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.

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.

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.

I appreciate your response. It is very well spoken, and much to consider.
Still listenng and learning. Thanks.

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

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.

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

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