The prodigy in israel

[dfw69]

You haven't been paying attention then. We have endless AC floated here. SaddamHussein (dead), Javier Solana (no longer in a position of power), Barak Obama (still around, but fell off the radar, Maitreya (didn't exist), Donald Trump (still in play), Pope Francis (still in play), KIng Charles (still in play), Whoever is Pope at any given time (ongoing), Aleister Crowley (dead), Moon Sun-Myung (dead), ad infinitum. As I said, ACs come and go. Your Yanuka wll get his 15 minutes, and then he'll be forgotten.

I have been paying attention… I think your wrong about this guy though.. will see

 

[dfw69]

He came around last year to a lot of fanfare and a lot of people jumped the gun and thought he was going to be proclaimed Messiah or something.

only time will tell if they raise him up as their Messiah but the attributing Miracles to him definitely brought back interest in the guy recently.

Even if he is proclaimed Messiah, the thing to remember is that Jesus said there would be MULTIPLE false messiahs and false prophets. That doesn't make them the Antichrist that is in Revelation, rather the thing that would make anyone Antichrist is when they set up the abomination of desolation.

So we won't know for sure anyone for awhile, so keep your eyes open basically.

Matthew 24


and


and


So there can be more than one false Christ, in fact Jesus says more than 1, and in fact, multiple waves of them it seems.

the first wave, is the people who come in Jesus' name, claiming to be Him specifically, people like David Koresh. These false Christs did not deny Jesus was the Christ, they just claimed to be that Jesus. We've seen those, is that what Jesus meant?
Maybe.

the next wave is just false prophets, they don't claim to be the Christ, but just false prophets claiming to speak for God. Of course we get a lot of those. Is that what Jesus meant?
Maybe.

Then finally, after the abomination of desolation, where we have a definite, distinct Antichrist, Jesus says there will still be multiple false Christs and false prophets. These don't claim to come in Jesus' name, it could be that they come in their own name (and Jesus warns that Israel will accept one of these)

I agree

 

[RandyPNW]

I think the biggest danger is not to some unknown quantity disguised as a religious leader, prophet, or messiah. Rather, it's the political leader who takes progressivism to a higher level and begins to imprison Christian conservatives.

 

[dfw69]

I think the biggest danger is not to some unknown quantity disguised as a religious leader, prophet, or messiah. Rather, it's the political leader who takes progressivism to a higher level and begins to imprison Christian conservatives.

do you see political progressivism in Matt 24?

 

[RandyPNW]

do you see political progressivism in Matt 24?

Political Progressiveness is an outgrowth of the Enlightenment and the Renaissance, which were recoveries of old pagan society and culture. That old pagan society and culture came from Pagan Rome, which indeed was in Matt 24. The Roman Army was the *abomination* of desolation!

 

[Jamdoc]

Yes, Jesus told his disciples to watch out for false Christs and false prophets. In his time these were likely Jewish leaders who thought they could circumvent Roman judgment and bring in the Messianic Kingdom via the Law of Moses. Jesus said it would all take place within his own generation.

But apart from Israel's experience we have this same experience in former Christian countries. There are false Christs and false prophets who would lead us to believe they have the key to "climate control" and "world peace," through toleration of all religions--just not conservative Christianity!

Incidentally, I don't agree that the Abomination of Desolation has anything to do with Antichrist. That was the Roman Army Jesus told his Disciples to watch out for. They were bringing judgment to Israel, but Jesus told his Disciples this judgment was not for them--they could escape if they obeyed him and kept watch. In the time of the approach of this abominable pagan Army they could flee to the hills and escape, to bring testimony to Christianity elsewhere.

Here's your problem.
You separate the context from the single verse about "this generation"
and assume that "this generation" is the people in front of Him, not the generation that sees the fig tree bring forth new leaves.

Jesus didn't know how many years it'd be. Jesus knew the signs and what would happen but not when it'd happen. He even professed Himself He didn't know

Mark 13

32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

That is why Jesus gave signs, not dates. Because Jesus did not know the dates. Jesus knew the signs, and knew that when these things happened they'd happen quickly, within the span of a single generation.

What you think Jesus was saying "in 70AD all this except the second coming would be fulfilled"
What Jesus actually said "when Jerusalem comes back from being a desolation and brings forth new leaves, within 1 generation ALL THESE THINGS would be fulfilled... including the second coming."
Jesus gives absolutely zero
and I mean ZERO
rationale to anyone who'd separate some events into being 2000 years ago, and His second coming still being future.

Don't take the verse out of context.

 

[Jamdoc]

I think the biggest danger is not to some unknown quantity disguised as a religious leader, prophet, or messiah. Rather, it's the political leader who takes progressivism to a higher level and begins to imprison Christian conservatives.

I don't think it boils down to worldly politics of left vs right.
conservatives have their own ungodly issues, they hold too much love of money and are too fixated on taxes.

where Jesus said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's".. pay your taxes in other words, Jesus wasn't out making sure that people got tax cuts. For Jesus, that sort of thing just didn't matter. Money was needed to operate in the world, but it was not something to be desired for its own sake.

 

[dfw69]

Political Progressiveness is an outgrowth of the Enlightenment and the Renaissance, which were recoveries of old pagan society and culture. That old pagan society and culture came from Pagan Rome, which indeed was in Matt 24. The Roman Army was the *abomination* of desolation!

I see what you’re saying but the way I see it the AOD is a future event that ends when Jesus returns

The political progressivism I see in Matt 24 with false Christ and false prophets will be a reversal from paganism to old Jewish laws which can be just as dangerous or worse

 

[RandyPNW]

I see what you’re saying but the way I see it the AOD is a future event that ends when Jesus returns

The political progressivism I see in Matt 24 with false Christ and false prophets will be a reversal of paganism to old Jewish laws which can be just as dangerous or worse

Yes. My view is that Israel's focus on external religious observances under the Law were merely symptomatic of the self-autonomy the entire world demonstrates in its independence from God. Trying to make choices and demonstrate behavior apart from God can never result in anything but hostility towards the ways of God. Legalism was but one expression of this human self-autonomy leading to modern Progressivism.

I also believe the Abomination of Desolation was fulfilled at the time of Christ's 1st Coming when God sent the Pagan Roman Army against Jerusalem in 66-70 AD. Christians, who lived in dependence upon the Lord, were given time to escape this judgment against wayward Jews.

 

[RandyPNW]

I don't think it boils down to worldly politics of left vs right.
conservatives have their own ungodly issues, they hold too much love of money and are too fixated on taxes.

where Jesus said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's".. pay your taxes in other words, Jesus wasn't out making sure that people got tax cuts. For Jesus, that sort of thing just didn't matter. Money was needed to operate in the world, but it was not something to be desired for its own sake.

Money is important, and the Bible says it. But what is more important is whether we choose to live dependent on the Lord or independent of the Lord. When people live independent of the Lord, what they do with their money becomes a form of greed.

I wouldn't say Capitalists are more Christian than Socialists. But I would say that Christians would more likely lean towards Capitalism than Socialism. And between Capitalism and Socialism I think there is a greater danger of tyranny with Socialism.

You might compare the Fascist Nazis with the Socialist Communists. Both were AntiChristian, but I think the greater danger lies with the Communists. Just look at which philosophy has put more people in bondage?

Therefore, AntiChristianity is rooted more in Socialism than in Capitalism. I could apply these same things with the Political Left and the Political Right. AntiChristianity can be rooted in the Political Right. But it is a greater danger, I feel, when AntiChristianity is rooted in the Political Left because they are more similar in structure.

 

[Jamdoc]

Money is important, and the Bible says it. But what is more important is whether we choose to live dependent on the Lord or independent of the Lord. When people live independent of the Lord, what they do with their money becomes a form of greed.

I wouldn't say Capitalists are more Christian than Socialists. But I would say that Christians would more likely lean towards Capitalism than Socialism. And between Capitalism and Socialism I think there is a greater danger of tyranny with Socialism.

You might compare the Fascist Nazis with the Socialist Communists. Both were AntiChristian, but I think the greater danger lies with the Communists. Just look at which philosophy has put more people in bondage?

Therefore, AntiChristianity is rooted more in Socialism than in Capitalism. I could apply these same things with the Political Left and the Political Right. AntiChristianity can be rooted in the Political Right. But it is a greater danger, I feel, when AntiChristianity is rooted in the Political Left because they are more similar in structure.

Sure but ultimately God's not picking socialist vs Capitalist sides.
Heaven's not a democracy or an oligarchy or socialism, and neither will the New Earth.
It's a Kingdom.
and ultimately both left and right in worldly politics, is hostile against the Kingdom.

 

[RandyPNW]

Here's your problem.
You separate the context from the single verse about "this generation"
and assume that "this generation" is the people in front of Him, not the generation that sees the fig tree bring forth new leaves.

I don't see that as a problem. I feel that that is just what Jesus was doing, namely speaking to the people in front of him as that generation. To make it very clear you have only to read Matt 23, directly preceding the Olivet Discourse. There you will see Jesus directing his condemnation at his own generation, who was *rejecting him as Messiah.* He was not condemning some future generation in the endtimes, but rather, *his own generation!*

Jesus didn't know how many years it'd be. Jesus knew the signs and what would happen but not when it'd happen. He even professed Himself He didn't know

Jesus was positively saying this Jewish Judgment would take place within the generation then living. And it did--it took place 40 years later, while some born in Jesus' time were still alive. The practices of the Pharisees who lived in Jesus' time were still being practiced by their children in 70 AD, when the temple was torn down.

This wasn't a prediction about when he'd return, but rather, a prophecy that divine judgment would not wait. It was similar to Ezekiel's prophecy of an imminent end to Israel in the days when Babylon was set to destroy Jerusalem in his day.

Eze 12.21 The word of the Lord came to me: 22 “Son of man, what is this proverb you have in the land of Israel: ‘The days go by and every vision comes to nothing’? 23 Say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am going to put an end to this proverb, and they will no longer quote it in Israel.’ Say to them, ‘The days are near when every vision will be fulfilled. 24 For there will be no more false visions or flattering divinations among the people of Israel. 25 But I the Lord will speak what I will, and it shall be fulfilled without delay.

What you think Jesus was saying "in 70AD all this except the second coming would be fulfilled"

Yes, Jesus excepted his 2nd Coming from "all these things" that would happen in his generation. He clearly was speaking, primarily, of the fall of Jerusalem and the temple. That is what initiated the Discourse.

Jesus excepted giving a time for his Return because he didn't know, as you said. That event was to be hidden from mankind until it actually happens so that people live in righteousness rather than try to time their repentance to just before it happens.

What Jesus actually said "when Jerusalem comes back from being a desolation and brings forth new leaves, within 1 generation ALL THESE THINGS would be fulfilled... including the second coming."
Jesus gives absolutely zero
and I mean ZERO
rationale to anyone who'd separate some events into being 2000 years ago, and His second coming still being future.

Don't take the verse out of context.

You are taking them out of context. There is nothing in this Discourse about the Rebirth of Israel in 1948--nothing about the sprouting of leaves from the Fig Tree indicating things that will happen 2000 years later!

No, the sprouting of the Fig Tree leaves indicated that Summer was approaching at that time, indicating that Christ was already offering membership in this coming Kingdom.

But the Fig Tree, Israel, failed. And the Green Tree died. The nation had come to the place of giving birth to their Messiah, and their Hope had been aborted. Their Messianic Hope has now been frustrated for 2000 years, and will be frustrated until Christ comes back. All this is *in context!*

Matt 23.39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’

 

[RandyPNW]

Sure but ultimately God's not picking socialist vs Capitalist sides.
Heaven's not a democracy or an oligarchy or socialism, and neither will the New Earth.
It's a Kingdom.
and ultimately both left and right in worldly politics, is hostile against the Kingdom.

That's why we're in disagreement because I think God does prefer certain government philosophies over others. The closer to Christianity the better.

Christian Socialism would be better than non-Christian Socialism. Christian Capitalism would be better than non-Christian Capitalism.

But generally, Capitalism is better than Socialism because it tends more towards a Christian outlook, historically. Government tyranny is bad, and hinders the liberty of Christian living and the liberty of Christian missionary activity.

 

[Douggg]

I don't see that as a problem. I feel that that is just what Jesus was doing, namely speaking to the people in front of him as that generation. To make it very clear you have only to read Matt 23, directly preceding the Olivet Discourse. There you will see Jesus directing his condemnation at his own generation, who was *rejecting him as Messiah.* He was not condemning some future generation in the endtimes, but rather, *his own generation!*

Jesus was positively saying this Jewish Judgment would take place within the generation then living. And it did--it took place 40 years later, while some born in Jesus' time were still alive. The practices of the Pharisees who lived in Jesus' time were still being practiced by their children in 70 AD, when the temple was torn down.

This wasn't a prediction about when he'd return, but rather, a prophecy that divine judgment would not wait. It was similar to Ezekiel's prophecy of an imminent end to Israel in the days when Babylon was set to destroy Jerusalem in his day.

Eze 12.21 The word of the Lord came to me: 22 “Son of man, what is this proverb you have in the land of Israel: ‘The days go by and every vision comes to nothing’? 23 Say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am going to put an end to this proverb, and they will no longer quote it in Israel.’ Say to them, ‘The days are near when every vision will be fulfilled. 24 For there will be no more false visions or flattering divinations among the people of Israel. 25 But I the Lord will speak what I will, and it shall be fulfilled without delay.



Yes, Jesus excepted his 2nd Coming from "all these things" that would happen in his generation. He clearly was speaking, primarily, of the fall of Jerusalem and the temple. That is what initiated the Discourse.

Jesus excepted giving a time for his Return because he didn't know, as you said. That event was to be hidden from mankind until it actually happens so that people live in righteousness rather than try to time their repentance to just before it happens.



You are taking them out of context. There is nothing in this Discourse about the Rebirth of Israel in 1948--nothing about the sprouting of leaves from the Fig Tree indicating things that will happen 2000 years later!

No, the sprouting of the Fig Tree leaves indicated that Summer was approaching at that time, indicating that Christ was already offering membership in this coming Kingdom.

But the Fig Tree, Israel, failed. And the Green Tree died. The nation had come to the place of giving birth to their Messiah, and their Hope had been aborted. Their Messianic Hope has now been frustrated for 2000 years, and will be frustrated until Christ comes back. All this is *in context!*

Matt 23.39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’

The fig tree is associated with Jerusalem, Mark 11:12-14. 1967 back in the hands of the Jews, so that Matthew 23:39 can be fulfilled, as well as Zechariah 14.

39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

 

[RandyPNW]

The fig tree is associated with Jerusalem, Mark 11:12-14. 1967 back in the hands of the Jews, so that Matthew 23:39 can be fulfilled, as well as Zechariah 14.

39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

We disagree. The context was *not* a rebirth of Jerusalem, but rather, reference to Jerusalem of Jesus' day, in Jesus' very generation. It had seen the Messiah, but turned away from him. Therefore, this "Fig Tree" did not bear fruit, and the leaves that sprouted were initial signs of an imminent Roman judgment.

Your beliefs are based on popular Dispensationalism, which I reject both as a theological system and as a proponent of an early Rapture of the Church. To divide up Jewish history and Christian history is unbiblical and confuses the basis of salvation, which is exclusively Christ.

Jews, as well as non-Jews, find salvation is none other than Jesus in the present age. And outreach to Jews does not start when there is a Pretrib Rapture--rather, it never stopped existing, since Paul claimed that God *always* maintains a remnant of faith among the Jews.

It's just that the *nation* will not be restored until Jesus' returns. It has nothing whatsoever to do with an early Rapture of the Church and "Jacob's Trouble" in the Tribulation of Antichrist to prepare them to accept Christ. That is a Dispensationalist myth, in my opinion.

There is nothing biblical about it. It's John Darby's imaginative way to promote Premillennialism and the idea of Israel's national Salvation. But I do agree with these last two items--Premill and Israel's national Salvation. It's a mixed bag, in my opinion.

 

[Douggg]

We disagree. The context was *not* a rebirth of Jerusalem, but rather, reference to Jerusalem of Jesus' day, in Jesus' very generation.

Jesus used the fig tree, having no fruit, as being the condition of the first century generation of Jerusalem.

Similarly, Jesus used a fig tree in the parable of the fig tree, again referring to Jerusalem, to identify what generation would see His Return.

Your beliefs are based on popular Dispensationalism, which I reject both as a theological system and as a proponent of an early Rapture of the Church. To divide up Jewish history and Christian history is unbiblical and confuses the basis of salvation, which is exclusively Christ.

Randy, I gave the verses which support my view. I did not refer to dispensationalism at all. Let's just stick to the topic of the parable of the fig tree generation, okay ? And not veer off onto dispensationalism, which I am not a dispensantionalist, but a futurist.

 

[RandyPNW]

Jesus used the fig tree, having no fruit, as being the condition of the first century generation of Jerusalem.

Similarly, Jesus used a fig tree in the parable of the fig tree, again referring to Jerusalem, to identify what generation would see His Return.

Yes, I know that's what you're saying.

Randy, I gave the verses which support my view. I did not refer to dispensationalism at all. Let's just stick to the topic of the parable of the fig tree generation, okay ? And not veer off onto dispensationalism, which I am not a dispensantionalist, but a futurist.

I refer to certain belief systems not to pigeon hole you, but to call upon a commonly understood reference, to more easily explain something. Sorry you think I was only trying to label you.

Incidentally, a Dispensationalist is, in fact, a Futurist. I don't know why you distinguish them?

I'm not sure there's much more to discuss? At this point you engage in what's called an Interpretive Fallacy. You think that because the Fig Tree refers to Israel in one context that it must refer to Israel in all contexts.

That's why I referred to Dispensationalists, because they believe the Fig Tree, in representing Israel, must refer to the Modern State of Israel which is producing new "fig leaves."

I don't have a problem with the idea that Jesus may have had in mind Israel when mentioning the Fig Tree. But in context he is not referring to the restoration of a nation, but rather, to the destruction of a nation. That was my point.

If you don't think the Fig Tree refers to the modern restoration of Israel, I apologize. But if you do, then why shoudn't I refer to the teaching of Dispensationalists, who teach the same thing?

 

[Douggg]

I'm not sure there's much more to discuss? At this point you engage in what's called an Interpretive Fallacy. You think that because the Fig Tree refers to Israel in one context that it must refer to Israel in all contexts.

That's why I referred to Dispensationalists, because they believe the Fig Tree, in representing Israel, must refer to the Modern State of Israel which is producing new "fig leaves."

No, I said the fig tree in the parable of the fig tree represents Jerusalem, not Israel.

 

[Jamdoc]

I don't see that as a problem. I feel that that is just what Jesus was doing, namely speaking to the people in front of him as that generation. To make it very clear you have only to read Matt 23, directly preceding the Olivet Discourse. There you will see Jesus directing his condemnation at his own generation, who was *rejecting him as Messiah.* He was not condemning some future generation in the endtimes, but rather, *his own generation!*

Yes, Matthew 23 was speaking of Jerusalem being left Desolate, that is why it's important to understand that when Jesus was talking about the fig tree, He was talking about it bringing forth new leaves, that is, coming BACK from a period of desolation. It's being left desolate, comes BACK from desolation, and then the end of the age comes, which involves desolation again.

Okay?
that's the part you miss.
Jesus already warned that Jerusalem was going to be left desolate, and told His disciples, that at some point, it would come BACK from desolation, and when that happened, all these prophecies would be fulfilled within the span of a generation.

That was Jesus' point.
You disconnect the verse from its context about the fig tree bringing forth new leaves, making that parable pointless.
What you end up doing is disconnecting Jesus return from the events He gave as signs preceding His return, and inject a 2000 year gap that Jesus did not at all indicate.
Leaving His return with NO signs, when Jesus gave signs.

You do so with a few awful assumptions:
1. That Jesus knew when in time these things would happen and was sure it'd happen by AD70 or whatever, when Jesus professed not to know, Jesus knew signs and He knew once the events unfolded it'd happen quickly. That's the words Jesus uses in Revelation, "Behold I come quickly" not "Behold I come soon" They are not synonyms.
2. That when the disciples connected the questions about the temple being destroyed with the end of the age and His coming, that it's okay to disconnect them by a few thousand years. They connected the events, Jesus gave a response that was connected, He didn't disconnect the events, but you disconnect them because you believe it's AD70, but understand that Jesus did not return then, so obviously, by assumption, it was 2 separate events, not connected.

Jesus was positively saying this Jewish Judgment would take place within the generation then living. And it did--it took place 40 years later, while some born in Jesus' time were still alive. The practices of the Pharisees who lived in Jesus' time were still being practiced by their children in 70 AD, when the temple was torn down.

This wasn't a prediction about when he'd return, but rather, a prophecy that divine judgment would not wait. It was similar to Ezekiel's prophecy of an imminent end to Israel in the days when Babylon was set to destroy Jerusalem in his day.

The part you miss is by disconnecting the context of the verse, you miss that Jesus talked about Jerusalem coming back from desolation first.

Yes, Jesus excepted his 2nd Coming from "all these things" that would happen in his generation. He clearly was speaking, primarily, of the fall of Jerusalem and the temple. That is what initiated the Discourse.

No He absolutely did not. Show me a verse where Jesus says His return on the clouds with power and great glory is not part of "all these things".

Jesus excepted giving a time for his Return because he didn't know, as you said. That event was to be hidden from mankind until it actually happens so that people live in righteousness rather than try to time their repentance to just before it happens.

They asked a connected question, Jesus didn't separate, Jesus gave a connected answer.
YOU separate them in your own mind.

You are taking them out of context. There is nothing in this Discourse about the Rebirth of Israel in 1948--nothing about the sprouting of leaves from the Fig Tree indicating things that will happen 2000 years later!

No, the sprouting of the Fig Tree leaves indicated that Summer was approaching at that time, indicating that Christ was already offering membership in this coming Kingdom.

But the Fig Tree, Israel, failed. And the Green Tree died. The nation had come to the place of giving birth to their Messiah, and their Hope had been aborted. Their Messianic Hope has now been frustrated for 2000 years, and will be frustrated until Christ comes back. All this is *in context!*

Matt 23.39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’

Matthew 21 was where Jesus withered the fig tree, the disciples saw it. Jesus gave it to them as a parable, and with other places in old testament prophecy Israel is symbolized as figs or a fig tree.

Yes, Israel left desolate, but Israel would put forth new leaves.. and actually
1948 is wrong.
Jesus doesn't return to Tel Aviv.
It's Jerusalem where the fig tree was located, more specifically, the east part of Jerusalem, as Jesus entered in the East gate.

 

[Jamdoc]

That's why we're in disagreement because I think God does prefer certain government philosophies over others. The closer to Christianity the better.

Christian Socialism would be better than non-Christian Socialism. Christian Capitalism would be better than non-Christian Capitalism.

But generally, Capitalism is better than Socialism because it tends more towards a Christian outlook, historically. Government tyranny is bad, and hinders the liberty of Christian living and the liberty of Christian missionary activity.

Capitalism and Socialism are both evil.
they are not God's politics

a Kingdom is God's politics
Eden is God's politics, and is an economic system unlike either capitalism OR socialism.
Under capitalism, you still work and the product of your labor goes to someone else, who sells it and profits from it.
That is not how God would have it.

Isaiah 65

21 And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.
22 They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
23 They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them.

Micah 4

4 But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the Lord of hosts hath spoken it.

THAT is the economic system of God. People will work for their own goods, not for bosses or investors/shareholders of capitalism or the state of socialism. You work, God provides, you enjoy the fruits of your labor.

All world economic systems are based on cursed, fallen world scarcity. When the New Earth is made, that curse is gone, there is no scarcity, gold and gemstones are used as base building materials.
In this post scarcity world, your labor is sufficient for yourself, and so is everyone else's there's no need for an economic system when God provides everything needed to thrive.

That's part of why there's no coveting. There's no scarcity to covet over.

also, you have Capitalism pegged wrong.
You think of Capitalism as free market, but that's not what Capitalism actually is, what you're thinking of is Mercantalism, but Mercantalism was replaced by Capitalism. Capitalism is the economic system where people publicly invest in a company, becoming shareholders, they do not perform labor for that company, they provided Capital for the company to use to buy what it needs to produce products, sell, make a profit, and that profit is gleened by shareholders, or the value of that company and stock goes up and the shareholder sells their stake to other investors.

That's capitalism, a bunch of people who are rich and don't work, investing their money to make more money, disconnected from any labor.
It's wicked.
It's the most prosperous worldly system, sure, absolutely.
But it's still wicked, and does not suit God's economics.