Who is "National Israel"?

[Spiritual Jew]

2 Peter 3:10-13 will be fulfilled after the Millennium. Revelation 21:1-7

Can you please break 2 Peter 3:3-13 down for me to show how you come to that conclusion?

What I see in 2 Peter 3:3-13 is a description in verses 3 and 4 of scoffers in the last days mocking the promise of Christ coming again because it's been so long (to them) that they think He'll never come. Peter then says in verses 5-7 that those scoffers are willfully ignorant of the fact that God once flooded the earth with water and, by the same word, the heavens and earth are reserved for fire, which Peter goes into more detail about in verses 10-12.

So, the whole thing revolves around the second coming of Christ and the wrath that will occur against unbelievers like those last days scoffers. There is no basis for putting this event 1000+ years after the second coming of Christ. That is taking it completely out of context.

In verses 8 and 9 Peter simply indicates that the Lord is not being slow about coming back just because it seems like a long time from a human perspective, but is taking His time because of His desire for people to not perish but repent instead.

Then in verses 10-12 Peter expands on what he already mentioned in verse 7 regarding fire being reserved for the heavens and the earth by indicating that the fire will burn up the entire earth (likely the entire surface of the earth rather than annihilating the entire earth to the core completely). He never changes the topic throughout the passage. It all is related to the promise of His second coming and has nothing to do with anything that occurs 1000+ years later.

Peter then concludes that despite all he wrote about the burning up of the heavens and the earth, we look forward to the result of that which will be the new heavens and new earth. This places the timing of the ushering in of the new heavens and new earth at His second coming and not 1000+ years later.

I invite you to break 2 Peter 3:3-13 down in detail as I have done here to show me exactly how you interpret it.

 

[Guojing]

What is your point here? Do you think Paul wasn't interested in Gentiles being saved as well?

My point is to agree with him, DavidPT, and separate national Israel from the Body of Christ.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

My point is to agree with him, DavidPT, and separate national Israel from the Body of Christ.

But, would you agree that some who are of national Israel are in the body of Christ (the ones who believe in Christ, obviously)?

 

[Guojing]

But, would you agree that some who are of national Israel are in the body of Christ (the ones who believe in Christ, obviously)?

No, national Israel is always separate from the Body of Christ.

Jews who were saved thru the gospel of the grace (1 Cor 15:1-4) are also placed in the Body of Christ.

A simple implication, the 12 apostles are NOT in the body of Christ.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

No, national Israel is always separate from the Body of Christ.

Are you saying there are no Christians from national Israel?

Jews who were saved thru the gospel of the grace (1 Cor 15:1-4) are also placed in the Body of Christ.

And where were those Jews from?

A simple implication, the 12 apostles are NOT in the body of Christ.

What?! This is one of the most disturbing things I've ever seen someone say on this forum! You could not possibly be more wrong. This statement makes me question if you are even a Christian. It's outrageous. Completely appalling.

The following passage proves you wrong beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Ephesians 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. 14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; 16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: 17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. 18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

The above is a description of the church/body of Christ/temple of God. Paul indicated that the church/body of Christ/temple of God is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone".

How can the 12 apostles not be in the body of Christ when they are part of the foundation of the body of Christ? That makes no sense at all. You are 100% wrong on this. Your claim that the 12 apostles are not in the body of Christ is shameful and, frankly, disgusting.

 

[Guojing]

Are you saying there are no Christians from national Israel?

And where were those Jews from?

What?! This is one of the most disturbing things I've ever seen someone say on this forum! You could not possibly be more wrong. This statement makes me question if you are even a Christian. It's outrageous. Completely appalling.

The following passage proves you wrong beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Ephesians 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. 14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; 16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: 17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. 18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

The above is a description of the church/body of Christ/temple of God. Paul indicated that the church/body of Christ/temple of God is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone".

How can the 12 apostles not be in the body of Christ when they are part of the foundation of the body of Christ? That makes no sense at all. You are 100% wrong on this. Your claim that the 12 apostles are not in the body of Christ is shameful and, frankly, disgusting.

You are upset because you don't recognize the difference between the Body of Christ and national Israel.

The key to understanding that difference is that during the millennial reign, National Israel will dwell on the Earth, in the land promised to them in Jerusalem, as promised to Abraham in Genesis 15:18–21.

All of this is in accordance with God’s great kingdom promises to Israel that “the meek shall inherit the earth” (Psalm 37:11a; cf. Matthew 5:5) and “the righteous shall inherit the land and dwell therein forever” (Psalm 37:29).

The 12 apostles were promised 12 thrones by Jesus and they will be judging all the matters involving the 12 tribes during that time on Earth (Matthew 19:28)

But to “the church which is his body” (see Ephesians 1:22,23), Paul writes, “And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ” (Ephesians 2:6).

And to the Philippian believers, “For our conversation (lit. `citizenship’) is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Philippians 3:20).

And, of course, some day “the Lord shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord” (1 Thessalonians 4:16,17). Paul refers to all of this as our “blessed hope” (see Titus 2:13).

TLDR: National Israel will be on the Earth, but the Body of Christ will be in the heavens.

 

[keras]

I invite you to break 2 Peter 3:3-13 down in detail as I have done here to show me exactly how you interpret it.

2 Peter 3:3-6...a warning that God will again take action to correct mankind, as He did in the days of Noah.

2 Peter 3:7 The Day of the Lord's fiery wrath, when the godless will be destroyed.. the Sixth seal event. Revelation 6:12-17, Isaiah 30:26-30

2 Peter 3:8-9 A reminder that to God in heaven, the passing of one day is equal to 1000 years earth time. Paralleled by Psalms 90:4.
This reminder is inserted here to give us some idea of when this terrible event will take place, after the two 'days' that He will revive us. Hosea 6:2, Luke 13:32

2 Peter 3:10 a vivid description of the terrible Day of the Lord's fiery wrath. Malachi 4:1 & 3, Isaiah 24 The 'elements' referred to here is 'stoichon', Greek for constructed things; buildings, roads, etc.

2 Peter 3:11-13 refers to the New heavens and the new earth, which will happen after the Millennium. Revelation 21:1-7

 

[Timtofly]

I'm not sure I'm following what you are saying.

The first part of what you say contradicts the second part, and it contradicts 1 Corinthians 15:50 "And I say this, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption inherit incorruption."(unless I'm misunderstanding you).

Otherwise (I think) I agree regarding the millennium.

Well for there to be a resurrection, there has to be the physical death. But Adam had a flesh and blood body before he disobeyed and died. It was permanent and incorruptible. God killed Adam that day because God took away the permanent incorruptible body and gave him a corruptible body. If that were not the case then what is a resurrection for? We are being resurrected in the opposite condition as we died in, no?

People disagree with me on the timing, because the dead in Christ rise first. Yep, every time their physical body here on earth dies. Most want to be just a soul in Paradise, I guess.

The first resurrection is bodily. Those in the millennium, on earth are not the glorified church. But they are also not just resurrected sin filled corruptible bodies.

Revelation 7 the last half shows the church already glorified and forever in the Temple of God in Paradise. No where does Revelation say they live on earth. In the NHNE, the New Jerusalem does come down and sets flat on the earth and it is at least 1,200 miles wide, 1,200 miles deep, and 1,200 miles high.

Does Paradise come down closer? I do not know.

 

[Timtofly]

The author of the Book of Hebrews believed the fulfillment of the land promise is found in Hebrews 11:15-16.

That is not the promise made to all of Israel. The faith chapter is the church inside of National Israel. You do realize God has people living in both Paradise and earth, right?

 

[Timtofly]

Which is found in Revelation 11:15-18.

How long other than the rejected 1000 year reign, by amil, do you think Christ will reign?

If they only become under Christ after the 7th Trumpet, what about the time between the Cross and the 7th Trumpet?

 

[Zao is life]

Why would any believer, Jew or Gentile, look forward to a temporal piece of land instead of the much better eternal new heavens and new earth?

It would be about as ridiculous as thinking that Malachi 4:5-6 would be fulfilled by John the Baptist instead of Elijah himself, right?

* John the Baptist denied he was Elijah. When he was asked by the priests and Levites if he was Elijah he said" No".
* His father was told he (John the Baptist) would come in the spirit and power of Elijah.
* The disciples saw Moses and Elijah with Jesus on the mountain where Jesus was transfigured, so coming down from the mountain, they asked Jesus why the prophets say Elijah must come first.
* There are two parts to the Lord's reply: A future-tense fulfillment of Malachi and a past-tense fulfillment.
* Quoting only the past-tense fulfillment part of what Jesus said is only done by those who need to take away from His words in order to demand a particular interpretation:

""And answering Jesus said to them, Elijah truly shall come first and restore all things.
But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him, but have done to him whatever they desired. Likewise also the Son of man shall suffer from them.
Then His disciples understood that He spoke to them about John the Baptist."

So the disciples understood that he spoke of John the Baptist when Jesus spoke of a past-tense fulfillment - but when John the Baptist was asked if he was Elijah, he said, "NO", and Jesus said Elijah is coming, and has come. Jesus did not say John the Baptist shall come and shall restore all things, He said Elijah shall come and shall restore all things.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You are upset because you don't recognize the difference between the Body of Christ and national Israel.

I recognize that all Christians are in the body of Christ. That's why we are called CHRISTians. You have no discernment.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

* John the Baptist denied he was Elijah. When he was asked by the priests and Levites if he was Elijah he said" No".
* His father was told he (John the Baptist) would come in the spirit and power of Elijah.

Exactly. All he was saying is that he wasn't literally Elijah himself. He wasn't denying that he was the Elijah to come that Malachi prophesied about. John the Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elijah and that is what Malachi 4:5-6 is about, which no one would have known until it was revealed that John the Baptist was the Elijah to come, first by the angel speaking to his father Zechariah in Luke 1:13-17 and then by Jesus later.

* The disciples saw Moses and Elijah with Jesus on the mountain where Jesus was transfigured, so coming down from the mountain, they asked Jesus why the prophets say Elijah must come first.
* There are two parts to the Lord's reply: A future-tense fulfillment of Malachi and a past-tense fulfillment.
* Quoting only the past-tense fulfillment part of what Jesus said is only done by those who need to take away from His words in order to demand a particular interpretation:

""And answering Jesus said to them, Elijah truly shall come first and restore all things.
But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him, but have done to him whatever they desired. Likewise also the Son of man shall suffer from them.
Then His disciples understood that He spoke to them about John the Baptist."

So the disciples understood that he spoke of John the Baptist when Jesus spoke of a past-tense fulfillment - but when John the Baptist was asked if he was Elijah, he said, "NO", and Jesus said Elijah is coming, and has come. Jesus did not say John the Baptist shall come and shall restore all things, He said Elijah shall come and shall restore all things.

I completely disagree with you on this. There is no future tense there as if Jesus was saying what Elijah would do in the distant future. No, that is taking it completely out of context.

Jesus was only saying what the prophecy said that Elijah was going to do (future to when the prophecy was made, not future to Jesus saying that), and He was not saying what the actual Elijah still was going to do.

The disciples were confused because they thought Elijah was supposed to come before the Messiah came, but they knew that the Messiah, Jesus, had already come. So, that's why they asked him "Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?”. The prophecy is about Elijah (John the Baptist) coming before the FIRST coming of the Messiah, not the second. So, the disciples wondered how the prophecy could be fulfilled with the Messiah coming first. But, Jesus corrected them and let them know that Elijah had already come in the person of John the Baptist.

After Jesus said what the prophecy said Elijah was coming to do He then said that Elijah had come already (meaning that he did indeed come before the Messiah as the disciples knew he was supposed to) and the disciples understood that He was talking about John the Baptist. That's enough for me. John the Baptist was the Elijah to come. Jesus said so. There's no basis for attributing the fulfillment of the prophecy to anyone else and there's no basis for saying that the prophecy is only partially fulfilled.

You're taking the mention of restoring all things too literally. That just had to do with the fact that John the Baptist was sent to prepare the way for the One who would restore hope to the world by providing the means for the forgiveness of sins and eternal life through His shed blood and resurrection.

Matthew 11:11 Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12 From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it. 13 For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14 And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. 15 Whoever has ears, let them hear.

Jesus plainly said that John the Baptist was the Elijah to come. But, you have to be willing to accept that and Jesus knew many would have trouble accepting it because of how many people tend to think very literally instead of looking at things through a spiritual and heavenly perspective. That is why He said "Whoever has ears, let them hear".

 

[Spiritual Jew]

2 Peter 3:3-6...a warning that God will again take action to correct mankind, as He did in the days of Noah.

This is all you have to say about that passage? What is your understanding of the mention of "the promise of His coming" that the last days scoffers would scoff about? Do you not think that is a reference to the promise of Christ's second coming?

2 Peter 3:7 The Day of the Lord's fiery wrath, when the godless will be destroyed.. the Sixth seal event. Revelation 6:12-17, Isaiah 30:26-30

Does Peter not relate this to the coming of Christ? The context of what Peter was talking about was in relation to "the promise of His coming". Why are you not mentioning that at all?

2 Peter 3:8-9 A reminder that to God in heaven, the passing of one day is equal to 1000 years earth time. Paralleled by Psalms 90:4.
This reminder is inserted here to give us some idea of when this terrible event will take place, after the two 'days' that He will revive us. Hosea 6:2, Luke 13:32

You are reading a lot into the text that isn't there. No, all Peter was doing there is indicating that to some people like the last days scoffers it was taking too long for Him to come back, but the Lord is outside of the realm of time and space, so it has not been a long time for Him. He is being patient giving as many people as possible to repent first.

2 Peter 3:10 a vivid description of the terrible Day of the Lord's fiery wrath. Malachi 4:1 & 3, Isaiah 24 The 'elements' referred to here is 'stoichon', Greek for constructed things; buildings, roads, etc.

2 Peter 3:11-13 refers to the New heavens and the new earth, which will happen after the Millennium. Revelation 21:1-7

Where is there even a hint of a future Millennium in 2 Peter 3? Where exactly would that fit in with what Peter described? Throughout your whole post you never even mentioned "the promise of His coming" and what that means in relation to Peter's prophecy. Why?

What promise is the Lord not being slack regarding fulfilling it (2 Peter 3:9)? According to what promise are we looking forward to the new heavens and new earth? (2 Peter 3:13). Is it not "the promise of His coming" (2 Peter 3:4)?

 

[grafted branch]

Who is "National Israel"? I've seen this term used in these boards as though "National Israel" refers to the genetic descendants of Abraham only, ie "the Jews" only.

Deuteronomy 14:2 says,

"For you are a holy people to the LORD your God, and the LORD has chosen you to be a peculiar people to Himself, above all the nations that are on the earth."

It was talking to all 12 tribes of Israel. It was spoken long after Jacob (Israel) when on his death-bed, told his son Joseph the following regarding Joseph's son, Ephraim:

Can you give me your thoughts on Jeremiah 31:35-36? It states that if the ordnance’s of the Sun, moon, and stars depart from before God; then the seed of Israel shall also cease from being a nation before God.

There is an interpretation that the ordnance’s in Jeremiah 31:35-36 are referring to Genesis 1:14-18. These ordnance’s are that the sun, moon, and stars are to be used as signs, seasons, days, and years.

I think almost every view as some sort of time period that is not to be taken literally. So I have a couple of questions that I would like an opinion on.

1. How would you define the seed of Israel that is also a nation? Could this be considered “national Israel”?
   
   
2. If there is a non-literal time period such as the gap between the 69th and 70th week or a millennial period that’s not exactly 1,000 years, did the ordinances cease before God? Peter states that one days is as 1,000 years, if this statement is saying that God doesn’t use the ordnance’s that are meant for days and years then it would appear that at some point in time the ordnance’s did cease. So if the ordnances depart from before God then this would also mean that the seed of Israel ceased to be considered a nation before God.
   

I welcome anyone else’s thoughts on this also.

 

[Zao is life]

Exactly. All he was saying is that he wasn't literally Elijah himself. He wasn't denying that he was the Elijah to come that Malachi prophesied about. John the Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elijah and that is what Malachi 4:5-6 is about, which no one would have known until it was revealed that John the Baptist was the Elijah to come, first by the angel speaking to his father Zechariah in Luke 1:13-17 and then by Jesus later.

I completely disagree with you on this. There is no future tense there as if Jesus was saying what Elijah would do in the distant future. No, that is taking it completely out of context.

Jesus was only saying what the prophecy said that Elijah was going to do (future to when the prophecy was made, not future to Jesus saying that), and He was not saying what the actual Elijah still was going to do.

The disciples were confused because they thought Elijah was supposed to come before the Messiah came, but they knew that the Messiah, Jesus, had already come. So, that's why they asked him "Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?”. The prophecy is about Elijah (John the Baptist) coming before the FIRST coming of the Messiah, not the second. So, the disciples wondered how the prophecy could be fulfilled with the Messiah coming first. But, Jesus corrected them and let them know that Elijah had already come in the person of John the Baptist.

After Jesus said what the prophecy said Elijah was coming to do He then said that Elijah had come already (meaning that he did indeed come before the Messiah as the disciples knew he was supposed to) and the disciples understood that He was talking about John the Baptist. That's enough for me. John the Baptist was the Elijah to come. Jesus said so. There's no basis for attributing the fulfillment of the prophecy to anyone else and there's no basis for saying that the prophecy is only partially fulfilled.

You're taking the mention of restoring all things too literally. That just had to do with the fact that John the Baptist was sent to prepare the way for the One who would restore hope to the world by providing the means for the forgiveness of sins and eternal life through His shed blood and resurrection.

Matthew 11:11 Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12 From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it. 13 For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14 And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. 15 Whoever has ears, let them hear.

Jesus plainly said that John the Baptist was the Elijah to come. But, you have to be willing to accept that and Jesus knew many would have trouble accepting it because of how many people tend to think very literally instead of looking at things through a spiritual and heavenly perspective. That is why He said "Whoever has ears, let them hear".

OK if you can answer these 5 questions for me then I will be satisfied that you are correct:

1. In Luke 1:17, was Zechariah told that his son was Elijah who was to come?

And he shall go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

2. In John 1:21, when John the Baptist was asked by the Priests and Levites if he was Elijah, what did he say?

And they asked him, What then? Are you Elijah? And he says, I am not. Are you that prophet? And he answered, No.

The passage is quoted below the final three questions:

3. In Matthew 17:1-8, did the disciples see John the Baptist with Jesus and with Moses on the mountain when Jesus was transfigured?

4. In Matthew 17:9-11, did Jesus say John the Baptist "truly shall come first and shall restore all things", or did He say Elijah shall come first and shall restore all things?

5. In Matthew 17:12-13, was Jesus referring to John the Baptist, or was He referring to Elijah?

And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.

Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.
While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid.
And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid.
And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only.

And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
13 Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

 

[Zao is life]

Can you give me your thoughts on Jeremiah 31:35-36? It states that if the ordnance’s of the Sun, moon, and stars depart from before God; then the seed of Israel shall also cease from being a nation before God.

There is an interpretation that the ordnance’s in Jeremiah 31:35-36 are referring to Genesis 1:14-18. These ordnance’s are that the sun, moon, and stars are to be used as signs, seasons, days, and years.

I think almost every view as some sort of time period that is not to be taken literally. So I have a couple of questions that I would like an opinion on.

1. How would you define the seed of Israel that is also a nation? Could this be considered “national Israel”?
   
   
2. If there is a non-literal time period such as the gap between the 69th and 70th week or a millennial period that’s not exactly 1,000 years, did the ordinances cease before God? Peter states that one days is as 1,000 years, if this statement is saying that God doesn’t use the ordnance’s that are meant for days and years then it would appear that at some point in time the ordnance’s did cease. So if the ordnances depart from before God then this would also mean that the seed of Israel ceased to be considered a nation before God.

I welcome anyone else’s thoughts on this also.

Israel = the house of Israel and the house of Judah who are members of Christ's flock through faith in Him (the people whom the new covenant was promised to).

In my OP I show why I say that God considers the Gentiles who believe in Jesus "the house of Israel". The Jews who believe in Jesus and are therefore part of God's flock, are the house of Judah.

Since the family were split into two nations following the days of king Solomon, ISRAEL = "The house of Israel/Ephraim + "The house of Judah".

Only the believing remnant of Israel (including the Gentiles who are grafted in and are considered the house of Israel) have received the New Covenant (which is in Christ's blood) through their faith in Him.

Galatians 3:28-29
"There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is no male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise."

Jeremiah 31:35-36
"So says the LORD, who gives the sun for a light by day and the laws of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, who divides the sea when its waves roar; the LORD of hosts is His name;
36 if those ordinances depart from Me, says the LORD, the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before Me forever."

The seed of Israel consists of those who are part of Christ's flock and therefore the seed of Israel has not ceased from being a nation before God. These things were said by God in the context of the New Covenant (which is in Christ's blood and was promised to the house of Israel and the house of Judah).

If there is a non-literal time period such as the gap between the 69th and 70th week or a millennial period that’s not exactly 1,000 years, did the ordinances cease before God? Peter states that one days is as 1,000 years, if this statement is saying that God doesn’t use the ordnance’s that are meant for days and years then it would appear that at some point in time the ordnance’s did cease. So if the ordnances depart from before God then this would also mean that the seed of Israel ceased to be considered a nation before God.

Personally I don't believe in any gap between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel. I believe the 70 weeks are consecutive beginning from the decree to restore and build Jerusalem and ending with the week during which Christ was crucified.

I do not see anything in the text of Daniel 9:27 that even suggests that there would be a cut-'n-paste job between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel where the 70th week could be ripped out of its place in the consecutive 70 weeks and pasted into the end of the church age. I've never agreed with that notion.

But I really don't understand or follow your reasoning linking the ordinances of sun and moon to anything the Bible says about what will take place after the return of Christ. Jeremiah 31:31-37 are merely a way of God saying that His promise to Abraham is sure, such as we read again in Hebrews:

Hebrews chapter 6
13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no greater, He swore by Himself,
14 saying, "Surely in blessing I will bless you, and in multiplying I will multiply you."
15 And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.
16 For men truly swear by the greater, and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.
17 In this way desiring to declare more fully to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, God interposed by an oath,
18 so that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us,
19 which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which enters into that within the veil,
20 where the Forerunner has entered for us, even Jesus, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.

The above is just another way of saying that only if the ordinances of the sun and the moon depart from before God will Israel cease from being a nation before Him. There are different pictures we are given in scripture so that we know that God's promises to Abraham and his seed is 100% sure and cannot be moved.

 

[grafted branch]

Israel = the house of Israel and the house of Judah who are members of Christ's flock through faith in Him (the people whom the new covenant was promised to).

I was almost sure of what your answer would be for my question #1, and your view on this does make logical sense.

The above is just another way of saying that only if the ordinances of the sun and the moon depart from before God will Israel cease from being a nation before Him. There are different pictures we are given in scripture so that we know that God's promises to Abraham and his seed is 100% sure and cannot be moved.

Ok, I'm not arguing that point, but let me rephrase question #2.

2 Peter 3:8 says that one day is with the Lord as a 1,000 years; and Jeremiah 31:36 says if those ordinances depart form before me.

The ordinances which define what a day and a year are, are before God in Jeremiah 31:36, which I think everyone would agree with. The same ordinances that define what a day and a year are, do not appear to be with God any longer in 2 Peter 3:8 because one day is not one day, it’s as a 1,000 years. So it could be argued that the ordinances have always been before God just not with God, but then the statement in John 1:1 “the word was with God” would need an explanation.

So to rephrase my question; how can the ordinances still be valid with God if he doesn’t abide by his own ordinances?

 

[Zao is life]

I was almost sure of what your answer would be for my question #1, and your view on this does make logical sense.

Ok, I'm not arguing that point, but let me rephrase question #2.

2 Peter 3:8 says that one day is with the Lord as a 1,000 years; and Jeremiah 31:36 says if those ordinances depart form before me.

The ordinances which define what a day and a year are, are before God in Jeremiah 31:36, which I think everyone would agree with. The same ordinances that define what a day and a year are, do not appear to be with God any longer in 2 Peter 3:8 because one day is not one day, it’s as a 1,000 years. So it could be argued that the ordinances have always been before God just not with God, but then the statement in John 1:1 “the word was with God” would need an explanation.

So to rephrase my question; how can the ordinances still be valid with God if he doesn’t abide by his own ordinances?

I still don't understand how you can say God doesn't abide by His own ordinances.

When God is using the example of ordinances of sun and moon He's simply saying that just as the ordinances of sun and moon are (from a human perspective) fixed and unmovable, so His promise to the seed of Abraham is fixed and unmovable. God is just using ordinances of sun and moon as an example.

I'm sorry but I'm just not following you. I also don't understand why the statement in the Psalms and in 2 Peter (which happens to also be written in the epistle of Barnabus) regarding a thousand years being as one day with the LORD, has anything to do with God's promise to the seed of Abraham (Israel).

 

[grafted branch]

When God is using the example of ordinances of sun and moon He's simply saying that just as the ordinances of sun and moon are (from a human perspective) fixed and unmovable, so His promise to the seed of Abraham is fixed and unmovable. God is just using ordinances of sun and moon as an example.

Ok, let me ask one final question here, do you think the ordinances of the sun, moon, and stars are recorded in Genesis 1:14-18?