The Eschatology of Israel

[Josheb]

Hi, and appreciate your replies! Concerning Israel and Christians, they are separate entities.

No, they are not.

Most Jews don't believe in the Lord Jesus, and the two companies have nothing in common except God.

Do you see what you just did there? You first used "Israel," and the switched to "Jews." The two, Israel and Jew, are not identical in scripture and I encourage and exhort you to pay greater attention to when others employ that bait and switch under the guise of scripture and logic.

If you have a software Bible, then do a quick word search of "Israel." You'll see that the first time "Israel" is used is in Genesis 32, where it's used as a reference to Jacob, the covenant son of Isaac. Four chapters later we begin to read the phrase, "sons of Israel." and at the end of Exodus we read the first use of "house of Israel."

Now do a search for the words, "Jew" and/or "Jews." once that's done, you'll see that God never uses the word "Jew(s)" until 2 Kings 25 and Ezra 4 . Now do the same with the word, "Hebrews."

In other words, the sons of Israel existed centuries before Jews did. The house of Israel was established long before, centuries before anyone among the Hebrews were called "Jews." The word "Jew" developed long after the Hebrews entered the promised land. The word came from the fact that when the land was divided the tribe of Judah was the largest tribe and got the largest tract of the land, and that portion was in the southeast of the land, so the Judahites shared a border with more different neighboring countries than any other tribe. A "Jude" or a "Jew" was originally a Judahite, but the term became synonymous with all Jews only after Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem and carted all the Israelites off to Babylon.


Any Christian teacher who teaches anything different than what you just yourself looked up in scripture and objectively verified with your own eyeballs is teaching incorrectly. Do not use them or rely upon them anymore. They are all false teachers when it comes to ecclesiology.


Now let's look at the New Testament. Nothing in the Old Testament should ever be taken as is without first looking at what the New Testament says about that Old Testament text. In this case, one of the things we learn in the New Testament is that not all Israel is Israel , and neither are all descendants of Abraham his children. Paul states explicitly that the descendants of Abraham that are his children and the Israel that is Israel are those of promise, not the flesh. Look it up. It's all explicitly stated in Romans 9. In other words, Paul defines the term "Israel" as it should be defined, not as extra-biblical doctrines of end times define it. Elsewhere God's people are defined as those who live by faith, and that phrase is applied to both Old Testament Jews and New Testament converts to Christ (whether they be of Jewish origin or Gentile origin).

The next assignment will take much longer than a software word search. Read through the Bible again with the definition God gave us through the apostle Paul in mind whenever the word "Israel" occurs. Hebrew is an idiomatic language. Words have meaning connotative meaning in addition to their denotative meaning. The word, "Israel" literally means "God perseveres." That means every time we read the word, "Israel" in the Bible we should remember we are reading, "God perseveres."

Genesis 32:28
He said, "Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with God and with men and have prevailed."

Your name shall no longer be "Heel Grabber," or "Grifter." Your name will from no one be "God Perseveres."

Genesis 36:31
Now these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the sons of Israel.

That subsequent list is a list kings that lived before any king reigned over the sons of God Perseveres.

Now let's do the exact same thing with Paul's definition of Israel.

Genesis 32:28
He said, "Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with God and with men and have prevailed."

Your name shall no longer be "Heel Grabber," or "Grifter." Your name will from no one be "God Perseveres," the son of promise who will live by faith.

Genesis 36:31
Now these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the sons of Israel.

That subsequent list is a list kings that lived before any king reigned over the sons of God Perseveres, the sons of God's promise who lived by faith.

Anyone who teaches differently than what you just verified with your own reading of scripture is teaching incorrectly and should not be relied upon to teach Christian ecclesiology or Christian eschatology.

There is an Israel that is Israel, and there is an Israel that is not Israel. The Israel that is Israel has all the blessings of God promised to Abraham. So too do all Christians. According to Paul, the covenant was made with Abraham and Jesus, the one promised seed (Gal. 3:16). The descendants of Abraham who are not his children have no part in that covenant relationship, nor in the covenant promises made to Abraham and Jesus. The Israel that is Israel is the people of God perseveres; those who live by faith. Those people are not all Christians, nor are they all Jews. They are not even all Hebrews or Abrahamites. A selective list of them can be found in Hebrews 11, and that list begins with Abel and Enoch, not Abraham.

Two last points.

First, the word "Hebrew" means "from Eber." Eber was a region in Chaldea, which is in the region of Babel, or Babylon. The city of Ur was in the region of Eber. Therefore, Abram was a Babylonian, and all the Hebrews were known as Hebrews because they descended from Eber in Babylon. Therefore, the Old Testament is a record of the people of God Perseveres in whom God persevered. It is the record of those who lived by faith..... in juxtaposition of those who did not live by faith. It is the record of those in whom God persevered among those who lived by faith in juxtaposition to those who did not live by faith and in whom God did not persevere.

Just as there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ, there are no Jews or Gentiles among the damned. Neither bloodline nor geo-political nation-state status will have any merit when tossed into the fiery lake.

Second, comparatively speaking, very rarely is the word "Israel," used in reference to the geo-political nation-state of Israel. An entire reading of the Bible specifically for that purpose is required to understand when and where the word means the people of God perseveres and when and where it means a geo-political nation BUT what can be readily observed is the fact the "sons of Israel" and "house of Israel" existed long before the geo-political nation-state of Israel was ever established. If you did the word searches I just asked you to do, then you just verified that fact for yourself. Another quick way to verify this is to limit the word search to the book of Revelation. The word "Israel" is used only three times in that book and not a single one of them has anything to do with the geo-political nation-state Israel! Look it up! Do not take my word for it. Look it up and verify it for yourself.

Again: Anyone who teaches anything other than what you yourself have just verified is not teaching what is taught in scripture. They are NOT to be considered veracious or efficacious sources (no matter what eschatology they teach). They are not to be relied upon for sound end times or ecclesiological doctrine.

Concerning Israel and Christians, they are separate entities.

Scripture says otherwise.

Another study you might do to verify this is to examine all the many labels and attributes describing Old Testament Israel that are applied in the New Testament to believers in Christ. The word "saint" would be among the most obvious, but there are many others. Look also at the parallels between the qahal (the assembly) and the ecclesia (those who are called out). When the Hebrews translated the Jewish scriptures (Tanakh, or what we call the Old Testament) into Greek, the word they chose to replace the Hebrew qahal is the Greek word ecclesia. In other words, the Jews themselves consider the assembly synonymous with the ecclesia, and that is the word the New Testament epistolary writers (most of whom were Jews) chose when they wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Josheb]

Hi, and thanks for your reply! I wouldn't think that God is going to allow the Jews that believe in Him perish!

It's not belief in God that matters. It is belief in Jesus that matters.

John 3:16-21
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

Everyone who does not believe in God's Son stands condemned already. Those words were written to people who believed in God. It wasn't their belief in God that mattered. In fact, very, very, very little in the Bible is written about atheists. Almost everyone living in Biblical times believed in a god or God. The overwhelming history of the Bible is written about people who held a belief in the God of the Bible. Even when they were idolatrous their idolatry stood firmly in antithesis to The One True God and not any other god. John 3 tells us the judgment has already occurred and both the verdict and the sentence have also all already been decided. The only thing we do not know is who gets what, eternal life, or eternal rotting decay in hell.

There is only way out: Jesus.

Romans 8:1
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Everyone else remains condemned, and they remain condemned regardless of their bloodline, their geo-political national identification, or their religious orientation. The only thing that matters is faith in Christ.

It's my understanding that majority of the Jews believe in God.

I'm sure they do. It will not matter. God is not mocked. Those who sow to the flesh will reap corruption and those who sow to the Spirit will reap eternal life (Gal. 6:8). Since the only way to get the Spirit is through faith in Christ, a belief only in God that denies His Son merits nothing soteriologically, ecclesiologically, and eschatologically. There is no other name under heaven by which a person can be saved (Acts 4:12). Modern futurism has made a mess of these truths and formed doctrines that directly contradict what is taught in scripture.

 

[WordSword]

No, they are not.

Do you see what you just did there? You first used "Israel," and the switched to "Jews." The two, Israel and Jew, are not identical in scripture and I encourage and exhort you to pay greater attention to when others employ that bait and switch under the guise of scripture and logic.

The Jews who believe in the Lord Jesus are Christians, and the Jews who believe in God ("Ye believe in God" - Jn 14:1 KJV) but not in Christ are still "God's people," who will also finally be restored to God one last time; this time He will "cause you to walk in My statutes, and ye shall keep My judgments, and do them" (this is still law -Eze 36:27).

 

[SabbathBlessings]

No, they are not.

Do you see what you just did there? You first used "Israel," and the switched to "Jews." The two, Israel and Jew, are not identical in scripture and I encourage and exhort you to pay greater attention to when others employ that bait and switch under the guise of scripture and logic.

If you have a software Bible, then do a quick word search of "Israel." You'll see that the first time "Israel" is used is in Genesis 32, where it's used as a reference to Jacob, the covenant son of Isaac. Four chapters later we begin to read the phrase, "sons of Israel." and at the end of Exodus we read the first use of "house of Israel."

Now do a search for the words, "Jew" and/or "Jews." once that's done, you'll see that God never uses the word "Jew(s)" until 2 Kings 25 and Ezra 4 . Now do the same with the word, "Hebrews."

In other words, the sons of Israel existed centuries before Jews did. The house of Israel was established long before, centuries before anyone among the Hebrews were called "Jews." The word "Jew" developed long after the Hebrews entered the promised land. The word came from the fact that when the land was divided the tribe of Judah was the largest tribe and got the largest tract of the land, and that portion was in the southeast of the land, so the Judahites shared a border with more different neighboring countries than any other tribe. A "Jude" or a "Jew" was originally a Judahite, but the term became synonymous with all Jews only after Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem and carted all the Israelites off to Babylon.


Any Christian teacher who teaches anything different than what you just yourself looked up in scripture and objectively verified with your own eyeballs is teaching incorrectly. Do not use them or rely upon them anymore. They are all false teachers when it comes to ecclesiology.


Now let's look at the New Testament. Nothing in the Old Testament should ever be taken as is without first looking at what the New Testament says about that Old Testament text. In this case, one of the things we learn in the New Testament is that not all Israel is Israel , and neither are all descendants of Abraham his children. Paul states explicitly that the descendants of Abraham that are his children and the Israel that is Israel are those of promise, not the flesh. Look it up. It's all explicitly stated in Romans 9. In other words, Paul defines the term "Israel" as it should be defined, not as extra-biblical doctrines of end times define it. Elsewhere God's people are defined as those who live by faith, and that phrase is applied to both Old Testament Jews and New Testament converts to Christ (whether they be of Jewish origin or Gentile origin).

The next assignment will take much longer than a software word search. Read through the Bible again with the definition God gave us through the apostle Paul in mind whenever the word "Israel" occurs. Hebrew is an idiomatic language. Words have meaning connotative meaning in addition to their denotative meaning. The word, "Israel" literally means "God perseveres." That means every time we read the word, "Israel" in the Bible we should remember we are reading, "God perseveres."

Genesis 32:28
He said, "Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with God and with men and have prevailed."

Your name shall no longer be "Heel Grabber," or "Grifter." Your name will from no one be "God Perseveres."

Genesis 36:31
Now these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the sons of Israel.

That subsequent list is a list kings that lived before any king reigned over the sons of God Perseveres.

Now let's do the exact same thing with Paul's definition of Israel.

Genesis 32:28
He said, "Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with God and with men and have prevailed."

Your name shall no longer be "Heel Grabber," or "Grifter." Your name will from no one be "God Perseveres," the son of promise who will live by faith.

Genesis 36:31
Now these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the sons of Israel.

That subsequent list is a list kings that lived before any king reigned over the sons of God Perseveres, the sons of God's promise who lived by faith.

Anyone who teaches differently than what you just verified with your own reading of scripture is teaching incorrectly and should not be relied upon to teach Christian ecclesiology or Christian eschatology.

There is an Israel that is Israel, and there is an Israel that is not Israel. The Israel that is Israel has all the blessings of God promised to Abraham. So too do all Christians. According to Paul, the covenant was made with Abraham and Jesus, the one promised seed (Gal. 3:16). The descendants of Abraham who are not his children have no part in that covenant relationship, nor in the covenant promises made to Abraham and Jesus. The Israel that is Israel is the people of God perseveres; those who live by faith. Those people are not all Christians, nor are they all Jews. They are not even all Hebrews or Abrahamites. A selective list of them can be found in Hebrews 11, and that list begins with Abel and Enoch, not Abraham.

Two last points.

First, the word "Hebrew" means "from Eber." Eber was a region in Chaldea, which is in the region of Babel, or Babylon. The city of Ur was in the region of Eber. Therefore, Abram was a Babylonian, and all the Hebrews were known as Hebrews because they descended from Eber in Babylon. Therefore, the Old Testament is a record of the people of God Perseveres in whom God persevered. It is the record of those who lived by faith..... in juxtaposition of those who did not live by faith. It is the record of those in whom God persevered among those who lived by faith in juxtaposition to those who did not live by faith and in whom God did not persevere.

Just as there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ, there are no Jews or Gentiles among the damned. Neither bloodline nor geo-political nation-state status will have any merit when tossed into the fiery lake.

Second, comparatively speaking, very rarely is the word "Israel," used in reference to the geo-political nation-state of Israel. An entire reading of the Bible specifically for that purpose is required to understand when and where the word means the people of God perseveres and when and where it means a geo-political nation BUT what can be readily observed is the fact the "sons of Israel" and "house of Israel" existed long before the geo-political nation-state of Israel was ever established. If you did the word searches I just asked you to do, then you just verified that fact for yourself. Another quick way to verify this is to limit the word search to the book of Revelation. The word "Israel" is used only three times in that book and not a single one of them has anything to do with the geo-political nation-state Israel! Look it up! Do not take my word for it. Look it up and verify it for yourself.

Again: Anyone who teaches anything other than what you yourself have just verified is not teaching what is taught in scripture. They are NOT to be considered veracious or efficacious sources (no matter what eschatology they teach). They are not to be relied upon for sound end times or ecclesiological doctrine.

Scripture says otherwise.

Another study you might do to verify this is to examine all the many labels and attributes describing Old Testament Israel that are applied in the New Testament to believers in Christ. The word "saint" would be among the most obvious, but there are many others. Look also at the parallels between the qahal (the assembly) and the ecclesia (those who are called out). When the Hebrews translated the Jewish scriptures (Tanakh, or what we call the Old Testament) into Greek, the word they chose to replace the Hebrew qahal is the Greek word ecclesia. In other words, the Jews themselves consider the assembly synonymous with the ecclesia, and that is the word the New Testament epistolary writers (most of whom were Jews) chose when they wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus mourned over Israel over and over in the scriptures He did everything to turn them from their disobedient ways. He sent prophet after prophet and messenger after messenger and this was always the result

2 Chro 3:15 And the Lord God of their fathers sent warnings to them by His messengers, rising up early and sending them, because He had compassion on His people and on His dwelling place. 16 But they mocked the messengers of God, despised His words, and scoffed at His prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against His people, till there was no remedy.

The final straw was when Jesus came His own received Him not John 1:11 and delivered God's only Son to Rome to be crucified- after that happened the veil was torn and Jesus now ministers from a heavenly Temple not made with human hands Heb 8:1-5 and the earthy temple was destroyed.

Israel was always a name God gave to identify His people in scripture. It was literal and metaphorical of God's people and just like in the OT- people could be grafted in (think Ruth) or grafted out (think Saul) Now it's Spiritual Israel. There is only one salvation and that is grace through faith. In God's New Covenant promise it is still written to Israel Heb 8:10, still has the law of God, but now He is the one doing -writing His law in our hearts which is why the New Covenant is based on better promises Heb 8:6, not established on new laws as most teach. It is still a sin to break any of God's commandments 1 John 3:4 Rom 7:7 James 2:10-12 Mat 5:19-30

There is no longer Jew or Gentile- just one people grafted in through faith. Ga 3:26-30

Romans 9:6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.

It's not about a nationality, God accepts all people as His family, but its about our faith. Those in Christ have the faith of Jesus (not just in Jesus) and keep the commandments of God Rev 14:12 What faith did Jesus have- what did He teach, how did He live. This is how we are called to be followers of Christ 1 John 2:6 living by every Word that proceeds out of His mouth. Mat 4:4

It's impossible to believe in God, but not Jesus Christ John 6:38-46 Luke 10:16

 

[Clare73]

Hi, and thanks for your reply! I wouldn't think that God is going to allow the Jews that believe in Him perish!

It's not about what we think, it's about what God says.

It's my understanding that majority of the Jews believe in God.

Believing in God does not save.

Jesus made it more than clear that only faith in him saves (Jn 3:18).

 

[Josheb]

The Jews who believe in the Lord Jesus are Christians, and the Jews who believe in God ("Ye believe in God" - Jn 14:1 KJV) but not in Christ are still "God's people," who will also finally be restored to God one last time; this time He will "cause you to walk in My statutes, and ye shall keep My judgments, and do them" (this is still law -Eze 36:27).

No.

When Paul wrote about a "remnant," he explicitly stated "at the present time."

Romans 11:1-6 ESV
I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.” But what is God’s reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise, grace would no longer be grace.

Paul was nto writing about some group of Jews set aside for grace two millennia (or more) later. Neither he, nor any other New Testament writer ever mention the 21st century. As far as Ezekiel 36 goes, that was written to the "house of Israel," not the geo-political nation-state Israel (see Post 21 above). Go back and re-read the entire Ezekial text (not just one verse). The word "Jews" is nowhere found. A good rule to follow anytime we read something in the Old Testament is to ask ourselves, "What does the New Testament say about this text?" The newer revelation explains the older revelation. In the case of an OT prophet, it's also helpful to examine the other prophets to see if they said similar things. In the case of Ezekiel 36:27 we see that Isa. 44:3 and 59:21; Jer. 31:33; Eze. 11:19-20; Joel 2:28, and other prophets all say the same thing (in various wordings). Ezekiel 36:27 is not unique. It is not the only verse in the entire Bible that makes that prediction; it does not stand all alone by itself in what it states. When we look at the text surrounding these verses, we see that the passages provide us markers, or means of identifying when the predicted event will occur. For example, any passage that states the Lord (not the LORD) is coming then that is mostly likely a reference to the incarnation, not the "second coming." And that will be verified in the NT when the NT cites that OT passage and declares it fulfilled. For example,

Joel 2:28-29
It will come about after this that I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind; and your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. Even on the male and female servants I will pour out My Spirit in those days.

According to Peter that prophecy was fulfilled at Pentecost.

Acts 2:14-18
But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them: “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words. For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: ‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.'"

On the occasion of Pentecost, the NT tells us the Joel 2 passage where it was predicted the Spirit would be poured out on all flesh was fulfilled. This places an immediate burden on the reader. Am I going to accept God's word? Am I going to accept what is explicitly stated, exactly as written, or will I resort to some man-made extra-biblical doctrine that tells me those words do not mean what the actually, explicitly state?

So when it comes to the Ezekial 36:27 verse, what does the NT state about that OT verse? Acts 2 tells us the Spirit has already been poured out. If you are a born again believer, regenerated and indwelt with God's Spirit then you know the Spirit has been poured out because you have that Spirit within you actively at work to will and to do God's good purpose. There are, however, other passages that speak of this outpouring and indwelling.

Romans 5:1-5
Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God. And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.

Romans 8:5-11
For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

Ephesians 3:14-19
For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name, that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.

James 4:4-5
You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore, whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. Or do you think that the Scripture speaks to no purpose: "He jealously desires the Spirit which He has made to dwell in us"?

1 John 2:3, 4:13
By this we know that we remain in Him and He in us, because He has given to us of His Spirit.................... By this we know that we remain in Him and He in us, because He has given to us of His Spirit.

All of these passages and others reference Ezekiel 36:27 and the prophets' promise God would send His Spirit, causing people to walk in His statutes. Remember: the house of Israel existed long before the nation-state of Israel existed, and even longer before Jews existed. So when scripture makes it clear the house of Israel has nothing to do with being a Jew and you then come along and disagree by proof-texting Ezekiel 36:27 while ignoring all that the NT has to say about that verse, I am going to point you back to God's word, not man-made eschatology.

I used to be a modern futurist. In the next post I am going to post a chart comparing the different eschatological points of view so everyone here can see that there is one eschatology, and only one eschatology, that thinks Israel is relevant to Christian eschatology. The chart comes from a book written by a Dispensational Premillennialist, a modern futurist.


You will note that only Dispensational Premillennialism thinks Israel is relevant to Christian eschatology. All other views say no to that position, even Historical Premillennialism. In other words, a person does not have to leave premillennialism to leave Israel/

 

[Josheb]

@WordSword, Here's the chart to which I referred in the previous post. The chart comes from a book written by a Dispensational Premillennialist, a modern futurist, titled. "The Rose Guide to End-Times Prophecy." I recommend it because it's a fairly balanced presentation of all the major views within Christendom . I do not recommend it because it is biased toward modern futurism .

Look at the second to last row. Is the modern state of Israel relevant to the prophecies in Revelation? You will note that only Dispensational Premillennialism thinks Israel is relevant Revelation's prophecies. All others say no. No one else in Christendom believes Israel is relevant to Christian eschatology. All other views say no to that position, even Historical Premillennialism. In other words, a person does not have to leave premillennialism to leave Israel/Jews out of Christian doctrine. I mention this because Dispensationalism, or the more generic term "modern futurism," is a recent invention in Christian thought, doctrine, and practice. It's been around less than 200 years. Does something new automatically mean it is wrong? No! However, in the case of modern futurism the views asserted in that point of view are so radically different than what is taught in the rest of Christianity that either modern futurism is correct and all the rest of Christianity for the last 2000 years is wrong, or Christianity has been correct and the new theology is incorrect because it seeks to deny and change what has been taught in orthodox Christian thought, doctrine, and practice since the Bible. It cannot be had both ways.


So, when this op asserts, "The Eschatology of Israel," most Christians read that and think that's a big red herring because there is no eschatology of Israel in Christian eschatology. Only modern futurists think so. If you're a modern futurist then you're the outlier here (both normatively and statistically), not the orthodox, historical, or majority point of view.

And it is quite likely no one in modern futurism was honest enough to tell you the truth !

No one in modern futurism told me the truth. I had to learn how to read the Bible exactly as written before I realized Chuck Smith, Hal Lindsay, John Walvoord, Thomas Ice, Michael Vlach and all the others were wrong.


I just tried to bring this discussion back to the op. In my previous post I tried to have you look for yourself and verify what scripture explicitly states about "Israel," the "house of Israel," the "sons of Israel," Israel that is Israel, Israel that is not Israel, etc., so that going forward you can base your views on scripture and not on man-made end-times doctrines invented long after scripture was written. You won't hold a definition of "Israel" or "Jews" that is taught by something invented in the 19th century. You'll hold a definition that is provided solely by scripture and measure all other extra-biblical teachings accordingly. I know this information may seem confrontational. I've tried to approach this with respect to you, your views, and your allegiance to that view. As I said, I used to be a modern futurist; I know the realization we've been mistaught by others we respected and trusted can be alarming. I turned you first to God's word and God's word alone. I just now made an in-house recommendation, one written from someone within the modern futurist pov. If you like I can also make recommendations from all the other points of view, too. If you have not already read the following then these recommendations are good places to start a comparative review...

"The Meaning of the Millenium: Four Views" edited by Robert Clouse
"Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond," edited by Stanley Gundry
"Four Views on the Book of Revelation," edited by Stanley Gundry
"Three Views on the Rapture," edited by Stanley Gundry

Each of these books has a chapter written by a noted theologian asserted a point of view from their doctrinal orientation and then the other contributors critique it! So, the reader gets both an affirmative view and a negative view or rebuttal. I can make other recommendations of greater substance for each eschatology if you'd like to do more research.

 

[Josheb]

Jesus mourned...........

Proverbs 26:17

You cannot speak for @WordSword, and Post 24 ignores Post 21's op-relevant content, and Post 21 was directed to @WordSword specifically and explicitly because of statements @WordSword made in @WordSword's posts. Try taking a step back from your post and see that. Then ask why I, or anyone else, would reply to Post 24. Jesus mourning over Israel has absolutely nothing to do with the fact Christian Eschatology is not Jewish eschatology and Christian eschatology should not be incorrectly Judaized! Every single poster who Judaizes Christian eschatology is going to get the exact same response from me so save us all some time and resist the urge to post Judaized eschatology thinking it is Christian.

It's not.

Teachers of Judaized Christian eschatology often don't realize that's what they've done. That makes them bad teachers. Even more egregiously, teachers of Judaized Christian eschatology often don't tell their students that's what they done. That too makes them bad teachers. Historically, the teachers of modern futurism have not been correct about a single prognostication since the inception of modern futurism just about 200 years ago. That makes them bad teachers. They may teach soteriology well, or they may teach Christology correctly, but when it comes to applying prophecy predictively, they ALL have a 100% fail rate. Christologically and soteriologically they may be good teachers, but eschatologically they are all..... false teachers . That should alarm everyone and prompt us to be more discerning. So be as critical of them as you are of my posts. Just be an equal-opportunity critic and don't make me out to be the bad guy simply because we subscribe to different eschatologies and I correctly and justly shine the light on a presuppositional problem in modern futurism.

Christian eschatology is not Jewish eschatology.

Jesus could morn his head off but that does not mean Israel is relevant to Christian eschatology. If you ignore what was posted in Post 21 then I'll ignore your posts because they are non sequitur, and if you post nonsense contradictory to what is clearly, plainly explicitly stated in scripture then I'll simply point you back to scripture and Post 21 again, and again, and again. The New Testament defines Israel, not an eschatology invented long after the canon of scripture was closed.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Proverbs 26:17

You cannot speak for @WordSword, and Post 24 ignores Post 21's op-relevant content, and Post 21 was directed to @WordSword specifically and explicitly because of statements @WordSword made in @WordSword's posts. Try taking a step back from your post and see that. Then ask why I, or anyone else, would reply to Post 24. Jesus mourning over Israel has absolutely nothing to do with the fact Christian Eschatology is not Jewish eschatology and Christian eschatology should not be incorrectly Judaized! Every single poster who Judaizes Christian eschatology is going to get the exact same response from me so save us all some time and resist the urge to post Judaized eschatology thinking it is Christian.

It's not.

Teachers of Judaized Christian eschatology often don't realize that's what they've done. That makes them bad teachers. Even more egregiously, teachers of Judaized Christian eschatology often don't tell their students that's what they done. That too makes them bad teachers. Historically, the teachers of modern futurism have not been correct about a single prognostication since the inception of modern futurism just about 200 years ago. That makes them bad teachers. They may teach soteriology well, or they may teach Christology correctly, but when it comes to applying prophecy predictively, they ALL have a 100% fail rate. Christologically and soteriologically they may be good teachers, but eschatologically they are all..... false teachers . That should alarm everyone and prompt us to be more discerning. So be as critical of them as you are of my posts. Just be an equal-opportunity critic and don't make me out to be the bad guy simply because we subscribe to different eschatologies and I correctly and justly shine the light on a presuppositional problem in modern futurism.

Christian eschatology is not Jewish eschatology.

Jesus could morn his head off but that does not mean Israel is relevant to Christian eschatology. If you ignore what was posted in Post 21 then I'll ignore your posts because they are non sequitur, and if you post nonsense contradictory to what is clearly, plainly explicitly stated in scripture then I'll simply point you back to scripture and Post 21 again, and again, and again. The New Testament defines Israel, not an eschatology invented long after the canon of scripture was closed.

​

I was not speaking for anyone, just posting scripture as to what the Bible says.

Mat 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate; 39 for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ ”

Israel just means God's people as explained by the clear scriptures in my post

 

[WordSword]

It's not about what we think, it's about what God says.

True, that concerns everything! But He does everything for our sakes, which I'm certain also involves what we think!

Believing in God does not save.

It evidently was good enough with God during all millennials He loved and worked with them, as He always brought them back to fellowship with Him; and will finally bring them back, but this time He will "cause you to walk in My statutes, and ye shall keep My judgments, and do them (Eze 36:27).

I believe Christians must discern the the importance of Israel's place in eternity.

Jesus made it more than clear that only faith in him saves (Jn 3:18).

It's my belief that Israel's end times restoration (which God has always done with His "people") will not be understood by most Christians!

 

[Josheb]

​

I was not speaking for anyone, just posting scripture as to what the Bible says.

No, you were posting scripture and then reading it to make it say things it does not actually state, like.....

Mat 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate; 39 for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ ”

Israel just means God's people as explained by the clear scriptures in my post

That is not what that verse actually states.

And you did that (twice) in an attempt to answer a question that was asked specifically of another poster specifically about something the other poster posted, and that was done ignoring what was posted in Post 21.

So, I ask you again to take a step back and look at you own posts to me. Why would I collaborate with someone who interferes with a conversation between two posters that specifically has to do with something specific one of the posters posted? Why would I collaborate with someone who ignored what I posted (which was the Bible's history of its use of the word "Israel")? Why would I trade posts with someone who adds to scripture and claims the additions are what scripture says?

Israel just means God's people as explained by the clear scriptures in my post

Not everyone in the physical city of Jerusalem was God's people. One of the reason Jesus came to Jerusalem was to judge it and its wayward inhabitants, eventually bringing destruction upon it. The exact same cross that saves, also condemns.



Christian eschatology is not Jewish; it is Christian. Judaizing Christian eschatology is misguided and, therefore, to be avoided, not supported.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

No, you were posting scripture and then reading it to make it say things it does not actually state, like.....

That is not what that verse actually states.

And you did that (twice) in an attempt to answer a question that was asked specifically of another poster specifically about something the other poster posted, and that was done ignoring what was posted in Post 21.

So, I ask you again to take a step back and look at you own posts to me. Why would I collaborate with someone who interferes with a conversation between two posters that specifically has to do with something specific one of the posters posted? Why would I collaborate with someone who ignored what I posted (which was the Bible's history of its use of the word "Israel")? Why would I trade posts with someone who adds to scripture and claims the additions are what scripture says?

Not everyone in the physical city of Jerusalem was God's people. One of the reason Jesus came to Jerusalem was to judge it and its wayward inhabitants, eventually bringing destruction upon it. The exact same cross that saves, also condemns.



Christian eschatology is not Jewish; it is Christian. Judaizing Christian eschatology is misguided and, therefore, to be avoided, not supported.

Just because you say it is so, doesn't make it true. I already provided the scriptures that seem to be saying otherwise.

This is a public forum where anyone can participate- if you want a private conversation, there is a private message function oin this site.

Take care.

 

[Clare73]

True, that concerns everything! But He does everything for our sakes, which I'm certain also involves what we think!

It evidently was good enough with God during all millennials He loved and worked with them, as He always brought them back to fellowship with Him; and will finally bring them back,

However, apostolic teaching authoritative to the church (Lk 10:16) does not guarantee that God will bring them back.
It states it as conditional. . ."IF they do it persist in unbelief." (Ro 11:23)

There is no NT warrant of certainty for their future.

 

[Josheb]

Just because you say it is so, doesn't make it true.

Just because someone else says it is not so does not make it so. You're going to get tired of me pointing out the fallacies of your replies unless you do better. What you just posted is non sequitur and does not in an way rebut what was previously posted.

I already provided the scriptures that seem to be saying otherwise.

No, you did not. You quoted scripture and then added your own viewpoint to the scripture. Jesus mourning over Israel does not mean Christian eschatology can or should be adulterated with Judaism. You did not provide squat in that regard. Quoting 2 Chr. 3:15 added absolutely nothing new to the conversation. Neither did it establish a thing we might legitimately calle a separate "Jewish" eschatology," and it most certainly did nothing to legitimate Judaizing Christian eschatology. You quoted scripture..... and then made it say things it nowhere states.

Just because you say it does not make it true (you should try applying your own standards to your own posts before trying take the proverbial speck out of my eye).

This is a public forum where anyone can participate- if you want a private conversation, there is a private message function on this site.

Yep. Anyone can say anything as long as it does not violate the tou. That means I can tell you you're butting in trying to answer a question that was never asked you about something you never posted. I'm happy to discuss your perspective on this op..... but presuming to answer questions for other posters is bad form. All I did was point out what should have been obvious to you before you ever attempted to answer the question.

1 Corinthians 10:23
All things are permitted, but not all things are of benefit. All things are permitted, but not all things build people up.

Just because you have an answer does not mean I want to read your answer when I ask someone else something about what they posted. The liberty is yours, but that does not mean it is wise use that liberty under those circumstances and there isn't a Christian forum in the entire cyberspace that would not benefit if posters practiced that very easily grasped concept.

You will note I am still waiting on the other poster's answer. Why do you suppose you can have an answer (even if it is incorrect) and he cannot? How would you set about solving that problem for another?






This op is about "the eschatology of Israel." To correctly understand any eschatology of Israel, we'd have to have a correct, biblical definition of "Israel." This op conflates Israel with Jews. It's not clear the conflation occurred deliberately, or even consciously, but that's immaterial because Jews and Israel are not identical with each other; they are not synonymous and the words "Jews" and "Israel," cannot be switched with each other and maintain the definition of "Israel," found in the Bible. A survey of scripture's use of "Israel" from the beginning of scripture's use of the word all the way through to its last uses was provided...... and then promptly ignored!

An eschatology of Israel is not Jewish. There is no such thing as a Jewish eschatology for Christians, and that should be self-evident for every Christian. It's not a particularly difficult truth to grasp but no one affirmed it, and everyone's ignored it. Christian eschatology is Christian, by definition! Any "eschatology of Israel," therefore must also be Christian and not Jewish. That simple truth leads to a variety of other scriptural and logical necessities, like not unduly Judaizing Christian doctrine (another point nowhere affirmed by any and ignored by all).

I am not certain this op is based on a modern futurist version of eschatology (like Dispensational Premillennialism, or Modern Zionism) but the op's statement, "It is my belief that there will be two groups of people who shall be saved: those who believe in the Lord Jesus, and the Jews who do not believe in the Lord Jesus, but believe in God," qualifies the op as a Dispensationalist point of view. No one else in Christendom believes that premise, and it hasn't been an orthodox point of view in the entire history of Christian thought, doctrine, and practice until the rise of the apocalyptic restorationist sect of the 19th century! It is both a normative and statistical outlying point of view within Christianity. No one's affirmed these facts, either. They've all been ignored.

Israel, the sons of Israel, and the house of Israel all preceded the existence of Jews. Had the op said, "Hebrews" instead of Jews that would have been measurably better (although still flawed when claiming to separate peoples) but, again, no one bothered to affirm these facts and all of it has been ignored. When we read the New Testament epistolary, we find something bluntly, explicitly stated that was only alluded to in the gospels and implied in veiled form in the OT: not all Israel is Israel, and that is what is stated in scripture. No here has yet affirmed this fact, this truth that comes directly, explicitly from scripture, and the point has been ignored in its entirety.

​

I was not speaking for anyone, just posting scripture as to what the Bible says.

No, you were hijacking the discussion for your own agenda and did not like it when I pushed back on it...... even though we probably have some agreement because I too think.....

Israel just means God's people as explained by the clear scriptures in my post

Yep.

The problem is 1) it's a point I already made in Post 21 and 2) not a single verse you "provided" actually states, "Israel is God's people," and 3) there are plenty of verses that could have been used to that effect but none were posted!

Israel just means God's people as explained by the clear scriptures in my post

Yes, but not all Jews are God's people, and not all Israel is Israel.

Take care.

You, too.

 

[Josheb]

Just because someone else says it is not so does not make it so. You're going to get tired of me pointing out the fallacies of your replies unless you do better. What you just posted is non sequitur and does not in an way rebut what was previously posted.

No, you did not. You quoted scripture and then added your own viewpoint to the scripture. Jesus mourning over Israel does not mean Christian eschatology can or should be adulterated with Judaism. You did not provide squat in that regard. Quoting 2 Chr. 3:15 added absolutely nothing new to the conversation. Neither did it establish a thing we might legitimately calle a separate "Jewish" eschatology," and it most certainly did nothing to legitimate Judaizing Christian eschatology. You quoted scripture..... and then made it say things it nowhere states.

Just because you say it does not make it true (you should try applying your own standards to your own posts before trying take the proverbial speck out of my eye).

Yep. Anyone can say anything as long as it does not violate the tou. That means I can tell you you're butting in trying to answer a question that was never asked you about something you never posted. I'm happy to discuss your perspective on this op..... but presuming to answer questions for other posters is bad form. All I did was point out what should have been obvious to you before you ever attempted to answer the question.

1 Corinthians 10:23
All things are permitted, but not all things are of benefit. All things are permitted, but not all things build people up.

Just because you have an answer does not mean I want to read your answer when I ask someone else something about what they posted. The liberty is yours, but that does not mean it is wise use that liberty under those circumstances and there isn't a Christian forum in the entire cyberspace that would not benefit if posters practiced that very easily grasped concept.

You will note I am still waiting on the other poster's answer. Why do you suppose you can have an answer, and he cannot? How would you set about solving that problem for another? If you were going to answer the question for him it would serve you both better to tell him the answer, not me!






This op is about "the eschatology of Israel." To correctly understand any eschatology of Israel, we'd have to have a correct, biblical definition of "Israel." This op conflates Israel with Jews. It's not clear the conflation occurred deliberately, or even consciously, but that's immaterial because Jews and Israel are not identical with each other; they are not synonymous and the words "Jews" and "Israel," cannot be switched with each other and maintain the definition of "Israel," found in the Bible. A survey of scripture's use of "Israel" from the beginning of scripture's use of the word all the way through to its last uses was provided...... and then promptly ignored!

An eschatology of Israel is not Jewish. There is no such thing as a Jewish eschatology for Christians, and that should be self-evident for every Christian. It's not a particularly difficult truth to grasp but no one affirmed it, and everyone's ignored it. Christian eschatology is Christian, by definition! Any "eschatology of Israel," therefore must also be Christian and not Jewish. That simple truth leads to a variety of other scriptural and logical necessities, like not unduly Judaizing Christian doctrine (another point nowhere affirmed by any and ignored by all).

I am not certain this op is based on a modern futurist version of eschatology (like Dispensational Premillennialism, or Modern Zionism) but the op's statement, "It is my belief that there will be two groups of people who shall be saved: those who believe in the Lord Jesus, and the Jews who do not believe in the Lord Jesus, but believe in God," qualifies the op as a Dispensationalist point of view. No one else in Christendom believes that premise, and it hasn't been an orthodox point of view in the entire history of Christian thought, doctrine, and practice until the rise of the apocalyptic restorationist sect of the 19th century! It is both a normative and statistical outlying point of view within Christianity. No one's affirmed these facts, either. They've all been ignored.

Israel, the sons of Israel, and the house of Israel all preceded the existence of Jews. Had the op said, "Hebrews" instead of Jews that would have been measurably better (although still flawed when claiming to separate peoples) but, again, no one bothered to affirm these facts and all of it has been ignored. When we read the New Testament epistolary, we find something bluntly, explicitly stated that was only alluded to in the gospels and implied in veiled form in the OT: not all Israel is Israel, and that is what is stated in scripture. No here has yet affirmed this fact, this truth that comes directly, explicitly from scripture, and the point has been ignored in its entirety.

No, you were hijacking the discussion for your own agenda and did not like it when I pushed back on it...... even though we probably have some agreement because I too think.....

Yep.

The problem is 1) it's a point I already made in Post 21 and 2) not a single verse you "provided" actually states, "Israel is God's people," and 3) there are plenty of verses that could have been used to that effect but none were posted!

Yes, but not all Jews are God's people, and not all Israel is Israel.

You, too.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Yes, but not all Jews are God's people, and not all Israel is Israel.

Yes, which was shown in the scriptures I provided, and the point of what Israel really means in scripture.

 

[WordSword]

However, apostolic teaching authoritative to the church (Lk 10:16) does not guarantee that God will bring them back.
It states it as conditional. . ."IF they do it persist in unbelief." (Ro 11:23)

There is no NT warrant of certainty for their future.

How are we to consider passages like "I say then, Hath God cast away His people? God forbid; God hath not cast away His people which He foreknew."

"On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram to give his descendants a fertile land, known as the Promised Land, in exchange for following God's path. The covenant is described in Genesis 12, 15, and 17, and in Genesis 15:18–21, God says, "To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates." God also promised to multiply Abraham's descendants so that his family could bless all nations": The Covenant - The Jewish Museum London.

This covenant is thought to represent Israel receiving the blessing of the "promised land," which can be construed to represent the new earth. I don't see anywhere in Scripture confirming a definitive that God has abandoned Israel, but rather has an eternal purpose for them as His earthly representatives. It's my conclusion that "fallen" and "broken off" from fellowship is not the same as "cast away," from union with Him; and I have no doubt that "all Israel shall be saved."

 

[Clare73]

How are we to consider passages like "I say then, Hath God cast away His people? God forbid; God hath not cast away His people which He foreknew."

The same way Paul considers it in
Ro 11:1-5. . ."at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace," (so he has not cast all them away) and
Ro 11:16-23. . ."IF they (the nation ) do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted back into the one olive tree, the NT church of both OT and NT saints, whose root (Ro 11:16) goes all the way back to the patriarchs (Ro 11:17-23).

"On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram to give his descendants a fertile land, known as the Promised Land, in exchange for following God's path. The covenant is described in Genesis 12, 15, and 17, and in Genesis 15:18–21, God says, "To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates." God also promised to multiply Abraham's descendants so that his family could bless all nations": The Covenant - The Jewish Museum London.

This covenant is thought to represent Israel receiving the blessing of the "promised land,"

The covenant of Ge 15:9-21 was an unconditional divine promise to fulfill the grant of the land, which grant was fulfilled under Joshua in its full possession (Josh 21:43, 23:14), and under Solomon in its full occupation (1 Kgs 4:21, 24-25).

There is no land promise remaining to the nation Israel, it has been fulfilled.

 

[WordSword]

The same way Paul considers it in
Ro 11:1-5. . ."at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace," (so he has not cast all them away) and
Ro 11:16-23. . ."IF they (the nation ) do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted back into the one olive tree, the NT church of both OT and NT saints, whose root (Ro 11:16) goes all the way back to the patriarchs (Ro 11:17-23).


The covenant of Ge 15:9-21 was an unconditional divine promise to fulfill the grant of the land, which grant was fulfilled under Joshua in its full possession (Josh 21:43, 23:14), and under Solomon in its full occupation (1 Kgs 4:21, 24-25).

There is no land promise remaining to the nation Israel, it has been fulfilled.

We could go on in defending what we believe is truth concerning this issue, but sense we do not see one another's support as sufficient, there's no need to continue to debate this issue. It's just not productive enough in my opinion. But I do appreciate your replies and comments in the Word, of which I think both of us have been offering as support for our beliefs.

 

[Guojing]

We could go on in defending what we believe is truth concerning this issue, but sense we do not see one another's support as sufficient, there's no need to continue to debate this issue. It's just not productive enough in my opinion. But I do appreciate your replies and comments in the Word, of which I think both of us have been offering as support for our beliefs.

Some people believe that the land promise to Israel was not forever, while you do.

That is why they disagree with you.