accurate? This is a very weak argument to substantiate such enormous Dominionist claims. And as usual, it contradicts what the Scriptures say on the matter.

The “Questionable Accuracy of the Apostolic Fathers” Argument

The Dominionists led by Chilton boldly call into question the consistent witness of the earliest Church Fathers in their frantic search for support of their pre-AD 70 composition of the Revelation. Thomas Ice makes an amusing observation concerning Chilton’s about-face from his normal use of church history:

This by itself is most interesting, since it is Chilton and the whole Christian Reconstruction Movement, which so often appeal to “the voice of mother church” as support for their views. Chilton often boasts of his view on certain issues as being “the position of the historic, orthodox Church on the question …”

I agree that Church tradition should be weighed carefully, especially in issues that involve the dating of the New Testament books. But the Dominionists have reversed the normal priority. They use Church history most in trying to establish their interpretation of the Bible, and least in seeking to establish the date of when the books of the Bible were written.
We must always remember that it is the Scriptures that are inspired, not Church history.

In this case, the Dominionists’ love for “the voice of mother church” betrays them. For the consistent witness of the earliest and most reliable Church Fathers is that John wrote the book of Revelation on the prison island of Patmos toward the end of Roman Emperor Domitian’s reign.

Listen to “Mother” Boys

The primary source for early Church tradition on the date of Revelation is the Apostle John’s spiritual grandson, Irenaeus (AD 120-202). Irenaeus was discipled by the great Apostolic Father, Polycarp (AD 70-155), who was personally discipled by the Apostle John himself. So there is a direct line of authority and accuracy regarding one of John’s most important final visions and writings.

Because of the intense controversy over this issue and the importance the Preterist movement puts on it, I am going to quote Irenaeus’ full statement:

We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision (i.e. John). For that was seen not a very long time ago, but almost in our day, towards the end of DOMITIAN’s reign. (Emphases mine)

This is a straightforward and clear statement by one of the most respected and authentic sources we have in early Church history. It is therefore incredible that Chilton and other Preterists try to explain it away. Especially since they more than any other Theologians appeal to Church history to establish their ‘unique’ interpretations of prophecy.

Chilton Forsakes “Mother”

Chilton writes, “There is considerable room for doubt about his precise meaning—he may have meant the Apostle John himself ‘was seen’ by others. The language is somewhat ambiguous.” It is hard to reconcile Chilton’s usual high regard for and extensive use of Church tradition with this statement. The Dominionists take statements that are far less clear, and by far less dependable witnesses, as their authority for some major, “unique” interpretations.

Anyone who examines Irenaeus’ statement fairly, without a pre-conceived Theological system to protect, will conclude that there is not “considerable room for doubt about his precise meaning.” The ambiguity is not in the precision of the statement, but in Chilton’s biased perception. There is not even a slight “mist” around Irenaeus’ statement, but there is a dense self-induced fog over the Preterists’ understanding of it. And remember, the late David Chilton is hailed as the epitome of Preterist interpretation of the Book of Revelation.

This is a classic example of how the Preterists deal with both Scriptures and history when it doesn’t fit their Theological system. (Continued)

 

[rollinTHUNDER]

‘Smoke and Mirrors’ Interpretation

Let’s examine how Chilton uses the same “smoke and mirrors” approach with his interpretation of the Irenaeus’ quote that he does in his Bible interpretation. In fact, it will give an insight into the entire Preterist movement’s method of interpreting prophecy.

Chilton’s first tactic is to question whether Irenaeus’ statement, “that was seen not a very long time ago,” refers to “the apocalyptic vision” or to John himself. In this case, the original Greek in which this was written comes to our rescue.

The impersonal pronoun “that” is in the neuter gender, therefore “him” which is a masculine gender (and refers to the Apostle John) CANNOT be its antecedent. A very basic rule of Greek grammar is that a relative pronoun must agree in gender with the word, phrase or clause to which it refers. So “that” can only apply to John’s apocalyptic vision of the Revelation—not to John, since they are different genders.

Furthermore, the basic purpose of Irenaeus’ argument is clear. Irenaeus’ whole point is that the Apostle John had received the Revelation vision only a short time before Irenaeus wrote about it. So reasoning from that fact he concludes that if it were God’s will for the Church of his time to know the specific name of the Antichrist, then certainly the one who received that original vision would have subsequently revealed it to them. Especially since they were living in such close proximity to John’s lifetime.

In establishing when John was exiled and received the apocalyptic vision, Irenaeus used the classic method of historical dating of that time—he dated it by the reign of the contemporary Caesar. In this case it was Caesar Domitian (AD 80-96). And he says it occurred near the end of his reign, which would make it around AD 95-96.

Corroboration From Church’s First Historian

Eusebius (AD 265-339) is recognized as the Church’s first historian. He corroborates these facts and fills in some important historical details:

After Domitian had reigned fifteen years, Nerva succeeded. The (prison) sentences of Domitian were annulled, and the Roman Senate decreed the return of those who had been unjustly banished and the restoration of their property. Those who committed the story of those times to writing relate it. At that time, too, the story of the ancient Christians relates that the Apostle John, after his banishment to the island, took up his abode in Ephesus.

After Nerva reigned a little more than a year (AD 96-98) he was succeeded by Trajan (reigned AD 98-117) … At this time that very disciple whom Jesus loved, John, at once Apostle and Evangelist, still remained alive in Asia and administered the churches there, for after the death of Domitian, he had returned from his banishment on the island. And that he remained alive until this time may be fully confirmed by two witnesses, and these ought to be trustworthy for they represent the orthodoxy of the church, no less persons than Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria.

Philip Schaff (1819-1893), one of the Church’s greatest historians, writes about this issue, “The traditional date of composition at the end of Domitian’s reign (95 or 96) rests on the clear and weighty testimony of Irenaeus, is confirmed by Eusebius and Jerome, and has still its learned defenders.” This is an especially important quote because Schaff was an Amillennialist, yet he bears witness to the authenticity of Irenaeus’ statement.

The Church history that establishes John’s writing of the Revelation around AD 95 represents the best we have. If it doesn’t establish the Apostle John’s time of writing the Apocalypse, then every other fact of Church history becomes suspect. For most of Church history is not as clear and documented.

Internal Evidence For Time of Revelation

Chilton attempts to prove that the New Testament books had to have all been written prior to AD 70. In order to do this, he had to explain away one of the greatest single prophecies in the Bible—Daniel 9:24-27.

Chilton did this by reducing Daniel’s great prophecy into something that doesn’t even remotely resemble the meaning of the original words, grammar, syntax and context—not to mention what he does to parallel passages. When he finished subjectively mixing his symbols with some more “allegorical alchemy”, he comes out with his own “mythology.”

There are some great works on Daniel 9:24-27. Such renowned scholars as Sir Robert Anderson (The Coming Prince), Dr. Harold Hoehner (Chronological Aspects of he Life of Christ), Dr. Alva J. McClain (Daniel’s Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks) and Dr. Paul D. Feinberg (An exegetical and Theological Study of Daniel 9:24-27: Essays in honor of Charles Lee Feinberg) have written profound studies on the subject. These men refute such subjective interpretation with solid exegesis of the Scriptures involved. Their works do not require the reader to accept things that are simply not in the text.

The most competent scholars overwhelmingly agree that part of Daniel’s prophecy is yet future. The most important witness to this is the Lord Jesus Himself. In Matthew 24:15, Jesus interpreted the “abomination that causes desolation” predicted by Daniel (in Daniel 9:27) as the key sign that His Second Coming was imminent. This completely blows the Preterist interpretations out of the water—if you take it literally, of course.

The Seven Churches of the Apocalypse

Another major argument for the Domitian date of John’s exile to Patmos comes from the internal evidence of the conditions in the seven Churches, which are described in Revelation chapters 2 and 3.

First, according to Polycarp (70-156)—who in addition to being a disciple of the Apostle John was also the Bishop of Smyrna—the Church of Smyrna was not founded until after the martyrdom of the Apostle Paul. New Testament scholar Theodore Zahn concludes that from the witness and dates of Polycarp we may conclude the Church of Smyrna could not have been founded earlier than AD 68-70, which was the time of Paul’s martyrdom. The “voice of mother Church tradition” indicates that the Apostle John and others of the apostolic circle founded the Smyrnan Church after that.

There is no way for the Smyrnan Church to have reached such a degree of development as reflected in the Revelation by AD 70. There was needed at least a decade of growth for the Church to fit the description of its condition in the Revelation. The facts only fit the later date of writing.

The ‘Fateful Oath’

Caesar is Lord! This oath is what the Domitian persecution was all about. This created an impossible choice for the Christians. Christians can only swear Jesus is Lord!

But Domitian was intoxicated with his own deification. He made it mandatory for all subjects to swear, “Caesar is Lord”.

This kind of Emperor worship was not yet found under Caesar Nero. Yet it was rampant and enforced under Domitian. This is the second reason why the internal witness of Revelation does not fit into the Nero Scenario. Christians in the book of Revelation were forced to choose between Christ or Caesar as Lord. This was not the case under Nero, as evil as he was.

Nero slaughtered Christians as convenient ‘scapegoats’ to cover his own crime of burning down Rome in AD 64. Since Christians were already disliked and regarded with suspicion, he found them ideal victims to blame. But the resulting persecution was confined to the regions near Rome and didn’t extend all the way to Ephesus where John was. And it had nothing to do with swearing Nero as Lord. That only fits the persecution under Domitian, which extended into Asia Minor.

Reducing Worldwide Catastrophe to Only Israel

Certainly the most difficult claim for Chilton and the Preterists to defend is that virtually all of the prophecies in the Revelation were fulfilled in the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem and the State of Israel.

"One of the techniques used to reduce and localize all of the enormous judgmnts of Revelation to fall only upon little Israel of AD 70 is to mistranslate the phrase "the land". The original Greek can mean either "the land" or "the earth", meaning the whole planet. It all depends upon the context. But it's normal meaning is "the earth". Chilton makes the unsupportable pronouncement that it always means "the land."

Chilton gives no supporting evidence for doing this from either a lexicon or the context. The meaning of a word is determined by its usage in context. Although it can mean “the land” in certain contexts, it is rare. In the Book of Revelation it most often used in a context that indicates the whole planet is meant. Even a quick reading of the Revelation will reveal to the unbiased inquirer that “the earth” is most often used in a global sense. The trumpet and golden vial judgments are too enormous to be confined to the area of Israel—in the past or in the future.

There are many more valid arguments that could be brought forth against this movement, but space does not allow. Suffice it to say, they have built an enormous system on extremely faulty and meager interpretation of the Scriptures. What little exegesis they do attempt is all based on an allegorical method of interpretation that tortures the simple, literal meaning of the text.

Do You Smell Smoke?

Chilton and the Preterists ‘bet the farm’ on the early date of the Revelation’s writing. Their outrageous claims concerning the Revelation’s prophecies applying only to Israel past destruction, on which their whole system depends, must have a pre-AD 70 date to validate them.

This movement has ‘hoodwinked’ many ill-taught and unsuspecting Christians. Many who embrace this movement do not realize that they have joined a group that historically has supplied the seeds of ‘Anti-Semitism.’

It is more important than ever that Christians learn, believe and apply to their lives the literal prophecies about the soon-coming of the Lord Jesus that are being fulfilled all around us. Peter exhorted, “And we have a more sure word of prophecy to which you do well to heed, as a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.” And again, “For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.” (2 Peter 1:19 & 16)

Now, more than ever, we need to be urgently about the Lord’s work. The time is short. The people you see today you may not see tomorrow. So use the time to share the Gospel with them.

Maranatha! He is coming soon!

Hal Lindsey

 

[Hitch]

Now, more than ever, we need to be urgently about the Lord’s work. The time is short. The people you see today you may not see tomorrow. So use the time to share the Gospel with them.

Maranatha! He is coming soon!




Yawn ,, soon is a term strectched to mnear infinity by DF thinkers.

Would you mind defining if practical terms what you mean by:


Maranatha! He is coming soon!



Unless you're going to say 'soon' means 2,000 years or more.Such foolishenss has no place in biblicaly based discussions.

Take care

Hitch

 

[Hitch]

Well Hal enjoys a perfect record. all his major predictions have failed.

Is it true that the NT teaches that the church is;

The children of God ,,R 8;6

The household of God... E 2;9

The children of Abe...G 3;7

Abe's seed G 3;29

The children of the Promise... R 9;8

A people his own ,,,Ti 2;14

The elect of God.. Col 3;12

Heirs of God...R 8;17

Heirs according to the Promise... G 3;29

The temple of God...C 3;16

The circumcision...P 3;3

The Israel of God.. G 6;16

A chosen generation...Pete 2;9

A royal priesthood

An holy nation

A peculiar people

Heirs of the Kingdom... J 2;6

Kings and priest unto God.. Rev 1;6

The new Jerusalem Rev 3;12

The people of God;.,,, H 4;9

Mount Sion... H 12;22

the city of the living God

the heavenly Jerusalem


If the church makes up the heirs of the Kingdom, the people and nation of God, the royal priesthood, the elect ,the circumscsion , heirs according to the promise,,, what is left for the old nation?

Take care

Hitch

Well?

 

[Hitch]

The biggest problem with the whole Preterist movement is that they constructed an elaborate philosophically based system of prophetic interpretation, then went to the Scriptures and sought to find justification for it. They had to use allegory to establish their Scriptural basis because the literal meaning of Bible prophecy blows their whole system out of the water.



Is that because that take Rev 1;1-3 literally and you dont? Care to dance around the 'literal 'meanings of these three simple verses?


Rev 1:1-3
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
(KJV)


LOL It takes a strange sort of 'literalim' to find several thousand years in this passage. Not to mewntion all the other NT time frams which must undergo the same theraputic massaging so no matter how scrabled the obvious meanig the furtutist can vainly lay claim to being a 'literalist'. Its a bad joke and its not funny any longer.But I still get a laugh watichng the gymnastics involved.

Hitch

 

[Brain Damage]

Deleted.
Couldn't be bothered.