The Covering Dynamic

[Spiritual Israelite]

This is what it says. Why would we not accept it's saying?

Here you go again with your "exact words" line of reasoning. Does scripture itself tell us we should take that approach to it? Have you ever read 1 Corinthians 2:9-16?

Where are we told it's a parable, or allegory, or metaphor, or other figures of speech? And if that's what it is, allegory, or something, where are we told what that means?

Where is the rule that says non-literal text always has to be explicitly explained? Think of Jesus's parables. Did He always explain what they meant? No. Sometimes He did and sometimes He didn't.

For instance, "and that rock was Christ", the metaphor is here both identified and defined, and therefore carries Scriptural authority.

Unless the Bible identifies something as a metaphor or type, AND it defines the meaning, in context, then such interpretation lacks Scriptural authority.

This is a meaningless comment unless you can back it up with scripture itself which teaches this. Can you do that? Why would any spiritual discernment ever be required, as Paul indicates is the case in 1 Cor 2:9-16, when reading scripture if it was always spelled out for us as you seem to think it is?

Unless the Bible itself tells us to take something in some other manner, and tells us what that would be, I've of the mind we should accept what it says at face value, in the ways language is normally used and understood, particularly in it's historical context.

That's the approach you have decided to take to interpreting scripture, but I believe that is a poor approach and doesn't line up with the type of approach that Paul said we should have in 1 Corinthians 2:9-16. In your approach, no spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit is required, which contradicts what Paul taught.

What makes it difficult? I find it to be plain reading that agrees with other Scripture. And debateable, everything is debated, on and on. Zechariah is very straightforward in my understanding.

Are you reading everything I'm saying or not? It doesn't seem like you are. If you did then you should know that I already said that the difficulty is reconciling a literal, futurist interpretation of the text with other scripture.

Worship.

Where in scripture does it indicate that future animal sacrifices will be performed as worship? You need to be able to back up your claims with scripture.

Numbers 29:12-34 KJV
12) And on the fifteenth day of the seventh month ye shall have an holy convocation; ye shall do no servile work, and ye shall keep a feast unto the LORD seven days:
13) And ye shall offer a burnt offering, a sacrifice made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD; thirteen young bullocks, two rams, and fourteen lambs of the first year; they shall be without blemish:
14) And their meat offering shall be of flour mingled with oil, three tenth deals unto every bullock of the thirteen bullocks, two tenth deals to each ram of the two rams,
15) And a several tenth deal to each lamb of the fourteen lambs:
16) And one kid of the goats for a sin offering; beside the continual burnt offering, his meat offering, and his drink offering.
17) And on the second day ye shall offer twelve young bullocks, two rams, fourteen lambs of the first year without spot:
18) And their meat offering and their drink offerings for the bullocks, for the rams, and for the lambs, shall be according to their number, after the manner:
19) And one kid of the goats for a sin offering; beside the continual burnt offering, and the meat offering thereof, and their drink offerings.
20) And on the third day eleven bullocks, two rams, fourteen lambs of the first year without blemish;
21) And their meat offering and their drink offerings for the bullocks, for the rams, and for the lambs, shall be according to their number, after the manner:
22) And one goat for a sin offering; beside the continual burnt offering, and his meat offering, and his drink offering.
23) And on the fourth day ten bullocks, two rams, and fourteen lambs of the first year without blemish:
24) Their meat offering and their drink offerings for the bullocks, for the rams, and for the lambs, shall be according to their number, after the manner:
25) And one kid of the goats for a sin offering; beside the continual burnt offering, his meat offering, and his drink offering.
26) And on the fifth day nine bullocks, two rams, and fourteen lambs of the first year without spot:
27) And their meat offering and their drink offerings for the bullocks, for the rams, and for the lambs, shall be according to their number, after the manner:
28) And one goat for a sin offering; beside the continual burnt offering, and his meat offering, and his drink offering.
29) And on the sixth day eight bullocks, two rams, and fourteen lambs of the first year without blemish:
30) And their meat offering and their drink offerings for the bullocks, for the rams, and for the lambs, shall be according to their number, after the manner:
31) And one goat for a sin offering; beside the continual burnt offering, his meat offering, and his drink offering.
32) And on the seventh day seven bullocks, two rams, and fourteen lambs of the first year without blemish:
33) And their meat offering and their drink offerings for the bullocks, for the rams, and for the lambs, shall be according to their number, after the manner:
34) And one goat for a sin offering; beside the continual burnt offering, his meat offering, and his drink offering.

Every day they offered a sin offering, morning and evening. The sin offering is fulfilled in Christ.

Exactly! So, how could Zechariah 14:16-21 possibly refer to something that will happen in the future if it's meant to be taken literally? Taken literally, it involves observing the feast of tabernacles which includes performing animal sacrifices as sin offerings.

Zechariah 14:16-21 KJV
16) And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
17) And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.
18) And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
19) This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
20) In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD'S house shall be like the bowls before the altar.
21) Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.

You say that you don't know what this means, and I like honesty, humilty, that we can admit such things. I'd simply point out that the reason you don't know what it means is because you reject the plain saying because you see that to be in disagreement with other things you think.

So far, you have done nothing to show how it can be reconciled with scripture like Hebrews 10. So far, you are not acknowledging that a literal, futurist interpretation of this passage implies the reinstatement of animal sacrifices as sin offerings. You think you know what it means but you don't acknowledge these things I'm pointing out here. So, you clearly don't know what it means since you are not taking everything into account.

So it comes down to having a personal opinion that it doesn't mean the plain thing it says.

The "plain thing it says". There is no basis for taking an approach that assumes everything is literal unless it is spelled out otherwise. No spiritual discernment would be required in that case. Your literal interpretation of Zechariah 14:16-21 means that animal sacrifices as sin offerings would need to be reinstated in the future because in order to observe the feast of tabernacles in a literal way requires sin offerings. Until you acknowledge this, I can't take your "plain thing it says" argument seriously.

For myself, Unless I know Scripture that tells me what it means, and that it's something other than it's plain saying, my way is to change what I think, rather than what the meaning of the plain saying is.

Yeah, that is the approach you have decided to take. But, once again, it doesn't line up with the approach that Paul said we should take. Your approach does not require any spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit because your assumption is that everything is spelled out for us. But, clearly, that is not the case or else what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 2:9-16 would not make any sense.

 

[No Pre-TB]

Exactly! So, how could Zechariah 14:16-21 possibly refer to something that will happen in the future if it's meant to be taken literally? Taken literally, it involves observing the feast of tabernacles which includes performing animal sacrifices as sin offerings.

That is an excellent point. That is why we need to look ahead and reason how Christ removed those things rendering them invalid because many OT things were a shadow of better things to come. But a return to animal sacrifices instead of the blood of Christ would be to disavow his passion and look back on things that could never save crucifying the son a second time as if he was not the son and his passion was not more perfect than the sacrifices.

But, if you would humor me, this author wrote an excellent piece on it:

the feast of tabernacles; not literally, but spiritually; for, as all the Jewish feasts have been long since abolished, having had their accomplishment in Christ, not one of them will ever be revived in the latter day. and was typical of Christ's incarnation, who was made flesh, and tabernacled among us; so that to keep this feast is no other than to believe in Christ as come in the flesh, and in the faith of this to attend to the Gospel feast of the word and ordinances; and whereas this feast was observed by drawing water with expressions of joy, this may respect the pouring forth of the Spirit in the last day, and that spiritual joy saints will then be filled with; to which may be added, that palm tree branches used to be carried in their hands at the time of that feast; and so the keeping of it now may denote the victory that will be obtained over the beast and his image, which palm tree branches are a token of; and this will issue in the personal reign of Christ, when the tabernacle of God shall be with men.

I’ll end with this, where did the OT teach us Jerusalem on earth was Sinai and in bondage? Yet Jerusalem above is free and is an allegory? Where did it teach Paul this because without him saying it, any mention to it will be dismissed today by extreme literal hermeneutics people use that cannot see past. This is a rhetorical question and my point is we cannot say with certainty such and such will happen this way because it’s written this way verbatim when it conflicts with NT writing. That means, we need to look at the spiritual side of it and how it concerns the body of Christ, the Israel of God.

 

[rwb]

Speaking of history, only a very small portion of Jews returned to Israel, and they were not actually gathered and returned, a few of them made the trip. A distinct part of these prophecies is that all will be returned to Israel, none left behind, to never again be thrown out of the land, rather, that all would have God's Spirit in them, causing them to keep their covenant, and receive the blessings.

Isaiah 59:20-21
(20) And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.
(21) As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

Much love

What does that tell you about ethnic Israel? Have you not read the words of Isaiah, quoted by Paul "Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved"? Isaiah is not speaking of an ethnic people, but the people of God from the nation. It is unto THEM the Redeemer comes, not all of them but the remnant saved by election of grace.

Isaiah 10:20-22 (KJV) And it shall come to pass in that day, that the remnant of Israel, and such as are escaped of the house of Jacob, shall no more again stay upon him that smote them; but shall stay upon the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God. For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them shall return: the consumption decreed shall overflow with righteousness.

Isaiah 1:9 (KJV) Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.

Romans 9:27-29 (KJV) Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth. And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.

You continue to argue for salvation of a nation based solely upon ethnicity; Israel, but the Word of God clearly says that only a remnant of them shall be saved. You do this because you have no understanding of Jewish history, and you use what is vague from the Old to try to understand the New. But it is the New that makes plain that which is written in shadow and vague, not the other way around as you are trying to do.

 

[rwb]

A nation is comprised of its individuals. A nation cannot be chosen if its individuals are not chosen.

Were the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23:33 chosen?

Exactly! The individuals chosen to salvation are ALL people of faith called, "Israel of God."

1 Peter 2:4-10 (KJV) To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That is an excellent point. That is why we need to look ahead and reason how Christ removed those things rendering them invalid because many OT things were a shadow of better things to come. But a return to animal sacrifices instead of the blood of Christ would be to disavow his passion and look back on things that could never save crucifying the son a second time as if he was not the son and his passion was not more perfect than the sacrifices.

Right. But, the ones who believe in future animal sacrifices try to get around this by saying the animal sacrifices won't be sin offerings. But, they have no scripture to back that up.

But, if you would humor me, this author wrote an excellent piece on it:

the feast of tabernacles; not literally, but spiritually; for, as all the Jewish feasts have been long since abolished, having had their accomplishment in Christ, not one of them will ever be revived in the latter day. and was typical of Christ's incarnation, who was made flesh, and tabernacled among us; so that to keep this feast is no other than to believe in Christ as come in the flesh, and in the faith of this to attend to the Gospel feast of the word and ordinances; and whereas this feast was observed by drawing water with expressions of joy, this may respect the pouring forth of the Spirit in the last day, and that spiritual joy saints will then be filled with; to which may be added, that palm tree branches used to be carried in their hands at the time of that feast; and so the keeping of it now may denote the victory that will be obtained over the beast and his image, which palm tree branches are a token of; and this will issue in the personal reign of Christ, when the tabernacle of God shall be with men.

Who is the author? This is pretty good except for the idea of Christ's reign still being in the future. As an Amil, I obviously am not going to agree with that. But, this does show that the passage can be understood in a spiritual sense. It's possible that all of Zechariah 14 is meant to be understood in that sense. For example, Zechariah 14:8 reminds me immediately of John 7:37-39.

I’ll end with this, where did the OT teach us Jerusalem on earth was Sinai and in bondage? Yet Jerusalem above is free and is an allegory? Where did it teach Paul this because without him saying it, any mention to it will be dismissed today by extreme literal hermeneutics people use that cannot see past. This is a rhetorical question and my point is we cannot say with certainty such and such will happen this way because it’s written this way verbatim when it conflicts with NT writing. That means, we need to look at the spiritual side of it and how it concerns the body of Christ, the Israel of God.

Exactly. If someone interprets an OT prophecy in such a way that contradicts NT scripture or in a way where NT scripture can't be found to support that interpretation, then you know they are not interpreting it correctly.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Speaking of history, only a very small portion of Jews returned to Israel, and they were not actually gathered and returned, a few of them made the trip. A distinct part of these prophecies is that all will be returned to Israel, none left behind, to never again be thrown out of the land, rather, that all would have God's Spirit in them, causing them to keep their covenant, and receive the blessings.

Isaiah 59:20-21
(20) And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.
(21) As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

Is that prophecy not speaking of the new covenant which has been in effect for a long time already after it was established by the blood of Christ? I believe so. What other covenant is there under which people are saved? Scripture only teaches that people are saved under the new covenant.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

God's Chosen Nation is those faithful and obedient to Him and His Son.

AKA His Church. 1 Peter 2:9

No searching needed.

Exactly. If Israel was God's chosen nation in the sense of salvation then all of them would need to be saved without exception. But, obviously, not all of them are saved so it can't be the nation itself that is chosen.

But, there is an Israel of which all are saved which is "The Israel of God" (Gal 6:15-16) or "Spiritual Israel".

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Hebrebutws 10:18 says, “there is no more offering for sin.”

You say the opposite. You say there will be countless more offerings for sin.

You fail to see: Calvary completely finished the Old Testament shadow and type. That is why there is no more sacrifice for sin. I find your belief extraordinary. Honestly! This belief should not be allowed on an evangelical site. It is a direct assault upon the cross. It undermines the finished work of Christ. It abrogates the new covenant.

Hebrews 10:26 says, “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.”

Amils take Scripture at its word. You do not. You fight it with what you have erroneously been taught.

It is both alarming and sad how many (that sincerely profess Christ) champion the re-starting of rival sin offerings in the future to compete with Calvary when Christ fulfilled and eternally removed them at the cross. Most of this error has emanated from false teaching of men that should know better. The fact is, the New Testament totally forbids the resurrection of the old covenant including the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, the restarting of the abolished animal sacrifices, and the resuming of earthly high priest’s office, as part of a God-ordained arrangement. Their expectation to return to the Old Testament type, shadow and figure is gravely misplaced.

I agree. And I have pointed this out to him as well. He tries to get around this by saying the future animal sacrifices will not be sin offerings but will be offered as "worship". But, there is no scripture to support that idea. The scriptures they use to support their beliefs speak of animal sacrifices as sin offerings.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I've listed quite a few passages, quoted them in fact, that show Isreal being returned to their homeland, the promised land, when YHWH comes to destroy their enemies, and give them peace forever in their land, in the fulfillment of YHWH's covenant with Israel.

They say these things very plainly.

Where are the NT scriptures which plainly support your interpretation of those OT passages? Why didn't the NT authors have the same understanding of the OT as you do? Does that not concern you? Do you think you have a better understanding of the OT than they did?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Look who is asking ridiculous questions.

What was ridiculous about it? It was in line with what someone else's beliefs would imply. So, if my question was ridiculous then what you're really saying is that the belief of the person I was questioning is ridiculous.

Also, Jesus never said Elijah to come was John the Baptist. Jesus is the future Elijah to come.

Yes, He did. More than once. Where do you come up with this stuff? Have you never read these passages:

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

Can you see here that Jesus was talking about John the Baptist and then said "he is the Elijah who was to come"? How can you say Jesus never said the Elijah to come was John the Baptist in light of this?

And then there is this passage:

Matthew 17:10 The disciples asked him, “Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?” 11 Jesus replied, “To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. 12 But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.” 13 Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.

Notice here that Jesus said "Elijah has already come" and then it says "the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist". The disciples understood that Jesus was saying the Elijah to come was John the Baptist, so why don't you understand that? Do you think the disciples misunderstood Jesus and you understand what He was saying better than they did?

 

[David in NJ]

Exactly. If Israel was God's chosen nation in the sense of salvation then all of them would need to be saved without exception. But, obviously, not all of them are saved so it can't be the nation itself that is chosen.

But, there is an Israel of which all are saved which is "The Israel of God" (Gal 6:15-16) or "Spiritual Israel".

Everyone,

Please stay on target with OP concerning 'coverings' over our minds and how they are formed and how the Scriptures are the only source along with the Holy Spirit that leads us into Truth.

Example: Dispensationlism claims that Matt ch24 is only speaking to the Jews and not to the church.
John ch3 , Romans, Galatians , Ephesians and Revelation expose the falsehoods in Dispensationalism.
By rightly applying the Scriptures in Truth means that we do not add to them or take away from them.
Therefore, the Truth can readily be found and observed as "it is written".

The less we say the MORE God speaks from His Word.

Thank You

 

[Timtofly]

Can you see here that Jesus was talking about John the Baptist and then said "he is the Elijah who was to come"? How can you say Jesus never said the Elijah to come was John the Baptist in light of this?

Coming in the spirit of Elijah is what John the Baptist did. Jesus was the Messiah, and will be the King to come to restore all things to fulfill the prophecy.

Do you think all things have been restored?

 

[No Pre-TB]

Who is the author?

Gill.

This is pretty good except for the idea of Christ's reign still being in the future. As an Amil, I obviously am not going to agree with that.

You still have room to grow. I have faith in you

 

[marks]

Hebrews ch8
Now, however, Jesus has received a much more excellent ministry, just as the covenant He mediates is better and is founded on better promises. 7For if that first covenant had been without fault, no place would have been sought for a second. 8But God found fault with the people and said:

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
9It will not be like the covenant
I made with their fathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of the land of Egypt,
because they did not abide by My covenant,
and I disregarded them,
declares the Lord.
10For this is the covenant I will make
with the house of Israel
after those days,
declares the Lord.
I will put My laws in their minds
and inscribe them on their hearts.
And I will be their God,
and they will be My people.
11No longer will each one teach his neighbor or his brother,
saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know Me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12For I will forgive their iniquities
and will remember their sins no more.”

13By speaking of a new covenant, He has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

You aren't really responding to these passages though. It's not like when you post this one, the other one doesn't mean anything any more.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Where are the NT scriptures which plainly support your interpretation of those OT passages? Why didn't the NT authors have the same understanding of the OT as you do? Does that not concern you? Do you think you have a better understanding of the OT than they did?

What makes you think that they didn't believe those passsages? Of course they did! It's people today who do not. Witness this thread!

Much love!

 

[marks]

(35) Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:
(36) If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.
(37) Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.

Does anyone here believe this passage as written?

Much love!

 

[marks]

Does anyone here believe this passage as written?

Much love!

What exactly has been covered when so many passages of the Bible cannot be accepted as written?

Much love!

 

[marks]

Where is the rule that says non-literal text always has to be explicitly explained?

If the interpretation is not in Scripture, then the interpretations offered are your own opinions and lack Scriptural authority. Do you consider that to be true?

Much love!

 

[marks]

JESUS made that New Covenant with the House of Israel = whose House we are if we continue in Him.

Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way opened for us through the curtain of His body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
Hebrews ch10

Yes indeed Jesus is our great priest.

And, Israel will always remain a nation before God.

Jeremiah 31:35-37
(35) Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:
(36) If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.
(37) Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.

Much love!

 

[David in NJ]

You aren't really responding to these passages though. It's not like when you post this one, the other one doesn't mean anything any more.

Much love!

On the contrary!

The Holy Spirit positioned these scriptures in such a way that only points to Fulfillment of Prophecy in Christ and all who belong to Him.