Israel Is Not Israel

[Ransom]

My reason for making the original post was not to push his dispensational view nor was it Todd's reason for making the video in the first place. It was to bring to the forefront, the proper Christan response to the current crisis in Israel.

Sure, which is why I copied it over here, so as not to hijack the intent of your own thread into another version of this one.

The one verse that comes to mind (for me) is Romans 11:28 - As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

What, so if Jews receive Jesus, we need to love them like family? What a horrible Calvinist thing for Paul to say.

 

[Ekklesian]

One cannot bring Revelation to the epistles, but the epistles must be brought to Revelation. There is no future for an Israelite kingdom on earth.

I find it's one's approach to Revelation 20 - 22 that is a main hindrance to accepting Covenant Theology. When we're taught from a very young age that the Prophecy is a linear history, and that the Jews will be restored to preeminence, the Temple cultus restored and that the gentile nations will bring their wealth and glory into Jerusalem in the Middle East, then it does seem somewhat an arbitrary over-spiritualization...until one can see the parallel assertions in the Gospels and the epistles.

Briefly:

First is the binding of Satan, which had to be accomplished for the Gosple to go forth, to 'spoil his house' as it were.

Matthew 12:29, Luke 10:17​

The First Resurrection: Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: - Ephesians 2:5-6 KJV

This is the church in earth and in Heaven

The thrones, and those who sit upon them to whom judgement is given​

​

1 Timothy 3:15, The church is the pillar and ground of the truth​

​

and the souls of those who died for the testimony of Christ, living and reigning with Christ a thousand years.​

​

Surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses Hebrews 12:1​

​

But the remaining dead live not again until the thousand years (the Gospel age) are ended. They will be raised to face the final judgementwhich is the Second Death.

At the end of the thousand years the Devil is loosed to deceive the nations once again, and there is coordinated global effort to eradicate Christianity once and for all. Then the end comes and the final judgment, the Second Death.
_____________

Revelation 21 is, to me, an 8th layer of the prophecy not a continuance of the narrative of chapter 20. The New Heaven and New Earth are Christ's New Creation

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! - 2 Corinthians 5:17 NIV​

The New Jerusalem, which is the church...

Galatians 4:21-31, Hebrews 12:22-23​

​

...comes down from Heaven. Christ's Kingdom is not of this world, though it is in the world. John 15:19 .

The tabernacle of God is with men...

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. - John 1:14​

​

The rest of the book is a further manifestation of the Sons of God, the Bride, the Holy City, the church, with an invitation to all who thirst to come and drink of the water of life freely.

It's not hard to see that Revelation is not a linear history, but series of parallel sections describing the church in the world, it's suffering and ultimate victory, from various vantage points.

​

 

[Baptist Renegade]

Sure, which is why I copied it over here, so as not to hijack the intent of your own thread into another version of this one.



What, so if Jews receive Jesus, we need to love them like family? What a horrible Calvinist thing for Paul to say.

Well, you did put a good bit of thought into this and it does deserve a response of sorts. I've been busy this last week though but hopefully I can come back and sort out things I agree with vs. things where I see problems or have questions. I dislike the "Dice-it, Slice-it" dispensational approach but admit I have great difficulty getting past the Dispensational Pre-Millennial position but I guess I really need to go through and sort out all of the "Kingdom Prophecies" related to Messiah that the Jews are all waiting for - and of which all the Apostles and early church were waiting for (Acts 1:6). I have simply been preoccupied with what I believe are more pertinent issues to deal with.

I really love the statement Paul Washer made a few years ago saying to the effect that we will all have a perfect understanding of eschatology five seconds after our Lord's return but an eternity of eternities will pass and we will not have even scratched the service regarding the depth of God's love towards us! I often find myself quoting it as my own but who knows, perhaps Paul got it somewhere else as well?

I have a hunch that John MacArthur and RC Sproul probably made some sort of wager and I'd like to be within earshot and possibly hear one say to the other: "OK, I was right, you were wrong: time to pay up!"

 

[ALAYMAN]

One of our former Killer Bees (Brennan) weighed in on the subject recently via FB…

Link

In the Issues Podcast live episode yesterday about Israel, I emphasized the distinction between Israel and the church. Here are 15 evidences that the church does not replace Israel in God's promises, that the two are distinct from one another.

1. Israel is addressed as a nation in contrast to the Gentiles after the church was established
Acts 3. 12 ¶ And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?
Acts 4.8, 10; Acts 5.21, 31, 35; Acts 21.28

2. In Paul’s prayer for national Israel there is a clear reference to Israel as a national people distinct from and outside the church
Rom 10. 1 ¶ Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
If he wanted them to get saved then they couldn’t already be part of the church

3. there is a clear support in the epistles to them being distinct entities
1Co 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

4. Paul ascribes to national Israel the covenants and the promises long after the founding of the church
Rom 9. 3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

the term “Israel” continues to be used for the natural (not spiritual) descendants of Abraham after the church was instituted

 

[abcaines]

While I can agree with his supposition, I'm finding someone mental and hermeneutic calisthenics that leave me scratching my head.

 

[ALAYMAN]

While I can agree with his supposition, I'm finding someone mental and hermeneutic calisthenics that leave me scratching my head.

Speak on.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Why does the non-dispensational view of the everlasting land promise spiritualize the land? And tangentially why does the “everlasting” promise terminate in the church-age?

 

[brianb]

The State of Israel is a secular republic, not the theocratic nation of the Old Testament.

I had heard years ago that 80% of Israelis were atheistic. That may or may not be the case today. But that just means there's less faith in today's Israel than the ancient nation at its worst.

As Bob Jones V rightly says, biblical "Israel" is the people of God--faithful Jews and Gentiles from all nations.

20% of ethnic Jews in Israel are atheists. It is only above 50% in countries like the US.

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

20% of ethnic Jews in Israel are atheists. It is only above 50% in countries like the US.

Bull spittle. There’s no such thing as an “atheist.” In the words of David Foster Wallace:

“In the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And an outstanding reason for choosing some sort of God or spiritual-type thing to worship—be it J.C. or Allah, be it Yahweh or the Wiccan mother-goddess or the Four Noble Truths or some infrangible set of ethical principles—is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things—if they are where you tap real meaning in life—then you will never have enough. Never feel you have enough. It’s the truth. Worship your own body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly, and when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally plant you. On one level, we all know this stuff already—it’s been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, bromides, epigrams, parables: the skeleton of every great story. The trick is keeping the truth up-front in daily consciousness. Worship power—you will feel weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to keep the fear at bay. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart—you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. And so on.”

 

[voicecrying]

Bull spittle. There’s no such thing as an “atheist.” In the words of David Foster Wallace:

“In the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And an outstanding reason for choosing some sort of God or spiritual-type thing to worship—be it J.C. or Allah, be it Yahweh or the Wiccan mother-goddess or the Four Noble Truths or some infrangible set of ethical principles—is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things—if they are where you tap real meaning in life—then you will never have enough. Never feel you have enough. It’s the truth. Worship your own body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly, and when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally plant you. On one level, we all know this stuff already—it’s been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, bromides, epigrams, parables: the skeleton of every great story. The trick is keeping the truth up-front in daily consciousness. Worship power—you will feel weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to keep the fear at bay. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart—you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. And so on.”

Seems like he is changing the traditional meaning of "atheist".

 

[Ekklesian]

Why does the non-dispensational view of the everlasting land promise spiritualize the land? And tangentially why does the “everlasting” promise terminate in the church-age?

First, the land is going to go away. So if the earthly real estate was the end of the promise, is it the termination of the promise that you halt at, or its timing?

 

[Ekklesian]

Bull spittle. There’s no such thing as an “atheist.” In the words of David Foster Wallace:

“In the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And an outstanding reason for choosing some sort of God or spiritual-type thing to worship—be it J.C. or Allah, be it Yahweh or the Wiccan mother-goddess or the Four Noble Truths or some infrangible set of ethical principles—is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things—if they are where you tap real meaning in life—then you will never have enough. Never feel you have enough. It’s the truth. Worship your own body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly, and when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally plant you. On one level, we all know this stuff already—it’s been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, bromides, epigrams, parables: the skeleton of every great story. The trick is keeping the truth up-front in daily consciousness. Worship power—you will feel weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to keep the fear at bay. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart—you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. And so on.”

It doesn't matter if they're atheist or not, what percentage are Christian?

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

Philosophically, I believe it’s possible to be agnostic, but not atheistic. That’s probably a topic for a different thread….

 

[Ransom]

Why does the non-dispensational view of the everlasting land promise spiritualize the land? And tangentially why does the “everlasting” promise terminate in the church-age?

First, the land promises were conditional. Israel would occupy the land as long as they remained faithful and if they drove out the pagans that were already occupying it. The Israelites in many cases chose to share the land with the Canaanite tribes, hence the constant battles to retain it (e.g. in Judges). It was from them by the Assyrians and Babylonians as a judgment for their apostasy, and although they returned to it, they basically remained a vassal state of an occupying empire (e.g. Babylon, Persian, Greek, Roman). Nonetheless, the Scriptures also tell us that God kept his promise.

Second, God promises Abraham, "I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God" (Gen. 17:8). A little later, he says, concerning the circumcision of every male descendant, "So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant" (13). The word translated "everlasting" is the same in both verses: owlam. It doesn't have the meaning of "without end," but it's more like "for a long, indefinite time." Circumcision is not a practice without end: Paul writes Galatians to tell them mandatory circumcision is an antirequisite to New Covenant inclusion. The land promise to Abraham is an "everlasting" covenant in the same sense that circumcision is an "everlasting" covenant.

The claim of "spiritualizing" doesn't hold water, when we are simply pointing out what the inspired authors of Scripture have said, literally, on the matter.

 

[ALAYMAN]

First, the land promises were conditional. Israel would occupy the land as long as they remained faithful and if they drove out the pagans that were already occupying it. The Israelites in many cases chose to share the land with the Canaanite tribes, hence the constant battles to retain it (e.g. in Judges). It was from them by the Assyrians and Babylonians as a judgment for their apostasy, and although they returned to it, they basically remained a vassal state of an occupying empire (e.g. Babylon, Persian, Greek, Roman). Nonetheless, the Scriptures also tell us that God kept his promise.

Second, God promises Abraham, "I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God" (Gen. 17:8). A little later, he says, concerning the circumcision of every male descendant, "So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant" (13). The word translated "everlasting" is the same in both verses: owlam. It doesn't have the meaning of "without end," but it's more like "for a long, indefinite time." Circumcision is not a practice without end: Paul writes Galatians to tell them mandatory circumcision is an antirequisite to New Covenant inclusion. The land promise to Abraham is an "everlasting" covenant in the same sense that circumcision is an "everlasting" covenant.

The claim of "spiritualizing" doesn't hold water, when we are simply pointing out what the inspired authors of Scripture have said, literally, on the matter.

Thanks for the explanation. As I’ve stated previously on the forum, I’ve not really been exposed to nondispensational teachings (nor have I personally investigated competing eschatological frameworks with any serious effort) so I appreciate the practical insight of rationale for some alternative models.

Having stated those qualifiers, and working backwards regarding your answer, I didn’t mean “spiritualize” in an accusatory or pejorative sense. It was used more akin to saying that the interpretive scheme (of non-didpensational thought) takes an element of physical promise and turns it into a spiritual one, sort of like if somebody would say that Jesus’ claim to resurrect didn’t have to be a physical resurrection but could have been a heavenly one. All of our ultimate blessings find their root in Christ but that doesn’t negate the enjoyment of the material elements of life.

I will lump your first and second arguments into one response. I had tentatively discovered the argument that everlasting doesn’t mean forever without end, but haven’t ran that argument through any serious study yet so I’ll leave that alone for now, except to say that whatever the purpose of God for granting the land was that it seemed to have a purpose of providing rest from “the world”(warring pagan attacks), but since that would never had been a perpetual status then it stands to reason that it’s fulfillment for that purpose won’t occur until the lion and lamb are at peace in the millennium. In that sense, according to ALAYMANology, lol, the “everlasting” terminus has yet to occur (as evidenced like you noted with regard to their multiplied expulsion and returns to the land, and to that same process going on in our own lifetime).

But one question for clarification as to your claim to “conditional” status for the Abrahamic covenant (which probably is at the heart of where I probably actually do disagree with you). In what sense are you defining the Abrahamic covenant as conditional?

 

[ALAYMAN]

First, the land is going to go away.

What does this mean?

 

[Ransom]

Last part first:

But one question for clarification as to your claim to “conditional” status for the Abrahamic covenant (which probably is at the heart of where I probably actually do disagree with you). In what sense are you defining the Abrahamic covenant as conditional?

Conditional in the sense, as I said, that Israel's continued covenant faithfulness was the condition on which their possession of the Promised Land rested. As Joshua said to the Israelites:

Just as all the good things that the Lord your God promised concerning you have been fulfilled for you, so the Lord will bring upon you all the evil things, until he has destroyed you from off this good land that the Lord your God has given you, if you transgress the covenant of the Lord your God, which he commanded you, and go and serve other gods and bow down to them. Then the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you, and you shall perish quickly from off the good land that he has given to you. (Josh. 23:15-16)​

The Israelites' faith was already starting to fail; the apostasy of the next book is evidence of that.

God also commanded them to drive out the peoples already on the land:

"If you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then those of them whom you let remain shall be as barbs in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they shall trouble you in the land where you dwell. And I will do to you as I thought to do to them.” (Num. 33:55-56)​

They failed to do this. As a result, they were at constant conflict and never achieved the rest on the land that they were promised had they obeyed:

Now the angel of the Lord went up from Gilgal to Bochim. And he said, "I brought you up from Egypt and brought you into the land that I swore to give to your fathers. I said, 'I will never break my covenant with you, and you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall break down their altars.' But you have not obeyed my voice. What is this you have done? So now I say, I will not drive them out before you, but they shall become thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare to you." (Judg. 2:1-3)​

Whenever [a] judge died, they turned back and were more corrupt than their fathers, going after other gods, serving them and bowing down to them. They did not drop any of their practices or their stubborn ways. So the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he said, "Because this people have transgressed my covenant that I commanded their fathers and have not obeyed my voice, I will no longer drive out before them any of the nations that Joshua left when he died, in order to test Israel by them, whether they will take care to walk in the way of the Lord as their fathers did, or not." So the Lord left those nations, not driving them out quickly, and he did not give them into the hand of Joshua. (Judg. 2:19-23)​

I'll address your next [-to-last] paragraph in my next post, as this runs the risk of being lengthy.

 

[Ransom]

I will lump your first and second arguments into one response. I had tentatively discovered the argument that everlasting doesn’t mean forever without end, but haven’t ran that argument through any serious study yet so I’ll leave that alone for now, except to say that whatever the purpose of God for granting the land was that it seemed to have a purpose of providing rest from “the world”(warring pagan attacks), but since that would never had been a perpetual status then it stands to reason that it’s fulfillment for that purpose won’t occur until the lion and lamb are at peace in the millennium. In that sense, according to ALAYMANology, lol, the “everlasting” terminus has yet to occur (as evidenced like you noted with regard to their multiplied expulsion and returns to the land, and to that same process going on in our own lifetime).

That argument, it seems to me, requires begging the question. You're basically saying, "If the land promises haven't been literally fulfilled already, then they must await a literal fulfillment in the future, i.e. the Millennium."

However, Scripture says that the literal fulfillment of those promses has already occurred.

Canaan was promised to Abraham:

The Lord appeared to Abram and said, "To your offspring I will give this land." (Gen. 12:7)​

The Lord said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him, "Lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward, for all the land that you see I will give to you and to your offspring forever." (Gen. 13:14-15)​

More specifically, the land promise comprises "this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates" (Gen. 15:18).

Joshua conquered it:

Thus the Lord gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers. And they took possession of it, and they settled there. (Josh. 21:43)​

David reconquered the land lost during the time of the judges:

David also defeated Hadadezer the son of Rehob, king of Zobah, as he went to restore his power at the river Euphrates. (2 Sam. 8:3)​

Solomon ruled over it:

Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates to the land of the Philistines and to the border of Egypt. They brought tribute and served Solomon all the days of his life.... For he had dominion over all the region west of the Euphrates from Tiphsah to Gaza, over all the kings west of the Euphrates. And he had peace on all sides around him. (1 Ki. 4:21, 24)​

Joshua affirmed that God had kept his promise:

Thus the Lord gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers. And they took possession of it, and they settled there. And the Lord gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers. Not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the Lord had given all their enemies into their hands. Not one word of all the good promises that the Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass. (Josh. 21:43-45)​

You know in your hearts and souls, all of you, that not one word has failed of all the good things that the Lord your God promised concerning you. All have come to pass for you; not one of them has failed. (Josh. 23:14)​

Nehemiah reaffirmed it:

You found [Abraham's] heart faithful before you, and made with him the covenant to give to his offspring the land of the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Amorite, the Perizzite, the Jebusite, and the Girgashite. And you have kept your promise, for you are righteous. (Neh. 9:8)​

This is no "spiritual" application. It's simply what the biblical authors have said at face value concerning the promises of God. If anyone is "spiritualizing," it's the ones who say that for their fulfillment to be "literal," it has to await the Millennium.

 

[Ransom]

Having stated those qualifiers, and working backwards regarding your answer, I didn’t mean “spiritualize” in an accusatory or pejorative sense. It was used more akin to saying that the interpretive scheme (of non-didpensational thought) takes an element of physical promise and turns it into a spiritual one, sort of like if somebody would say that Jesus’ claim to resurrect didn’t have to be a physical resurrection but could have been a heavenly one. All of our ultimate blessings find their root in Christ but that doesn’t negate the enjoyment of the material elements of life.

"Spiritualize" is kind of a slippery word for Dispensationalists. Sometimes it means finding an allegorical or mystical meaning beyond the literal; other times it means finding a "spiritual" fulfillment in a biblical prophecy or promise.

Obviously I'm not doing allegory, and in fact I know of no evangelical non-Dispensationalists who rely on allegorical readings of the Bible, outside of what the Bible itself says is allegorical (e.g. Gal. 4:24ff, which is actually more like typology than allegory). The only evangelical Protestant I can recall that heavily relied on allegory for his reading of Scripture was Harold Camping, and not only did it lead him into serious error, but it just sounded ridiculous on the face of it. (On the other hand, I've also known a lot of Dispensationalists who found types in everything.)

And as for finding a spiritual application, I'm obviously also not doing that. But there is a notable exception in this discussion: Galatians 3:16, which says the promises to Abraham find their fulfillment in Christ--which is to say, they are fulfilled spiritually in the church. But Paul says so literally. If an inspired author says that a particular promise has a spiritual fulfillment, then a) that should settle the question, and b) that spiritual fulfillment is a literal fulfillment. I see no reason to seek a further fulfillment to what God-breathed Scripture already declares fulfilled.

 

[Ekklesian]

What does this mean?

The first earth is going to burn, right?

The 'Millennial Kingdom' comes to an end.