Israel Reborn (Part 1)
June 13th, 2007
(By Matt Waymeyer)
The Salvation of Israel in Romans 9-11
In Romans 9–11, the apostle Paul addresses the question of how to reconcile the faithfulness of God and the unbelief of Israel. In the words of Scott Hafemann:
Israel’s rejection of the Messiah seems to call into question God’s faithfulness to the very covenant promises and privileges outlined in [Romans 9:4–5], promises and privileges which entail and imply the eschatological redemption of Israel. For Paul it is thus God’s word and consequently his trustworthiness which is ultimately at stake.
The apostle’s assertion in Romans 9:6a addresses this dilemma directly and establishes the theme for the entirety of Romans 9–11: “But it is not as though the word of God has failed.” In other words, in spite of the fact that most of Israel has rejected the Messiah, God’s covenant promises to His chosen nation nevertheless have not failed. God is faithful, and He will fulfill His promises.
To support this claim, Paul begins in 9:6b–13 by reminding his readers that God never promised to save every ethnic Israelite, for there is a spiritual Israel within physical Israel which is the recipient of that promise. This leads to Paul’s question in 9:14a about whether or not God is just in choosing to save only some of the Jews. Paul responds to this question in 9:14b–29 by affirming God’s justice and His sovereign right to do as He pleases. This, in turn, leads to the question in 9:30–31 of why the Gentiles have attained righteousness while Israel did not. Paul responds in 9:32–10:21 by setting forth the failure of the Jews to embrace Christ and the gospel.
This description of the failure of the majority of the Jews to embrace the Messiah leads to Paul’s question in 11:1a, which is repeated in 11:2a. His question is whether or not—in light of Israel’s disobedience and obstinacy (10:21)—God has permanently rejected His chosen people, the nation He set His love upon. His immediate reply is an emphatic negative—“May it never be!” God has not rejected Israel. In the remainder of Romans 11, Paul expounds on His answer to the question.
In 11:1–10, Paul asserts that the present hardening and unbelief of Israel is only partial (for a believing remnant does exist), and in 11:11–32 he asserts that it is only temporary (for the nation as a whole will one day be saved). There will be a time, Paul says, when Israel’s “transgression” and “failure” will give way to her “fulfillment” (v. 12), when her rejection by God becomes her acceptance by Him (v. 15), and when her unbelief turns to belief and she is grafted in again (vv. 23–24). The current hardening that has come upon the majority of Israel will be removed at the end of the age (v. 25), and in this way all Israel will be saved (v. 26a). This salvation of the nation at the time of Christ’s return will be the fulfillment of Old Testament promises and ultimately the fulfillment of the New Covenant itself (vv. 26b–27).
Until that time, however, the nation of Israel can be regarded from two perspectives. From the perspective of her rejection of the gospel, she is the enemy of God, but from the perspective of God’s choice of the nation as His own possession, she is still beloved (v. 28), for God will not go back on the promises He made to her forefathers (v. 29). As Thomas Schreiner writes:
The salvation of Israel at the end of history, then, is the fulfillment of the covenantal promises that were made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God will not forsake his people but has pledged, in accordance with his covenantal love, to graft them again onto the olive tree.
In this way, as Hafemann notes, Romans 11:25–32 provides “the last and perhaps the most important support” for Paul’s assertion in Romans 9:6a. Why has God’s word not failed? Because, just as He has promised, all Israel will be saved.
To Be Concluded Tomorrow
This salvation of the nation at the time of Christ’s return will be the fulfillment of Old Testament promises and ultimately the fulfillment of the New Covenant itself (vv. 26b–27).
Why does the OT already proclaim that those promises were, indeed, already fulfilled?
So the LORD gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they possessed it and lived in it. And the LORD gave them rest on every side, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers, and no one of all their enemies stood before them; the LORD gave all their enemies into their hand. Not one of the good promises which the LORD had made to the house of Israel failed; all came to pass. - Joshua 21:43-45
And now I am about to go the way of all the earth, and 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. - Joshua 23:14
Blessed be the Lord who has given rest to his people Israel, according to all that he promised. Not one word has failed of all his good promise, which he spoke by Moses his servant. - 1 Kings 8:56
What does the dispensational argument say to folks who believe in a future for ethnic Israel, but believe that the Chuch is the new Spiritual Israel? This is the view Schreiner himself espouses: http://www.sbts.edu/docs/tschreiner/SBT13.pdf . What is the appropriate response to such an idea?
Brian,
That’s anachronistic. The first two verses you cited were written well in advance of the reign of David. Joshua talks about Jebusites inhabiting Jerusalem in 15:63. In 2 Samuel 5:5-9, there is recorded David’s order to expunge the Jebusites. They were captured, and the city was gained.
The verse in 1 Kings was announced by Solomon (died ca. 931 BC), which was before the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel.
The verses you’ve cited simply affirm God’s fulfilling the promises He made up until those times that those statements were recorded. To say that a statement in 950 BC — much less in 1385 BC — recorded the fulfillment of promises made in the 700s BC is anachronistic.
Hope this helps,
MIKE
Mike,
The claim of this post is that the promises made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob have not yet been fulfilled, but will be at the end of time. Here is the quote straight from the post:
The salvation of Israel at the end of history, then, is the fulfillment of the covenantal promises that were made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
My reply was straight from Scripture, which said that the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were completely fulfilled.
So the LORD gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they possessed it and lived in it. And the LORD gave them rest on every side, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers
How is that anachronistic?
Before you jump to other books like Isaiah and Ezekiel, you must first address the reality that ALL of God’s promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - according to Scripture itself - have already been fulfilled.
Here again the silence is deafening. Where is there any reference to land? It’s not there. What is there instead is a salvation for Israel that is on the same terms as the Gentiles. Anyone who does not “persist in unbelief” (11:23) will be grafted in.
This whole section is related to the covenant of “forgiveness of sins” (11:27), not lands or physical kingdoms.
Brian,
Joshua 21:43-45 seems to limited by its context, the chapter’s talking about the cities of the Levites in the land of Canaan (a Genesis 17:8 promise, and one which in any case was a promise of “little by little” fulfillment, Deut 7:22, which was happening), rather than the “from the river of Egypt as far as the great river Euphrates” promise of Gen 15:18-21 that later Bible books mention still hasn’t been fulfilled.
jsb,
I can’t stay silent, my conscience and heart are very heavy as I see what is going on with the nation of Israel now, the genocidal schemes against them with few standing with them. So, to your question about reference to the land, I’d say look to what Romans 9-11 is referring to from the OT and it will take you back to land verses. For example, Romans 10:19 about provoking unbelieving Jews to jealousy is a quote from Deuteronomy 32 that includes the Song of Moses, God’s plan for Israel told to Moses in advance, which ends with this that clearly shows a distinction between “his land” and “his people”:
“Rejoice, O nations, with His people; For He will avenge the blood of His servants, and will render vengeance on His adversaries, and will atone for His land and His people.”
Come on guys, I beg you, look around and look back at these last 100 years and see that the geo-specific promises of Zechariah and Ezekiel seem to be close, there’s just not much left to negotiate in the Arab-Israeli conflict except that “cup of trembling” and “burdensome stone,” Jerusalem.
Great article, Matt!
Progressive dispies see Israel as both a spiritual reality, i.e. the remnant, and still an ethnic reality. Viz. as Matt, has convincingly argued, there is a subset of “ethnic Jews” who is the “not all Israel is Israel” of 9:6. Very clear and articulate points, Matt.
JSB,
In response to my treatment of Romans 9-11, you wrote: “Here again the silence is deafening. Where is there any reference to land? It’s not there.” Are you sure you want to accuse me of using an argument from silence, especially since I never mentioned the land in my article?
Of course, I do believe in the restoration of Israel to the land, but that wasn’t the point of my article. Just like the apostle Paul believed in the restoration of Israel to the land even though that wasn’t the point of Romans 9-11.
“And this shall be the plague wherewith the Lord will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth”…………………Zechariah 14:12
First, let me say congratulations to John MacArthur for being named the 2nd worst person of the year by John Oblemann. The Apostle Paul said, “He was the chief of sinners and a murderer” — John MacArthur is in very good company. Hopefully next year — he will win the Award for preaching the truth of God’s Word!
Now my comment about the above. The major problem that needs to be addressed is the understanding between Israel and the Church. Until we understand that Israel was the Church in its infancy and Pentecost began the New Testament church, you will have this crazy understanding of land and a Jewish Kingdom on earth.
During this earthly 1000 year reign of Christ there will still be death (Why? — ridiculous), people will still be marrying and having children (Again ridiculous — in glorified bodies?), the temple will be rebuilt (Why?) and animal sacrifices will start again (Why? — not for a memorial). Prophetic apocalyptic passages are not literal or you come up with these ridiculous assertions.
Look at most Dispensational commentaries on Acts 15 when it talks about “Rebuilding the fallen tent of Israel…” Clearly James understood that the fallen tent of Israel was the Church where Gentiles and Jews would be one in Christ! The Dispensationalists make a whole chronology out of this concerning eschatology — I need a lawyer to understand this LOL.
The Church is a defintely a “royal preisthood and a holy nation”, as Israel was.
Jerusalem was judged, because they killed God’s Son. They were cut off. The Temple was destroyed, and Christ is now building His New Temple, and New Jerusalem, which is His poeple, both Jews and Greeks.
However, in Romans 11 Paul says Israel will be grafted back in. This to me has to mean national Israel. It can’t mean Jews, for Paul was already grafted in, as were many Jews.
This was a good study. Thanks.
Brian,
It seems that the primary problem you have with this article is my claim that the salvation of all Israel will take place in fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I believe this is indicated in Romans 9-11 itself.
First, in Paul’s metaphor in Romans 11:16b-24, I see the root of the tree as referring to Abraham and the tree itself being the covenant God made with him. Consequently, when Paul refers to the nation of Israel being grafted back into the tree when Israel is saved at the end of the age (Rom 11:23-27), this tells me that this salvation is in fulfillment of these covenant promises. I realize there are many different views on the identity of the tree — if you’d like, I can point you to resources that provide evidence for my interpretation.
Second, Paul makes it crystal clear in Romans 11:28-29 that the salvation of all Israel at the end of the age will come as a result of God’s faithfulness to keep his promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For a discussion of these verses, see The Dual Status of Israel in Romans 11:28.
Third, as I sought to demonstrate in the article, the main point of Paul’s argument in Romans 9-11 is that God’s covenant promises have not failed (Rom 9:6a). Therefore, when Paul provides “the last and most important support” for his assertion in Romans 9:6a, it becomes clear that the salvation of all Israel at the end of the age (Rom 11:26) will take place in fulfillment of these promises.
Incidentally, my goal is posting this article was not to argue for my view of Romans 11:26 — I don’t think that can be done effectively in a blog post. My goal was simply to show how my view of Israel’s salvation fits into the flow of Paul’s argument in Romans 9-11 as a whole. I thought this might be helpful for those who share my view as well as for those who don’t. If you want to do further study to understand the reasons I take this view, I invite you to read The Identity of “All Israel” in Romans 11:26.
Shalom.
Brian,
You wrote that “ALL of God’s promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—according to Scripture itself—have already been fulfilled.” I understand that you are seeking to be faithful to a straightforward reading of Joshua 21:43-45, but do you really believe that? For example, do you believe that God’s promise to bless the nations through Abraham and His descendants was already fulfilled at the time of Joshua 21? It’s hard to imagine that you do, but such sweeping statements are difficult to interpret in any other way.
To comment briefly on Joshua 21:43-45, I see this passage as indicating an initial and partial fulfillment of the covenant promises to Abraham. Part of the difficulty of the issue is that Joshua 21 clearly says that Israel possessed all the land promised to her by Yahweh, and yet other passages in Joshua indicate there was remaining land to be conquered and possessed (Josh 13:1-17; 15:63; 16:10; 17:12-13, 17-18; 23:4-6, 12-13). It is not an easy issue to resolve. Calvin referred to it as an apparent contradiction.
Regardless of how we solve this dilemma, however, keep in mind the historical context of these passages in Joshua. Prior to their entrance into the promised land, God said that if Israel obeyed the Mosaic Law, she would experience Abrahamic blessing (Lev 26:1-13; Deut 28:1-14), but if Israel disobeyed the Law, she would experience curses (Lev 26:14-46; Deut 28:15-68). With regard to the promised land, if Israel was not faithful to keep the Mosaic Covenant, she would be dispersed from the land (Lev 26:32-33; Deut 28:63-64), but if she was faithful to the Mosaic Covenant, her days in the land would be blessed and prolonged (Lev 26:5-6; Deut 28:8).
In this way, God’s promise that the nation would possess the land was certain and eternal (the Abrahamic Covenant), but the occupation of the land and enjoyment of the blessings by any given generation of Jews was conditioned upon obedience to the Law (the Mosaic Covenant). Put another way, adherence to the Mosaic Covenant would enable a given generation of Israel to experience the blessings promised in the Abrahamic Covenant, but unfaithfulness to the Mosaic Covenant would delay the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises until a later time and a later generation.
This leads me to Deuteronomy 30:1-10. Moses and the people of Israel are on the plains of Moab, on the verge of taking the land the Lord promised her. He has just warned Israel that if she is not faithful to keep the Mosaic Law, she will be torn from the land she is about to enter and she will be scattered among the nations (Deut 28:63-64). Then, in Deuteronomy 30 –prior to her entrance of the land — the Lord makes it clear that this will indeed happen: Israel will be unfaithful to the Mosaic Covenant and will, as a result, be dispersed from the land and scattered among the nations (Deut 30:1; see Deut 31:14-22 and Josh 23:16).
This judgment, however, is not the final word, for in the verses that follow the Lord declares that some time after Israel is dispersed, He will grant to her repentance and a circumcised heart, and she will be restored to the land and experience the blessing originally promised to her in the Abrahamic Covenant (Deut 30:2-10). This happens, of course, just as God has promised, when the Northern Kingdom falls to Assyria in 722 B.C. (2 Kings 17:6) and the Southern Kingdom falls to Babylon in 586 B.C. (2 Kings 25:1-21; Jer 39:1-10). This is exactly what the Lord predicted back in Deuteronomy 30:1 (and Deut 31:14-22) — Israel has broken the Mosaic Covenant, and as a result she is dispersed from the promised land.
But this is not the end of the story. After all, God has promised Israel that He will restore her once again to the land “which your fathers possessed” (Deut 30:5). In fact, that’s why you see the promise of restoration continuing throughout the prophets who prophesied after Joshua 21 (e.g., Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:1-16; 14:1-2; 27:1-13; 35:1, 10; 43:5-6; 49:8-13; 59:15b-21; 62:4-7; 66:10-20; Jer 3:11-20; 12:14-17; 16:10-18; 23:1-8; 24:5-7; 28:1-4; 29:1-14; 30:1-3, 10-11; 31:2-14; 32:36-44; 42:1-22; 50:17-20; Ezek 11:14-20; 20:33-44; 28:25-26; 34:11-16, 23-31; 36:16-36; 37:1-28; 39:21-29; Hosea 1:10-11; 2:14-23; 14:4-7; Joel 3:18-21; Amos 9:11-15; Obadiah 17, 21; Micah 4:6-7; 7:14-20; Zeph 3:14-20; Zech 8:7-8; 10:6-12; and 14:11).
When God says, “I will restore them to their own land which I gave to their fathers” (Jer 16:15), He is alluding to the promise He made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to give the land as an everlasting possession (Gen 17:8). The land promised by the prophets doesn’t just happen to be the same land promised to Abraham, as if it were some kind of amazing coincidence, but rather these promises are a reiteration and continuation of the promise made to Abraham.
Frankly, when people use Joshua 21:43-45 as a proof-text to say that God will not restore the nation of Israel to the promised land, it makes me wonder how they interpret Deuteronomy 30:1-10. In this passage, God says that one day after Israel is dispersed, He will bring her back into the very same land from which she was dispersed. Which land is that, and if the restoration to this land is not future, when did it happen?
Brian, please don’t feel pressure to respond. But in addition, please know that the issue is not as simple as quoting Joshua 21:43-45 and considering the case closed.
Blessings.
When Hilter had 6 million Jews murdered, I believe this was one of God’s judgements on the Jewish people for denying their Messiah, Christ Jesus, however, this was God’s plan of restoration………had it not been for this genocide, Israel would not have been recognized as an independent nation in 1948, in which millions of Jews have been regathering since.
How can one not see that as prophecy fulfilled?
When Hilter had 6 million Jews murdered, I believe this was one of God’s judgements on the Jewish people for denying their Messiah, Christ Jesus, however, this was God’s plan of restoration………had it not been for this genocide, Israel would not have been recognized as an independent nation in 1948, in which millions of Jews have been regathering since.
Cindy….are you OUT OF YOUR MIND!!!!????!!!???!!!
The Nazi holocaust was a result of the perverted sin of Hitler and his followers. How dare you say that it was a judgment of God!! That is one of the most ludicrous, offensive, ignorant, and un-biblical statements I have ever heard in my life.
I would seriously like to see that deleted.
WOW………..my goodness! What do you think the 7 year tribulation will be…………blessings from God’s Hands.
Art if you don’t like the comment that is alright…..you are entitled to your sentiments.
But I do know that when Jesus was on the cross, a statement was made……”His blood be on us and our children”, which was indeed prophetic.
Oh and Art, what do think will happen to people who reject Christ? Is God going to give them a mansion in Heaven with a mercedes benz?
People who repeatedly reject God’s Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, whether they are Jews or Gentiles WILL be judged. THe Bible is very lucid on that (Romans 1).
People who reject Christ go to Hell and suffer eternal torment for Eternity.
art, I’m not “Cindy H” but Cindy “L”, but regarding the Holocaust comment of the other Cindy, she did not “say that it was a judgment of God,” rather she opined that it was her personal belief that this was so - “I believe this one of God’s judgements [sic]…,” nor did Cindy H. deny the human depravity or satanic causational aspects, but perhaps by her comment was just noting divine superintendence, not necessarily direct causation or exclusive causation. God does use evil nations as his rod, so I don’t think it’s outrageous for her to believe this, though I don’t think scripture requires this belief either. Regardless, your objection was noted and such response may be the way to go rather than taking potentially offensive, but personal opinions underground.
Thanks Matt for all the scripture, it’ll keep me busy.
People who repeatedly reject God’s Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, whether they are Jews or Gentiles WILL be judged. THe Bible is very lucid on that (Romans 1).
And you know how God works out all his judgments? Do you have direct line to his throne room, or how does that work?
Romans 1 certainly states that those who reject Christ will be judged, but where, in Scripture, can one find that the Holocaust was a judgment of God? I’ll give you a hint: you can’t.
And I don’t believe in a 7 year tribulation. I’m amill.
I don’t deny that people will go to hell forever, I just believe that your statement was on par with Pat Robertson saying that 9-11 was God judging America for her sins. Both are completely unjustified Biblically, completely baseless, and completely detached from reality.
I see no problem with Cindy’s statement. Isn’t that why Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 ad, because of unbelief?
And no, it’s not “anti-semitic” to say that. We true Christians LOVe the Jews.
70 AD was prophesied…therefore Biblically defensible.
The Holocaust was not…and is, therefore, an unbiblical statement that cannot, and should not, be justified.
Sorry David, but it does smack of anti-Semitism. I am currently doing my Ph.D. under a rabbi at the University of Pennsylvania. If I said anything like what Cindy said I’m sure he would either (1) punch me in the face, (2) kick me out of the Ph.D. program for being an idiot, or (3) kick me in the face.
Matt,
Hasn’t Israel been restored back to the land promised (and fulfilled in Joshua 21) on more than one occasion since the blessings & curses in Deut. 30:1-10?
Additionally, I didn’t simply quote Joshua 21 and consider the case closed. You are the one who quoted Schreiner in support of your position as saying, The salvation of Israel at the end of history, then, is the fulfillment of the covenantal promises that were made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
I was simply showing from Scripture that at least ONE very huge part of your position cannot be supported because the land promises, according to the passages I quoted above, have already been fulfilled by God. And, when I used the word ‘all’ to refer to the promises given to Abraham, Isaac & Jacob, I was referring to the land promises specifically.
Your whole dispensational framework lives or dies upon future land promises for Israel. If you can’t convincingly prove from Scripture that there still exists some land promise that is as yet unfulfilled, then you have no basis for the rest of your endtimes theology.
Of course, this is not the time to demonstrate the other serious errors of dispy doctrine with respect to its mishandling of Daniel 9:27, and its teaching that there will be some future temple where sacrifices will take place in the very presence of Christ, or how it can be that sin will still exist upon the new earth after the reutn of Chrsit and the resurrection of all things (which takes place at His return)…but I digress.
I envy you, Art! That must be fantastic. Here’s a question from an everyday schlub to all you learned pastors and seminary students:
I always assumed that Ezekiel’s temple (yet future) had animal sacrifices because it was during the first half of the beast’s treaty period and was being run by non-messianic Jews who didn’t (yet) believe in Yeshua. This same temple would then be defiled by the beast’s image, the abmoniation that causes desolation. Therefore, it was not during the Millenial Reign at all, but the first half of the Tribulation. I’m sure my chronology is fatally flawed somehow so please help me sort out the details by giving me scriptures to refute this theory. It is a pleasure to study the word with such a diverse and astute group as the opsters on this site and John MacArthur.
Brian,
You wrote: “Hasn’t Israel been restored back to the land promised (and fulfilled in Joshua 21) on more than one occasion since the blessings & curses in Deut. 30:1-10?”
It sounds like you’re saying that, subsequent to her dispersion, the nation of Israel has already been restored to her land in fulfillment of Deut 30:1-10. Am I understanding you correctly? If so, when exactly was that?
Do you think that all the promises of restoration to the land found in the prophets have already been fulfilled as well?
David,
You must first prove that there is a “tribulation” at the end of history. Where do you get that from?
Thanks.
Matt,
It’s not nice to answer a question with a question (smiling here).
There were no hidden motives in my question. here it is again:
Hasn’t Israel been restored back to the land promised (and fulfilled in Joshua 21) on more than one occasion since the blessings & curses in Deut. 30:1-10?
Thanks.
Brian,
You wrote: “It’s not nice to answer a question with a question (smiling here).”
I thought it was a rhetorical question, but fair enough. My simple answer is that neither the promise in Deuteronomy 30:1-10 nor numerous promises of restoration to the land throughout the prophets were fulfilled in the nation’s returns to the land under Zerubbabel (536 B.C.), Ezra (557 B.C.), or Nehemiah (445 B.C.).
Your turn: When do you think Deuteronomy 30:1-10 was fulfilled? When do you think the land promises I listed above were fulfilled?
If the promises of the prophets are to be taken in a physical, literal way, then how did Christ get to the point where he was calling John the Baptist “Elijah”? That’s not literal. John the Baptist, literally and physically, was not “Elijah.” But Christ said that he was.
Seems dispensationalists need to prove why the land promises (a) are to be taken literally when this prophecy, interpreted by Christ, was not interpreted literally, (b) are not talked about by the NT authors as being a future reality (even in Rom 9-11, however you interpret it), (c) have not been fulfilled in Christ…especially his declaration that all authority in heaven and earth (the earth, as it were, includes Israel) was given to him.
Art, I am not going to argue with you…….that would be a waste of MY TIME and as for anti-semitic, you with presumption, judged my heart which you do not have the omniscience to do so, even though you are getting your p.h.d. Remember, let not the wise man boast in his wisdom.
Was that statement that you had to tell everyone about sitting under a rabbi as you get your p.h.d supposed to give you more clout?
I don’t care if you are the president of the United States, don’t they teach you how to talk to people that disagree with you at that lovely university in the great state of Pennsylvania in which I live? Oh, I forgot, this state of PA is bankrupt, as per Ed Rendell, so I guess the universities are running out of PROPER teachers.
And Art, I would hate to be sitting under your teaching in your classroom…….you might toss me a hand grenaide because I offended you. You need to learn self-control and how to respond to people who offend you, especially with your IMPORTANT pursuit in life.
Am I supposed to respect you more and suddenly agree with you because you are sitting under a rabbi? Does that make you right?
Your high and mightyness is overwhelming.
Hi Brian,
You wrote: Your whole dispensational framework lives or dies upon future land promises for Israel. If you can’t convincingly prove from Scripture that there still exists some land promise that is as yet unfulfilled, then you have no basis for the rest of your endtimes theology.
I believe there are many postexilic passages that show that the land promises of the Abrahamic Covenant were still in effect after the time of Joshua, and also after the exile. Here is one such passage, from Ezekiel 37:21ff.
***
Thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I will take the sons of Israel from among the nations where they have gone, and I will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land; and I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king will be king for all of them; and they will no longer be two nations and no longer be divided into two kingdoms. They will no longer defile themselves with their idols, or with their detestable things, or with any of their transgressions; but I will deliver them from all their dwelling places in which they have sinned, and will cleanse them. And they will be My people, and I will be their God.
My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd; and they will walk in My ordinances and keep My statutes and observe them. They will live on the land that I gave to Jacob My servant, in which your fathers lived; and they will live on it, they, and their sons and their sons’ sons, forever; and David My servant will be their prince forever.”
***
This a future promise made to Israel regarding a time in which Christ rules over His people. And the place is explicit: “the land that I gave to Jacob My servant, in which your fathers lived.”
- NB
Art,
You wrote: If the promises of the prophets are to be taken in a physical, literal way, then how did Christ get to the point where he was calling John the Baptist “Elijah”? That’s not literal. John the Baptist, literally and physically, was not “Elijah.” But Christ said that he was.
See this article for a typical premillennial response. If Matthew 11:14 is understood as the final fulfillment of Malachi 4:5, the amill must explain why John the Baptist denied that he was Elijah in John 1:21. To be sure, John the Baptist came in the “spirit and power” of Elijah (Luke 1:17). Both were preachers of repentance, and ”the two resembled each other also in the sudden character of their appearance, the incisiveness of their message, and the simplicity of their life” (Hendrickson on Matthew 11:14). But Christ’s words in Matthew 17:11-13 indicate that, while John the Baptist partially fulfilled the promises of Malachi 4:5 (as a type of Elijah at Christ’s first advent [vv. 12-13]), there is yet a future fulfillment of that promise — a time in which “Elijah is coming and will restore all things” (v. 11).
Hope that helps,
NB
Matt,
You still have not answered my question. Is it not true that Israel as a nation has been scattered and brought back to the land on more than one occasion since Deut. 30:1-10? Why were none of the returns to the land fulfillment of what God promised in Deut. 30:1-10?
Personally, I don’t see why verses 1-5 & 7-10 can’t be fulfilled in any one of the instances where Israel returned to the land after being scattered.
Verse 6, however, sounds very much like salvation by grace, through faith. It has nothing to do with works of the law or circumcision of the flesh, but rather a circumcision of the heart, based upon the redemptive work of Christ. Seems very similar to other promises concerning removing a heart of stone and replacing it with a heart of flesh. This doesn’t sound physical, but spiritual.
I’m curious to hear how Brian @ voice of the sheep answers Matt’s question relative to Deut. 30, that’s a bit difficult given the context and proleptic nature of that particular context, for an amiller to deal with.
Also there seems to be some sweeping generalizations being made in regards to dispensationalists. There are Scofieldian Classic Dispys, Ryriean Revised Dispys, and Bockian Progressive Dispys; this should be kept in mind when making claims about dispys it’s engaging in caricature which isnt’ fruitful for dialogue. Prog. Disp. hold to a “now/not yet” paradigm which sees the Davidic reign of Christ happening “now”, and “not yet” fully realized in the Messianic Age (Ez. 36–37). The progression is spiritual (i.e. circumcised hearts/new heart), then physical (i.e. the messianic age and the realization of the Land Cov. Gen 15–17 which is tied to the conditional nature of the Davidic cov.).
As far as the Elijah point, obviously there is an prophetic office and role of “Elijah” that John the Baptist fulfilled, for the prog. dispy this presents to difficulty since we believe the Davidic kingdom really has been inaugurated with Christ’s first advent.
Matt:
“Just like the apostle Paul believed in the restoration of Israel to the land…”
Could you give me that reference?
Brian,
I have already answered your question, but since I am such a great guy, I will go the extra mile and even provide reasons for my answer! After that, I am hoping that you will answer the question and tell me when you think Deut 30:1-10 was fulfilled and when the land promises I listed above were fulfilled.
Deuteronomy 30 pictures a time when, subsequent to her dispersion (v. 1), Israel will return to the Lord her God and obey Him with all her heart and soul (v. 2). The Israelites will be gathered from all the peoples where the Lord scattered them (vv. 3-4). Once they are gathered, God will prosper and multiply them more than He did their forefathers (v. 5). At this time, the Lord will circumcise their hearts and the hearts of their descendants with the result that they will love God with all their heart (v. 6). None of these promises were fulfilled during the returns to the land under Zerubbabel, Ezra, or Nehemiah. If you disagree, please tell me when this was fulfilled and how you see these specific promises as having been fulfilled.
Regarding the land promises I listed above, let me give you ten reasons why I do not believe they were fulfilled under the returns under Zerubbabel, Ezra, or Nehemiah:
1. Several of the restoration promises speak of the ten tribes of the Northern Kingdom (Israel) being reunited with the two tribes of the Southern Kingdom (Judah), and this did not occur under the previous returns from exile (Isa 11:11-12; Jer 3:18; 23:5-6; 31:27: Ezek 37:21-22; Hosea 1:11; Zech 10:6).
2. Several of the restoration promises speak of the spiritual renewal and wholehearted obedience of the nation, and this cannot be reconciled with the sinful state of the nation during the previous returns (Deut 30:1-3, 6; Jer 3:17; 24:7; 32:38-40; Ezek 11:19-20; 36:26-27).
3. Scripture indicates that when the nation of Israel is restored, her land will be renewed and her cities will be rebuilt, and this did not happen during the previous returns (Ezek 36:29-30, 33-36a).
4. According to some of the restoration promises, the return of Israel will be so astounding that it will eclipse and overshadow the exodus out of Egypt and make it seem small in comparison, and such was clearly not the case with the previous returns (Jer 16:14-15; 23:5-8).
5. The prophet Zechariah held out the promise of restoration to the land even after the returns under Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah (Zech 8:4-8; 10:8-10; 14:1-21).
6. Several passages indicate that, at the time of the promised return to the land, the Jews will be as numerous as they were prior to the exile. In contrast, the population of the post-exilic period was small (Ezek 36:37b-38a; Jer 33:22; Zech 10:8).
7. Yahweh will destroy the nations to which He has scattered the Jews at the time that He restores the nation of Israel, but this did not happen in the previous returns (Jer 30:10-11; 46:28).
8. This promised return to the land is presented as an integral part of the New Covenant, which was not inaugurated until Christ’s first coming (Jer 31:27-40; Ezek 36:24-36).
9. Once God restores the Jews to their land, they will not be uprooted again from their everlasting possession (Amos 9:15: Jer 23:5-6; Ezek 34:28; 37:25).
10. God’s ultimate purpose for the promised return is the vindication of His name among the nations (Ezek 36:16-38), and this purpose was not met in the previous returns.
Still your turn: When do you think Deuteronomy 30:1-10 was fulfilled? When do you think the land promises I listed above were fulfilled?
Was that statement that you had to tell everyone about sitting under a rabbi as you get your p.h.d supposed to give you more clout?
I used it to prove a point. That the statement was not only unbiblical, but unloving as I’m sure any Jewish person would take complete offense to that disgusting statement.
I guess the universities are running out of PROPER teachers.
I’ll let Dr. Tigay know you think so.
you might toss me a hand grenaide because I offended you.
Probably not. I don’t think they allow those on campus.
Am I supposed to respect you more and suddenly agree with you because you are sitting under a rabbi? Does that make you right?
It certainly doesn’t make me correct, but it does show that I am in close relationship with someone who you said that God judged by killing about 6 million of his forefathers because they rejected Christ, which is a statement that is completely unbiblical and merely your opinion. I consider him not only an advisor and mentor, but also a friend, which shows why I took such offense to your baseless statement.
You need to learn self-control and how to respond to people who offend you, especially with your IMPORTANT pursuit in life.
Perhaps. I also think that you must think biblically when you make statements and not make statements about God’s judgment when you have absolutely zero biblical support.
Your high and mightyness is overwhelming.
Not sure where you are getting this. I made statements of fact to prove a point about my relationship with a Jewish rabbi, not to promote myself. Perhaps you should be the one worried about imputing false motives onto someone else’s comments….but then I could just be imputing some onto yours…and around we go.
Now, before your rant you made a statement about your belief that the Holocaust was a judgment of God. I was wondering if you would please give us some Scripture references which you base this conclusion on?
Nate:
Thanks for the link and the explanation. I don’t buy it, but thanks.
Wow, Matt, quite a case! And quite a Bible study..I’m saving this one
This a future promise made to Israel regarding a time in which Christ rules over His people. And the place is explicit: “the land that I gave to Jacob My servant, in which your fathers lived.”
Hi Nate,
I believe you are incorrect here. The passages you cited do not say the future promise fulfilled will be “a time in which Christ rules over His people”…but instead will be for ALL ETERNITY.
The very passages you cited appear to place the fulfillment of the promise, not in a 1000 year time frame, but forever, in the context of eternity.
Matt,
Honestly, I am not versed enough to give a thorough answer here concerning all the things you listed in your ten reasons. I still don’t see why any one (or all) of the returns to the land AFTER Deut. 30:1-10 can’t be a fulfillment of God’s blessing in Deut. 30:1-10. I don’t see what God says in His declaration of blessing and cursing in Deut 30 as a one-time promise, but rather as a conditional promise which relied upon Israel’s obedience and/or rebellion.
I also believe that much of this could simply be types and shadows, and therefore I am not sure that everything in these promises must be literally fulfilled (this is where I am admittedly not as well-versed as I should be).
Finally, I have noticed something in Nate’s comments and yours (maybe Nate agrees with you…I don’t know). You see above what I just wrote to Nate, and I will ask you the same thing concerning your remarks in your point #9. You say that Once God restores the Jews to their land, they will not be uprooted again from their everlasting possession…
Are you saying the Jews will physically live in the land that Israel took possession of under Joshua’s leadership for all of eternity? Nate seems to imply it will be for “a time”…but the passages he cited specifically say “forever”.
If this is to be taken literally as referring to an actual geographical location, and the Jews will occupy this physical location for all of eternity, and Christ will be their Prince forever…in this specific geographical location…then where will the saved Gentiles be (which includes myself)? Will I be in the same location, or will I be in some other location, with Jesus also as my Prince forever? If this is correct, why the separation between Jew and Gentile…especially since Paul declares that Christ came specifically to tear down the dividing wall of separation?
This is why I believe that much of this very well may be types and shadows…referring to something spiritual rather than to something strictly literal.
Thanks.
Even if I did give plenty of scripture support for the judgement of God on the Jews for rejecting their Messiah and for their disobedience, AND how God uses evil to accomplish His purposes, you would still turn this into a polemic merry-go-round.
Brian,
instead of pleading ignorance to many pertinent points Matt has raised; and then moving on to points that are contingent upon your response to those questions, as if you had dealt with them by pleading ignorance–why don’t you deal with those 10 points Matt has raised.
Revelation says there will be ethnic differentiation in the escaton . . . I don’t see that as posing a problem for the “Disp.” interpretation. Christ is the Davidic king over both Jews and Gentiles “forever”.
Bobby,
I am sorry that my reply did not satisfy you. As I already said, I am not prepared to specifically address each of Matt’s ten points. However, I did address one of them directly - Point #9.
Again, I apologize for my lack of knowledge to adequately respond to all of Matt’s points. His point #9, though, was one I did feel comfortable dealing with, which is why I asked questions (to both he and Nate) directly relating to that one.
Perhaps you can also help. Is this future coming together of the Jews in Israel something that will take place during the 1000 years, or is it something that will last forever (as the passages Nate quoted explicitly state)?
Revelation says there will be ethnic differentiation in the escaton
Can you tell me where I can find this, please?
Thanks.
Brian,
Hey, I’m about to pack up for the night and head home, so I’ll need to keep this short. I agree with Bobby that at some point you will need to deal with these ten points, especially before you can feel confident in seeing a fulfillment in one of those three returns to the land. Of course, that doesn’t mean you need to report back to me or to this comment thread when you do, but it might be wise for you to look into these passages and perhaps even ease up in the meantime on your dogmatic claims that these promises have already been fulfilled. As you study Deuteronomy 30, I think the circumcised heart of verse 6 will prove especially difficult for any kind of pre-Calvary fulfillment.
Regarding the possibility that Deuteronomy 30 may be a type or shadow which actually speaks of some kind of heavenly land (which is what you seemed to hint at, although I confess I wasn’t sure exactly what you were saying), I think there are serious problems with this as well. The main one is that Deuteronomy 30:1-10 speaks of the Israelites being restored to the very same land from which they were dispersed. Many of the other restoration promises make this clear as well.
Anyway, thank you for the interaction. I think I will take my place back on the sidelines and let you have the final word.
Blessings.
Matt,
Thanks for your reply, but…how come you chose not to answer my questions concerning your point #9?
Even if I did not address every single one of them, I did respond to that one in light of when (and how long) you think Israel will physically possess this land.
Before you step back onto the sidelines, can you address whether this promise of future land will be during the 1000 years, or for all eternity?
As I said before, Nate’s passages said they would possess it forever (and you said that once they get it they will always have it as an everlasting possession).
Can you please tell me if this will take place during the 1000 years, or will this be something that is a reality for all eternity?
Thanks.
Brian asked:
Revelation says there will be ethnic differentiation in the escaton.
Can you tell me where I can find this, please?
Revelation 21:24 says:
The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it.
That’s a “just for example”, there are other passages that would make the same point, esp. from the amil perspective (see Is. 2:1-4; Mic. 4:1-3).
It’s not that I wasn’t satisfied Brian, necessarily, it’s that you made some pretty strong claims about Joshua 21, and challenged Matt to respond. Matt responded, I believe, comprehensively and substantially, directly to your question, in context, on Josh.–and then you said you weren’t well versed as a response (except for your thoughts on quest. #9). At least, in light of your “lack of response” (and I say that in all humility, not trying to be contentious)in the future you might consider not coming off as forcefully as you did on the Joshua passage intially.
Brian said:
Is this future coming together of the Jews in Israel something that will take place during the 1000 years, or is it something that will last forever (as the passages Nate quoted explicitly state)?
I think both/and. Which as an Prog. Dispy doesn’t pose a problem for me since I see Gentiles “grafted in” to the promises initially made to ethnic Israel (cf. Eph. 2:11ff). After the “Messianic Age” (1000 millenium) the Jerusalem we know today will be “swallowed” up, as it were, by the New Jerusalem. I see Jerusalem and spatial locale relative to the Lord’s presence, in other words I think locality and spatial demarkation should be understood by God’s relation to it . . . if He has deemed Jerusalem in time/space history as significant to his unfolding salvation history, then so should we. I believe Jerusalem in time/space is ultimately the “type” of the yet future eschatological “New Jerusalem”; much as the Levitic Temple and holy of holies in the Bible is a real “type” of God’s throneroom and intensity of presence in heaven. Conversely if you do a motif study of “Land” in the Bible it becomes clear that the “Land” given to Israel is God’s reification of “Eden” and His promise to restore “Eden” lost with “Eden” eschatological (i.e. New Jerusalem). Anyway I’ve made many points that would need to be developed further, but hopefully you see more where I am coming from, Brian.
In Christ
As I stated before, I am ill-equipped to attempt to put into words a coherent response to all of Matt’s ten points, in which he outlines why he believes there still remains a future fulfillment of land to ethnic Israel. I would like to quote some excerpts from a document which I believe accurately speaks for me and my beliefs. The document is called An Open Letter to Evangelicals and Other Interested Parties: The People of God, the Land of Israel, and the Impartiality of the Gospel. If you haven’t already, I encourage reading it in its entirety. Here are some passages from that letter that I believe put forth my position on this matter:
The inheritance promises that God gave to Abraham were made effective through Christ, Abraham’s True Seed. These promises were not and cannot be made effective through sinful man’s keeping of God’s law. Rather, the promise of an inheritance is made to those only who have faith in Jesus, the True Heir of Abraham. All spiritual benefits are derived from Jesus, and apart from him there is no participation in the promises…The people of God, whether the church of Israel in the wilderness in the Old Testament or the Israel of God among the Gentile Galatians in the New Testament, are one body who through Jesus will receive the promise of the heavenly city, the everlasting Zion. This heavenly inheritance has been the expectation of the people of God in all ages.
The entitlement of any one ethnic or religious group to territory in the Middle East called the “Holy Land” cannot be supported by Scripture. In fact, the land promises specific to Israel in the Old Testament were fulfilled under Joshua. The New Testament speaks clearly and prophetically about the destruction of the second temple in A.D. 70. No New Testament writer foresees a regathering of ethnic Israel in the land, as did the prophets of the Old Testament after the destruction of the first temple in 586 B.C. Moreover, the land promises of the Old Covenant are consistently and deliberately expanded in the New Testament to show the universal dominion of Jesus, who reigns from heaven upon the throne of David, inviting all the nations through the Gospel of Grace to partake of his universal and everlasting dominion.
Still looking for that passage which shows “Paul believed in the restoration of Israel to the land.”
I’d really like to interact with it. Anyone?
jsb,
I think it’s somewhere in the book of Hezekiah.
Brian,
Since Matt’s out for the evening, I’ll take a shot at responding to your questions about the word “forever” and “everlasting” being used in passages like Ezekiel 37.
The word used for “forever” in this passage (and consistently throughout similar passages) is “olam.” According to The Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains, “olam” can mean “everlasting” but can also mean “ancient” or simply “lasting, for a duration, i.e., an undetermined duration of time without reference to other points of time, with a focus of no anticipated end, but nevertheless may have limits.” In other words, “olam” does not always mean “forever” in the sense of the English word “forever.” It can mean, rather, a very long period of time.
This is in keeping with the consensus of Hebrew scholarship. Depending on the context, “olam” can refer to ““indefinite continuance into the very distant future” (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament).
There are places, in fact, where “olam” is given limits that indicate it is sometimes tied to the duration of this earth, as opposed to “eternity” in the broader sense. For example, in Ecclesiastes 1:4, Solomon writes, “A generation goes and a generation comes, But the earth remains forever” (olam). Here the concept of “olam” is directly tied to the duration of this planet.
Thus, though it is often translated “forever,” we must not force our own concepts of eternity into what the word actually means.
In Jeremiah 31:35-36 we have a similar connection made, though the word “forever” in this passage is not “olam” (and is more directly translated “all the days”).
***
Thus says the LORD,
Who gives the sun for light by day
And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night,
Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar;
The LORD of hosts is His name:
“If this fixed order departs
From before Me,” declares the LORD,
“Then the offspring of Israel also will cease
From being a nation before Me forever.”
***
Here again we have God’s promises to Israel tied into the duration of the present creation.
Thus, the promise of “olam” is that the earthly, national kingdom of Israel will last until the end of this world. It does not, therefore, conflict with the establishment of a new earth (Rev. 21–22) – in which there is no sun or sea – after this earth is destroyed (2 Pet. 3:10ff).
Hope that helps,
NB
Jsb,
it’s an inductive biblical theological point, which Matt’s comments have more than adequately, in my view, highlighted. The Land Covenant is tied to ethnic Israel in Deut. 30:1-10, this seems pretty apparent . . . and neither of you fellows, JSB or Brian, have dealt with the gauntlet, so to speak
, that our brother Matt has laid down.
In Christ
Well, Matt said Paul believed in a “restoration to the land.” He must have had in mind something Paul wrote. I’d like to see the specifics, because it would be a pretty important point. It would undercut my agrument about the silence of the NT on the land.
JSB,
I would add to Bobby’s comment that Paul, in speaking of Israel, explicitly states that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable (Rom. 11:29).
Regarding this verse, Newman and Nida point out that: “The word rendered ‘irrevocable’ by some translations (RSV and NEB) basically means ‘without change of mind or heart.’ … ‘God never takes back his gifts or revokes his choice.’
In light of the context (v. 27 and, more broadly, 9:4), these “gifts” include God’s covenant with Israel, part of which was the promise of a kingdom. As a well-trained Pharisee, Paul was very familiar with the many OT passages in which God promised Israel a future kingdom in the land. (Matt mentioned a few above … e.g., Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:1-16; 14:1-2; 27:1-13; 35:1, 10; 43:5-6; 49:8-13; 59:15b-21; 62:4-7; 66:10-20; Jer 3:11-20; 12:14-17; 16:10-18; 23:1-8; 24:5-7; 28:1-4; 29:1-14; 30:1-3, 10-11; 31:2-14; 32:36-44; 42:1-22; 50:17-20; Ezek 11:14-20; 20:33-44; 28:25-26; 34:11-16, 23-31; 36:16-36; 37:1-28; 39:21-29; Hosea 1:10-11; 2:14-23; 14:4-7; Joel 3:18-21; Amos 9:11-15; Obadiah 17, 21; Micah 4:6-7; 7:14-20; Zeph 3:14-20; Zech 8:7-8; 10:6-12; and 14:11).
Since Paul taught that God cannot lie (Titus 1:2) — implying that His covenant promises are irrevocable (cf. Rom. 11:29) — and that God was not done with the nation of Israel (Rom. 11), it is not a stretch for Matt to assert that Paul would have agreed with that which was revealed in the Old Testament.
And besides, I think Paul’s lost letter to the Corinthians may have actually been titled “Hezekiah.”
- NB
Thanks for that, Nate, and if that’s what Matt meant, that’s fine. It doesn’t persuade me, for the reason that what Paul meant in Ro. 9-11 is the very issue under discussion. It’s circular to say Paul believed in “land restoartion” because Ro. 11 includes the promise of land restoration. But I don’t think that’s what Ro. 11 is about at all. There are, of course, whole books written on this topic, and string cites don’t make the case either way. I will say you’re making a valient attempt for your side, though. Good, biblical debate.
“Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:1-16″
Couldn’t these verses be speaking of the time of the New Jerusalem in Rev. 21-22? It does say they will have no more wars, and wolves and lambs will be “friends”, so to say.
“14:1-2″
Also couldn’t this also possibly refer to when Israel comes back from Babylon?
I didn’t get a chance to check all the Scriptures, but if you believe these all correlate for the land promise, then I expect they are all similar.
Donsands,
I suppose it could be argued that Isaiah 2:2-4 is pointing to the eternal state, and not the millennial kingdom, though that puts the new earth “in the last days” (v. 2) and not outside of history. It also assumes that the residents of the new earth find themselves there with weapons which they transform into agricultural implements (in v. 4 — unless of course you believe v. 4 is only figurative).
I think you have a harder time with Isaiah 11:1-16, especially verses 11ff. In those verses, a second regathering of Israel is promised from the surrounding nations. Unless that is completely allegorized, it hardly fits with Rev. 21-22.
As to Isaiah 14:1-2 — history does not seem to support the idea that this fits Israel’s return from the Babylonian exile. Israel did not become the captors of those who had held them captive (v. 2) — unless you think that was somehow fulfilled during the Maccabean period.
The details given in these prophecies (and in the others in Matt’s list) indicate that the time they foretell is distinct from both the eternal state (as described in Rev. 21-22) and from anything that has yet happened in history.
For those interested, this article provides an excellent summary of the Old Testament covenants (from a premillennial perspective).
Thanks again for your comment.
- NB
There are many metaphors within the OT. The sword into a plowshare is one I’m sure.
I appreciate your response. It is very well spoken, and much to consider.
Still listenng and learning. Thanks.
To those who were incredibly provoked by my comment concerning the judgement of God on the Jews during the holocaust and how it gave way to the rebirth of a political and national Israel, (although not “yet” spiritual which was prophesied by Ezekiel in chapter 37), in keeping with other Old Testament portraits of history’s end was always fierce judgement giving way to incredible blessing. Familiar themes are repeated throughout the Old Testament. So that is why I perceive it this way…….it is in line with Biblical thinking.
Although Israel was organized as a secular rather than a religious state, even though religious courts and parties are influenced, the nation is far from the theocracy envisioned in scripture. But that is why prophecy is yet to be fulfilled, namely a mass conversion of Jews at the end of the age. When Christ does come, the rest of the prediction will find its fulfillment in a great truning to Christ as the Messiah for whom God’s people have hoped through the ages. And then, at last, God’s promises of restoration and blessing can be completely fulfilled. The promise refers to the unification of the Jewish people in a single nation. It reflects the division that isolated the North (Israel) from the South (Judah) for centuries in O.T. times…………..Ezekiel 37 or The Valley of Dry Bones.
In Jeremiah 31:31, Jeremiah says the New Covenant is to made with “the house of Israel”, i.e., the Jews. The covenant itself looks forward to a time when Messiah appears and a national conversion takes place. Then all the benefits described by Jeremiah will be made available to that people, who at last recognize and acknowledge their Redeemer.
Cindy H and Art,
Could the two of you please grow up?
Everyone has the right to express an opinion, and both of you have supported your opinions, so please do not argue like spoilt children!
Cindy H:
Your opinion is rational, and makes sense. It may be construed as being offensive, but the Bible itself would be offensive to many who do not follow its teachings.
Art:
Why, may I quickly ask, does an event need to have been prophesised within the Bible to be classed as an act of God? God destroyed peoples throughout the OT as punishment for their sins (granted, the death of Christ should negate the need for such actions to be repeated), but this does not necessarily mean that such an event could not happen again.
On a personal note, I admit that one should be considerate of others when expressing opinions, but, in a world where free-speech is a valued part of society, you have no right to condemn someone based upon their personal viewpoint.
Comment over, you may now all return to your sesquipedalian tirade.
Hi Mart,
I suppose you could pretty much say that everyone needs to grow up…….we ALL could use a little more maturity in our lives!
Besides, generally speaking most people tend to be overzealous when they are young……in their 20’s and 30’s, but as people get much older, that zealousness winds down, probally because as you age you run out of energy. So I will hold on to my youthfulness as long as I have it because it is slipping through my fingers.
And certainly you are entitled to your opining as well, obviously.