Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Everlasting Land Covenant....

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Everlasting Land Covenant....

    One thing I can't understand clearly, from the dispensational viewpoint that believes Israel's land promise is an unconditional everlasting land covenant, is this.

    If, and just for discussion purposes, let's say 1948 begins the everlasting land covenant and fulfillment of the promise. Let's say from 1948 until the aeons of time eternal future, forevermore.....Israel will continue to posess the land they presently have held since 1948.

    Even in this very optimistic scenerio, it is not a fulfillment of the everlasting land promise to Abraham.

    From 1948 going back 2000 years to Christ, and then going back another 1400 years to Abraham (3400 years roughly), Israel did not hold the land as an everlasting possession. Most of that 3400 years, Israel either possessed a portion of the land, or none of the land.

    For the land promise to Abraham to have truly been 'everlasting', then from the time of Abraham forward, including the last 3400 years), Israel should have been in possession of that land.

    Since that hasn't been the case, it seems clear to me, that the intent of the promise was different that what Dispensationalism tends to want to make it out to be.

    How can 3400 missing years of possession fit with a claimed literal everlasting possession of land?

  • #2
    Originally posted by David Taylor View Post
    One thing I can't understand clearly, from the dispensational viewpoint that believes Israel's land promise is an unconditional everlasting land covenant, is this.

    If, and just for discussion purposes, let's say 1948 begins the everlasting land covenant and fulfillment of the promise. Let's say from 1948 until the aeons of time eternal future, forevermore.....Israel will continue to posess the land they presently have held since 1948.

    Even in this very optimistic scenerio, it is not a fulfillment of the everlasting land promise to Abraham.

    From 1948 going back 2000 years to Christ, and then going back another 1400 years to Abraham (3400 years roughly), Israel did not hold the land as an everlasting possession. Most of that 3400 years, Israel either possessed a portion of the land, or none of the land.

    For the land promise to Abraham to have truly been 'everlasting', then from the time of Abraham forward, including the last 3400 years), Israel should have been in possession of that land.

    Since that hasn't been the case, it seems clear to me, that the intent of the promise was different that what Dispensationalism tends to want to make it out to be.

    How can 3400 missing years of possession fit with a claimed literal everlasting possession of land?
    All the verses I read about the promise to Abrahan seem to me that God is speaking in future tense.

    Comment


    • #3
      Land Covenant

      Originally posted by David Taylor View Post
      One thing I can't understand clearly, from the dispensational viewpoint that believes Israel's land promise is an unconditional everlasting land covenant, is this.

      If, and just for discussion purposes, let's say 1948 begins the everlasting land covenant and fulfillment of the promise. Let's say from 1948 until the aeons of time eternal future, forevermore.....Israel will continue to posess the land they presently have held since 1948.

      Even in this very optimistic scenerio, it is not a fulfillment of the everlasting land promise to Abraham.

      From 1948 going back 2000 years to Christ, and then going back another 1400 years to Abraham (3400 years roughly), Israel did not hold the land as an everlasting possession. Most of that 3400 years, Israel either possessed a portion of the land, or none of the land.

      For the land promise to Abraham to have truly been 'everlasting', then from the time of Abraham forward, including the last 3400 years), Israel should have been in possession of that land.

      Since that hasn't been the case, it seems clear to me, that the intent of the promise was different that what Dispensationalism tends to want to make it out to be.

      How can 3400 missing years of possession fit with a claimed literal everlasting possession of land?
      I'm going to make an 'assumption' that your question has less to do with whether or not Israel was in possession of the land during OT times but whether or not the literal hermenuetic(historical/grammatical) that dispensationalists use is correct. That God fulfilled His promise in gving them a land "flowing with milk and honey" is without dispute; and He states why He didn't give it to them 'all at once' but in Ex. 24:30,"By little and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land."

      Of course, 'they staggered at the promises of God through unbelief', but that doesn't disavow God's promises to them, it just means they went 'unfulfilled'.

      Now, if we are taking exception to dispensationalism and it's insistence on a strictly literal interpretation, saying that God couldn't possibly have meant to continue His Covenant with Israel, seeing how by 'literal' interpretation it was never fulfilled, we are swallowing a 'red herring'. Dispensationalists, you are on your own in this one.

      I for my part believe that God's intentions and purposes are clear, and I believe God has, is, and always will fulfil His Covenant promise to Israel, in spite of their disobedience. I believe in the Millenial Reign, Christ will extend the boundaries of Israel to the borders spoken of in Genesis because it is given in a 'literal' context. My disagreement with the dispensationist position is that the church will be present during the Millenial Reign and all, Israel and the Church, will be perfected in Christ during this time.

      Sincerely,
      FM

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by cwb View Post
        All the verses I read about the promise to Abrahan seem to me that God is speaking in future tense.
        God told Abraham:

        Gen 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.


        Jacob, right before he died in Egypt, reminded his sons of what God had promised him and His seed:

        Gen 48:4 And said unto me, Behold, I will make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, and I will make of thee a multitude of people; and will give this land to thy seed after thee for an everlasting possession.

        But we find that only the descendents of two of Jacob's son's, Caleb from the tribe of Judah and Joshua from the tribe of Ephraim, who came out of Egypt, went into the land of Canaan and possessed it.

        Caleb, from the tribe of Judah (Southern Kingdom of Israel)

        Num 13:6; 34:19; Josh 14:6; Josh 15:13 Of the tribe of Judah, Caleb the son of Jephunneh. Num 34:19 And the names of the men are these: Of the tribe of Judah, Caleb the son of Jephunneh. Josh 14:6 Then the children of Judah came unto Joshua in Gilgal: and Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenezite said unto him, Thou knowest the thing that the LORD said unto Moses the man of God concerning me and thee in Kadeshbarnea. Josh 15:13 And unto Caleb the son of Jephunneh he gave a part among the children of Judah, according to the commandment of the LORD to Joshua, even the city of Arba the father of Anak, which city is Hebron.

        Joshua, from the tribe of Ephraim (Northern Kingdom of Israel)


        Numbers 13:8,16 Of the tribe of Ephraim, Oshea the son of Nun. These are the names of the men which Moses sent to spy out the land. and Moses called Oshea the son of Nun Jehoshua


        God bypassed the other tribes of Jacob who came out of Egypt and passed the promise of the land of Canaan to their decendents 20 years old and younger who were born in Egypt.

        So not all of Abraham's natural descendents possessed the land.

        But God promised Abraham, "And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God." (Gen 17:8)

        And God promised Jacob, "Gen 48:4 And said unto me, Behold, I will make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, and I will make of thee a multitude of people; and will give this land to thy seed after thee for an everlasting possession. (Gen 48:4)

        Also we find that the land was not an everlasting possession of Abraham or of all of His natural descendants. Nor was it in possession of Abraham's natural descendants but at temporary periods of time. Never for a continuous everlasting period as God promised.

        Therefore, if God literally meant that Abraham and Abraham's descendents would possess the land from the time He made the promise to Abraham throughout eternity, something is very wrong. The biblical facts themselves contradict God's own words. But God is God and cannot lie. So He must not have literally meant that the land itself was an everlasting possession. And that the promised land of Canaan pointed to something else.

        Just my observations.

        Shirley

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by David Taylor View Post
          One thing I can't understand clearly, from the dispensational viewpoint that believes Israel's land promise is an unconditional everlasting land covenant, is this.

          If, and just for discussion purposes, let's say 1948 begins the everlasting land covenant and fulfillment of the promise. Let's say from 1948 until the aeons of time eternal future, forevermore.....Israel will continue to posess the land they presently have held since 1948.

          Even in this very optimistic scenerio, it is not a fulfillment of the everlasting land promise to Abraham.

          From 1948 going back 2000 years to Christ, and then going back another 1400 years to Abraham (3400 years roughly), Israel did not hold the land as an everlasting possession. Most of that 3400 years, Israel either possessed a portion of the land, or none of the land.

          For the land promise to Abraham to have truly been 'everlasting', then from the time of Abraham forward, including the last 3400 years), Israel should have been in possession of that land.

          Since that hasn't been the case, it seems clear to me, that the intent of the promise was different that what Dispensationalism tends to want to make it out to be.

          How can 3400 missing years of possession fit with a claimed literal everlasting possession of land?
          Personally, I don't believe that the 1948 establishment of Israel has anything to do with the land promise being fulfilled simply because as a whole, the nation is still in disobedience. And secondly, it is hardly all the land promised. The promise has been made and the land has been given, however, it always depended upon obedience and as you said,
          Most of that 3400 years, Israel either possessed a portion of the land, or none of the land.


          I just believe that before it is all said and done, the Hebrew nation will realize the fulfillment of the promise and will be the Millenial.
          Isa 54:4 Do not fear; for you shall not be ashamed, nor shall you blush; for you shall not be put to shame; for you shall forget the shame of your youth, and shall not remember the reproach of your widowhood any more. 5 For your Maker is your husband; Jehovah of Hosts is His name; and your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel; the God of the whole earth shall He be called.



          sigpic

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by ForceMajuere View Post
            Now, if we are taking exception to dispensationalism and it's insistence on a strictly literal interpretation, saying that God couldn't possibly have meant to continue His Covenant with Israel, seeing how by 'literal' interpretation it was never fulfilled, we are swallowing a 'red herring'. Dispensationalists, you are on your own in this one.

            I for my part believe that God's intentions and purposes are clear, and I believe God has, is, and always will fulfil His Covenant promise to Israel, in spite of their disobedience. I believe in the Millenial Reign, Christ will extend the boundaries of Israel to the borders spoken of in Genesis because it is given in a 'literal' context. My disagreement with the dispensationist position is that the church will be present during the Millenial Reign and all, Israel and the Church, will be perfected in Christ during this time.

            Sincerely,
            FM
            I don't understand how the Church will be perfected during the Millenium. Does that mean every member of the Church will be brought back to life and perfected and then resurrected. I agree that there will be a Millenial reign and the land promise will be fulfilled, but I don't understand what you mean by the last statement. Will the Church and Israel be mortal or immortal, I just don't understand what you are saying. Not trying to be hard headed.

            And I thought that dispensationalism taught that God would fulfill the Covenant of land??

            Sorry, I am confused.


            sigpic

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by ForceMajuere View Post
              I for my part believe that God's intentions and purposes are clear, and I believe God has, is, and always will fulfil His Covenant promise to Israel, in spite of their disobedience. I believe in the Millenial Reign, Christ will extend the boundaries of Israel to the borders spoken of in Genesis because it is given in a 'literal' context. My disagreement with the dispensationist position is that the church will be present during the Millenial Reign and all, Israel and the Church, will be perfected in Christ during this time.

              Sincerely,
              FM
              So are you saying FM that what God literally meant in Genesis when He promised Abraham and Jacob an everlasting possession of the land, "everlasting" is a temporal period of a thousand years, with a beginning and an ending, with Israel beginning her everlasting possession of the land at the beginning of the thousand years but having to give it up at the end of the thousand years?



              Shirley
              Last edited by the rookie; Nov 2nd 2007, 11:39 PM. Reason: Cut out the condescending part...

              Comment


              • #8
                My Position

                Originally posted by quiet dove View Post
                I don't understand how the Church will be perfected during the Millenium. Does that mean every member of the Church will be brought back to life and perfected and then resurrected. I agree that there will be a Millenial reign and the land promise will be fulfilled, but I don't understand what you mean by the last statement. Will the Church and Israel be mortal or immortal, I just don't understand what you are saying. Not trying to be hard headed.

                And I thought that dispensationalism taught that God would fulfill the Covenant of land??

                Sorry, I am confused.
                Dispensationalism is a take off from Futurism which believes in a return of the Messiah in Jerusalem. And since the scripture says 'a thousand years', I don't believe that it will be any longer or shorter than that, unless the Context of the verse suggests something else. At that point I'm sure we agree, God will fulfil His Covenant Promises to Israel, they will 'inherit the land', and their 'seed' will be as the stars in the sky,or the grains of sand on the seashore.

                But I'm not a Dispensationalist. Why? Because 1) I don't subscribe to the strictly literal interpretation of prophetic language-I understand Darby's point of 'unless it does violence', but I believe scripture is to be interpreted in context, not a historical/grammatical view. I concede that certain words scripture uses necessitates one searching to derive the most accurate meaning, but context, used correctly, is more reliable.

                For example, in 1 John 3:9 it says,"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin,"and yet 1 John 1:8 says,"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."
                In English, this is a irreconcilable countradiction; either we sin or don't sin. But if we study the verse in context, we arrive at the same conclusion as the lexicographers, which is if we sin and keep sinning. Context, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit because it is by Revelation, not some literary rule that we know anything, modulates what is being said by what intent is meant by saying it. John told his disciples,"don't sin." But when you do sin, confess your sin and you have Advocate who will forgive your sins, and by the way, don't let anyone of you tell me he/she hasn't sinned.

                If the context is literal, the interpretation is literal, if the context is figurative, the interpretation is figurative. But in either case it is Truth, not 'harmonizing' or 'free-association'.

                Context tells me there is 'One Coming' of Jesus to the earth, not a 'Coming in the clouds' for Christians, and a physical return to fight for Israel and establish the Millenial Reign. I can't twist Matthew 13:41-43 and Matthew 24:29-31 to mean anything other than that.

                So that means the 'Church' must be present during the Millenial Reign. Jesus told the disciples in Matt. 19:28,"Verily I say unto you, that ye have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the 12 tribes of Israel". Some have made the context in the New Jerusalem, but I believe the context is during the Millenial Reign, as it says(Rev.20:4),"And I saw thrones, and they that sat upon them, and judgement was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years."

                Clearly, these are members of the Church age, although it includes the disciples. Since all who are in Christ, whether asleep or awake get raptured, the Church will be alive and on earth in their 'glorified' bodies during the Millenial Reign. Those Jews, who cry out for their Messiah and 'weep for Him as an only son"(Zech. 12:10) will also be raptured as the wicked on the earth are destroyed.(Matt. 13:41-42). All Christianity will be on earth during the Millenial Reign, the Jews in the land of their promise and the Gentiles everywhere else. And He will rule the nations with a rod of iron, why?

                I believe 1 Cor: 15:23-28 provides the answer,"But every man in his own order; Christ, the first fruits; afterward they that are Christ's at His coming.
                Then cometh the end, when He shall have delivered up the Kingdom to God, even the Father; when He shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
                For He must reign(1000 yrs) till He hath put all enemies under His feet. But when He saith all things are put under Him, it is manifest that He is excepted, which did put all things under Him.
                And when all things shall be subdued under Him, then shall the Son also Himself shall be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God might be all in all."

                Now, "as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God."(Rom. 8:14) Our righteousness, or right standing or relationship is in Christ, it is apart from works. But our holiness is something we work on day after day, week after week, etc., Christ during this age will perfect us in holiness until everything that resists Christ's authority in us is done away with. After that time will be the Great White Throne judgement and then the New Jerusalem.

                Sincerely,
                FM

                Comment


                • #9
                  Yes

                  Originally posted by ShirleyFord View Post
                  So are you saying FM that what God literally meant in Genesis when He promised Abraham and Jacob an everlasting possession of the land, "everlasting" is a temporal period of a thousand years, with a beginning and an ending, with Israel beginning her everlasting possession of the land at the beginning of the thousand years but having to give it up at the end of the thousand years?



                  Shirley
                  In Jeremiah 31:35-36 says,"Thus saith the Lord, which give the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The Lord of Hosts is His Name:
                  If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel shall cease from being a nation before Me forever."

                  As long as there is a sun in the sky and moon and stars by night the Covenant is still in effect with the nation of Israel. After that I believe all Covenant Promises will have been fulfilled in Christ.

                  Sincerely,
                  FM

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by ForceMajuere View Post

                    Sincerely,
                    FM


                    Thanks for explaining, I have places I agree and others I disagree but that would take us in several rabbit trails but I do understand what you were saying now.


                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by ForceMajuere View Post
                      In Jeremiah 31:35-36 says,"Thus saith the Lord, which give the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The Lord of Hosts is His Name:
                      If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel shall cease from being a nation before Me forever."

                      As long as there is a sun in the sky and moon and stars by night the Covenant is still in effect with the nation of Israel. After that I believe all Covenant Promises will have been fulfilled in Christ.

                      Sincerely,
                      FM
                      I don't think so FM & I'll tell you why this is only referring to the Remnant.
                      In Jeremiah 31 quote a very important word is depicted. "the seed of Israel."
                      OK, now at the end of Jeremiah 31, the last paragraph, even speaking about the New Covenant with them, notice the "measuring line, the Corner Gate & the Tower of Hananel, & Horse Gate mentionings? OK, Let's go to Nehemiah 3. The rebuilding of the wall. This is taking place after the exile in Babylon. Consider Nehemiah 4:7-9 for example:
                      7 Now it happened, when Sanballat, Tobiah, the Arabs, the Ammonites, and the Ashdodites heard that the walls of Jerusalem were being restored and the gaps were beginning to be closed, that they became very angry, 8 and all of them conspired together to come and attack Jerusalem and create confusion. 9 Nevertheless we made our prayer to our God, and because of them we set a watch against them day and night.
                      OK,the rest of the chapter you can see that God did indeed bless the remnant.
                      Now here's an important link to the faithful remnant Israel:
                      Haggai(the same timeframe asin Nehemiah with the restoration & the rebuilding the temple. The remnant was even referred to by God as "the residue" by God, that's how few there were..(actually some 50k returned) but still keep the remnant in mind, it's the same remnant Ezekiel is told to tuck a "few hairs" under his coat. Anyway, in Haggai 2, we see ZERUBBABEL connected with the promised blessings.
                      Zerubbabel Chosen as a Signet


                      20 And again the word of the LORD came to Haggai on the twenty-fourth day of the month, saying, 21 “Speak to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, saying:


                      ‘ I will shake heaven and earth.
                      22 I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms;
                      I will destroy the strength of the Gentile kingdoms.
                      I will overthrow the chariots
                      And those who ride in them;
                      The horses and their riders shall come down,
                      Every one by the sword of his brother.

                      23 ‘In that day,’ says the LORD of hosts, ‘I will take you, Zerubbabel My servant, the son of Shealtiel,’ says the LORD, ‘and will make you like a signet ring; for I have chosen you,’ says the LORD of hosts.”

                      Alright, those Heathen kingdoms are referring to nations like just mentioned in Nehemiah.
                      Now back to Jerusalem, the temple had been restored, & we know it was a smaller building than Solomon's. Within the temple the line of AAronic priests was still worshiping & carrying on the sacred rites as they had been ordered to do by the law of Moses. There was a direct line of descendancy in the priesthood that could that could be traced back to Aaron. (The 400 Silent Years: H.A. Ironside)
                      But the royal line of David had fallen on evil days. The people knew who the rightful successor to David was, & in the book of Haggai, Zechariah, & Malachi, his name is given to us. It was ZERUBBABEL, the royal prince, yet there was no king on the throne, they were a puppet nation, under domination of Persia. Nevertheless, although they were beset with weakness & formalism as the prophets have shown us, the people were united. There were no political schisms or factions among them, nor were divided into groups or parties.
                      Now when you open the New Testamentto the book ot Matthew, there's a diferent atmosphere- almost a different world. Rome is now the dominant power of the earth. The Romans legions have spread throughout the the length & breath of the civilized world. Center of power shifted from the East to West, to Rome. Palestine is still a puppet state.-the Jews never regained their sovereignty- but now there is king on the throne. But this king is a descendant of Esau instead of Jacob, & his name- Herod the Great. (Antipater's son) Furthemore, the high priests who now sit in the seat of religious authority in the nation are no longer from the line of Aaron. They cannot trace their descendancy back, rather, they are hired priests to whom the office is sold to as political patronage.
                      OK, then we can mention how there was at this time the Pharisees & Sadducees, & some small other called Essenes(who could hardly be designated) Not long ago though, they came o prominence in our time bc they tucked away documents in caves overlooking the Dead Sea- documents were brought to light an Arab shepherd boy accidentally discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls.
                      Anyway, Gal.4:4) "When the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law."

                      My point is about ZERUBBABEL. He was adopted by Sheatiel (the lineage continues still) bc God chose him.
                      Go to Matthew 1st chapter, there you see them in the Genealogy of Jesus.

                      So, very last point is that I believe the remnant has already been chosen from the O.T. The rest of Christian Jews today are still part of that remnant. Just as any new Christian becomes grafted in.

                      But that doesn't sound like sound like the Zionist movement of today that originated in the late 19th century. I believe Israel to be a political nation, that's all really.

                      Even the book of Malachi, about 435 BC -ceased writing for the O.T.
                      Between O.T & close to the New, there became a great hope & anticipation for the Messiah.

                      Only the remnant accepted him.

                      I believe 1948 Israel became as such bc of guilt. Everyone was guilty! But I only see that as a political inception. Just like another country wanting their independence.

                      However, God loves Jerusalem, I think. So politically I think Israel has favor with God. I don't know. I guess I'll have to stick around to see.

                      Thank you for your time,
                      Allegra

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Type and figures

                        Originally posted by Allegra View Post
                        I don't think so FM & I'll tell you why this is only referring to the Remnant.
                        In Jeremiah 31 quote a very important word is depicted. "the seed of Israel."
                        OK, now at the end of Jeremiah 31, the last paragraph, even speaking about the New Covenant with them, notice the "measuring line, the Corner Gate & the Tower of Hananel, & Horse Gate mentionings? OK, Let's go to Nehemiah 3. The rebuilding of the wall. This is taking place after the exile in Babylon. Consider Nehemiah 4:7-9 for example:
                        7 Now it happened, when Sanballat, Tobiah, the Arabs, the Ammonites, and the Ashdodites heard that the walls of Jerusalem were being restored and the gaps were beginning to be closed, that they became very angry, 8 and all of them conspired together to come and attack Jerusalem and create confusion. 9 Nevertheless we made our prayer to our God, and because of them we set a watch against them day and night.
                        OK,the rest of the chapter you can see that God did indeed bless the remnant.
                        Now here's an important link to the faithful remnant Israel:
                        Haggai(the same timeframe asin Nehemiah with the restoration & the rebuilding the temple. The remnant was even referred to by God as "the residue" by God, that's how few there were..(actually some 50k returned) but still keep the remnant in mind, it's the same remnant Ezekiel is told to tuck a "few hairs" under his coat. Anyway, in Haggai 2, we see ZERUBBABEL connected with the promised blessings.
                        Zerubbabel Chosen as a Signet


                        20 And again the word of the LORD came to Haggai on the twenty-fourth day of the month, saying, 21 “Speak to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, saying:


                        ‘ I will shake heaven and earth.
                        22 I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms;
                        I will destroy the strength of the Gentile kingdoms.
                        I will overthrow the chariots
                        And those who ride in them;
                        The horses and their riders shall come down,
                        Every one by the sword of his brother.

                        23 ‘In that day,’ says the LORD of hosts, ‘I will take you, Zerubbabel My servant, the son of Shealtiel,’ says the LORD, ‘and will make you like a signet ring; for I have chosen you,’ says the LORD of hosts.”

                        Alright, those Heathen kingdoms are referring to nations like just mentioned in Nehemiah.
                        Now back to Jerusalem, the temple had been restored, & we know it was a smaller building than Solomon's. Within the temple the line of AAronic priests was still worshiping & carrying on the sacred rites as they had been ordered to do by the law of Moses. There was a direct line of descendancy in the priesthood that could that could be traced back to Aaron. (The 400 Silent Years: H.A. Ironside)
                        But the royal line of David had fallen on evil days. The people knew who the rightful successor to David was, & in the book of Haggai, Zechariah, & Malachi, his name is given to us. It was ZERUBBABEL, the royal prince, yet there was no king on the throne, they were a puppet nation, under domination of Persia. Nevertheless, although they were beset with weakness & formalism as the prophets have shown us, the people were united. There were no political schisms or factions among them, nor were divided into groups or parties.
                        Now when you open the New Testamentto the book ot Matthew, there's a diferent atmosphere- almost a different world. Rome is now the dominant power of the earth. The Romans legions have spread throughout the the length & breath of the civilized world. Center of power shifted from the East to West, to Rome. Palestine is still a puppet state.-the Jews never regained their sovereignty- but now there is king on the throne. But this king is a descendant of Esau instead of Jacob, & his name- Herod the Great. (Antipater's son) Furthemore, the high priests who now sit in the seat of religious authority in the nation are no longer from the line of Aaron. They cannot trace their descendancy back, rather, they are hired priests to whom the office is sold to as political patronage.
                        OK, then we can mention how there was at this time the Pharisees & Sadducees, & some small other called Essenes(who could hardly be designated) Not long ago though, they came o prominence in our time bc they tucked away documents in caves overlooking the Dead Sea- documents were brought to light an Arab shepherd boy accidentally discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls.
                        Anyway, Gal.4:4) "When the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law."

                        My point is about ZERUBBABEL. He was adopted by Sheatiel (the lineage continues still) bc God chose him.
                        Go to Matthew 1st chapter, there you see them in the Genealogy of Jesus.

                        So, very last point is that I believe the remnant has already been chosen from the O.T. The rest of Christian Jews today are still part of that remnant. Just as any new Christian becomes grafted in.

                        But that doesn't sound like sound like the Zionist movement of today that originated in the late 19th century. I believe Israel to be a political nation, that's all really.

                        Even the book of Malachi, about 435 BC -ceased writing for the O.T.
                        Between O.T & close to the New, there became a great hope & anticipation for the Messiah.

                        Only the remnant accepted him.

                        I believe 1948 Israel became as such bc of guilt. Everyone was guilty! But I only see that as a political inception. Just like another country wanting their independence.

                        However, God loves Jerusalem, I think. So politically I think Israel has favor with God. I don't know. I guess I'll have to stick around to see.

                        Thank you for your time,
                        Allegra
                        Zerubabel is obvious a 'type' of Christ. In Zechariah 4:6-7 it says,"this is the word of the Lord unto Zerubabel saying, Not by might, nor by power butby My Spirit saith the Lord of hosts. Who art thou, O great mountain? before Zerubabel thou shall become a plain: and he shall bring forth the headstone thereof with shoutings, crying Grace, grace unto it."

                        But, then again so is Isaac, who was the only seed(singular) of his father Abraham that would inherit the promise of God. And yet God fortold to him his seed would be as the stars of the sky.

                        Either way, to say that Christ is the fulfillment of the Old and New Covenant I totally agree. Both were blood Covenants, they required the shedding of sinless blood, and Christ, through His death, totally fuflfils the requirements of each. They were both by faith, but there are distinctive differences in each.

                        The Old Covenant looked forward with the reminder of animal sacrifices to the finished work of Christ; the New looks back at the cross at that completed work.

                        The Old Covenant is a covenant of the flesh, the (male) adherant of that Covenant was obliged to be circumcised in the flesh as a sign that not only was he a physical heir from the lineage of Abraham but a 'spiritual' heir as well, keeping the law of God in his heart and obeying the commandments. The reward was God's blessings of prosperity in the land of Israel, which was a fleshly sign of God's fulfillment.

                        The New Covenant, did not abolish but fulfilled the Old Covenant. Israel is still Israel, the land is still the land. But He says to Israel(and to us)" I will put My law in their inward parts and write it in their hearts; and they will be My people and I will be their God."(Jer. 31:33)

                        We as Gentiles have no place in physical Israel, and yet the promises of Christ are ours by faith. We have equal access to the Father and although we have no obligation to fulfil the provisions of the Old Covenant, we fulfil the law of love in Christ in the New Covenant.

                        "God is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent: hath He said, and shall He not do it? or hath He spoken, and He shall not make it good?"(Num. 23:19)

                        He swore by Himself that He would make Israel 'as many as the stars of the sky' and He swore to give them a land 'full of milk and honey'.

                        Interestingly, before 1948 Israel was a dust bowl, now it is an agracultural marvel. Conversely, the Gaza strip under the control of the Hamas has become one of the most desolate, deadly places on earth. No one trusts his brother, everywhere there is chaos, and the only thing that unites them is their hatred for Israel.

                        Sincerely,
                        FM

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world. (good news )
                          Why would we look to a earthly kingdom then, as the fulfilment of the promises God made to them? It was always about messiahs kingdom.
                          Can flesh and blood inherit the promised kingdom?
                          Doesnt Christ come in his kingdom, as that is what he went away for, to prepare it for us.

                          In acts 1, they thought Jesus was going to inaugirate this earthly kingdom, but they were sent to the whole world, making disciples for this kingdom.

                          "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority;
                          8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth."
                          Peter saw this as the new heaven and the new earth where rightousness dwells.

                          Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness,
                          12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat!
                          13 But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.
                          And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Hi David
                            Another thread on Israel, I'm really surprised how much interest, but also disagreement there is on this subject.

                            Originally posted by David Taylor View Post
                            From 1948 going back 2000 years to Christ, and then going back another 1400 years to Abraham (3400 years roughly), Israel did not hold the land as an everlasting possession. Most of that 3400 years, Israel either possessed a portion of the land, or none of the land.

                            For the land promise to Abraham to have truly been 'everlasting', then from the time of Abraham forward, including the last 3400 years), Israel should have been in possession of that land.
                            Isn't that the whole point of Acts7:5? Stephen says Abraham never received enough of the land "from the Euphrates to the Nile" to put his foot on.

                            How can 3400 missing years of possession fit with a claimed literal everlasting possession of land?
                            It can't. As Heb 11 says, Abraham's promise can only be fulfilled because he believed in resurrection on earth.

                            And if Acts 1:11 isn't literal, and Jesus does not come back then it won't ever be fulfilled for anyone in any sense.

                            However, that I partly agree with you on this point does not mean that I do not find some of the other non-Israel or non-Jerusalem arguments very weak. In particular the idea that "Gentiles" in Jerusalem being "trampled underfoot by Gentiles" includes trampled by Jews, and some of the fancy footwork with "Israel" and "they" in Rom11, plus of course the "until you say" in the O Jerusalem prophecy. In these 3 verses the denial, but failure to provide an alternative, of what the verses say seems, with respect, to be just as preassumed as the other extreme of animal sacrifices etc.

                            God bless
                            Steven

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Steven3 View Post
                              Isn't that the whole point of Acts7:5? Stephen says Abraham never received enough of the land "from the Euphrates to the Nile" to put his foot on.

                              God bless
                              Steven
                              Where?

                              Acts 7:5 And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child.

                              It can't. As Heb 11 says, Abraham's promise can only be fulfilled because he believed in resurrection on earth.
                              Hebrews 11

                              8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

                              9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:

                              10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

                              11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.

                              12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.

                              13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

                              14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.

                              15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.

                              16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.


                              Shirley

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X