The Covering Dynamic

[David in NJ]

Every one of them?

Most actually didn't return after the captivity. And they came back in various groups spread out over years. And did angels gather them? I'm not seeing the fulfillment. And then they were expelled from the land again, so that absolutely does not fulfill those prophecies. That is an integral part, that they would never again have to leave.

Much love!

#1 - Everyone is not required.

#2 - Since 1948 they have not been expelled from the Land = Matthew ch24

#3 - Angels will be gathering the 'Elect' in Christ = Jew and Gentile

 

[marks]

In my view there is no need to break the prophecy down like this and try to figure out what every word means. In my view all we need to know is that Paul (I assume he wrote the book of Hebrews) said that the establishment of the new covenant which replaced the old covenant was the fulfillment of that prophecy. You are talking in terms of the new covenant not yet being in effect, which directly contradicts what Hebrews 8:6-13 says. Why are you doing that?

I just accept what that passage indicates, which is that the prophecy is fulfilled with the establishment of the new covenant. And it was put into effect long ago by the blood of Christ, as scripture teaches. I don't feel any need to explain every word of the prophecy and how it is fulfilled the way you do. I trust Paul and all the other NT authors that they knew what they were talking about. And Hebrews 8:6-13 indicates that the fulfillment of that prophecy has to do with the past establishment of the new covenant. That's good enough for me.

I was just summarizing the paragraphs. But OK, we don't have to accept what it all really says, just get some surface impressions, and go with that, interpeted according to our understanding of other passages.

And if in fact this passage about Israel - the ethnic group - have many other passages which say the same things? What then?

Much love!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

So then, if the Bible doesn't say something is a symbol, and you do, does your assertion have Biblical authority? Or is it only that, You just know it's a symbol?

We all have beliefs and interpretations of scripture. I don't know what you mean by Biblical authority exactly. Our interpretations of any given verse or passage should not contradict any scripture, obviously. So, I try to interpret any given verse or passage with that in mind.

As for knowing it's a symbol, I don't state that I know that as if my beliefs are proven facts. I believe that. There's a difference between beliefs and proven facts. We are sharing our beliefs here regarding debatable scriptures. The key is that our beliefs and interpretations of scripture don't contradict any other scriptures. If you interpret something literally and that results in a contradiction of scripture, then you obviously have to consider that the passage needs to either be interpreted some other way literally (if that was possible) or should be interpreted symbolically.

 

[marks]

I don't know what you mean by Biblical authority exactly.

That is when the Bible states something plainly. For instance we have Biblical authority to say that in the parable of the tares, we know "the harvest" is the end of the age. This is plainly stated.

If we say that the angel seals 144,000 Jewish men, that also is plainly stated, so if I say that 144,000 Jewish men are sealed, that has Biblical authority. If someone were to say, it's not actually a numbered group like that, they would lack Biblical authority, unless, of course, there were a passage that tells us this is "the fullness of all believers", or whatever one might think it means other than a numbered group of Jewish men.

If there is such a passage, that gives the Biblical authority for that interpretation.

Does that help to clarify?

Much love!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I was just summarizing the paragraphs. But OK, we don't have to accept what it all really says, just get some surface impressions, and go with that, interpeted according to our understanding of other passages.

I don't like the way you worded this, as if I don't accept some of what it says. I accept ALL of what it says and you believe you accept all that it says. The difference between you and me isn't that you accept what it says and I don't. That's ridiculous. No, the difference between you and me is that I allow for the possibility that it isn't meant to be interpreted in a wooden, literal fashion and you don't.

And if in fact this passage about Israel - the ethnic group - have many other passages which say the same things? What then?

I think you are not getting the point I was making. So, I will quote the passage that speaks of the fulfillment of the Jeremiah 31 prophecy and try to show you what I was getting at.

Hebrews 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. 13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

In order to see my point, what I would like you to focus on here is not the OT text itself that Paul (I assume he is the author of Hebrews) was quoting (Jeremiah 31:31-34), but what Paul's understanding was of the prophecy. What can be seen just before he quotes the prophecy is that he related the prophecy directly to the establishment of the new covenant when it replaced the old covenant.

So far you have not even acknowledged that the new covenant has already been established and I see that as a major problem in your view. This text says it "was established upon better promises". That means it is already established. And, how could it not be? We know the old covenant with all its commandments and rituals like animal sacrifices was made obsolete and is no longer in effect, right? Scripture teaches that. How could the old covenant no longer be in effect without having been replaced by the new covenant? Paul indicated here that the new covenant replaced the faulty old covenant. So, that means he was saying the prophecy was fulfilled upon the establishment of the new covenant and that was established already long ago by the blood of Christ.

So, my point then is that we should accept that this NT text says that the prophecy was fulfilled upon the establishment of the new covenant which replaced the faulty old covenant long ago. That should be our starting point - accepting that Paul knew what he was talking about in Hebrews 8:6-13. If you're not willing to use that as your starting point then you're not going to be able to be objective when trying to interpret what the text means.

 

[marks]

I don't like the way you worded this, as if I don't accept some of what it says. I accept ALL of what it says and you believe you accept all that it says.

I thought you were critical of me going into all the details. Didn't you say that? If I've misunderstood you, I apologize!

Much love!

 

[marks]

12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. 13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

So then based on this, you are saying that this,

Jeremiah 31:35-37 KJV
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.

. . . no longer applies?

That is, as pertaining to the House of Israel and the House of Judah? The "seed of Israel"?

I don't see that.

What I see is that this is part of that new covenant, just as is specified in places such as Ezekiel.

Much love!

 

[marks]

I don't state that I know that as if my beliefs are proven facts.

So, what proves a fact in the Bible? Why not stick with proven facts? Can we do that? What is the criteria?

Much love!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That is when the Bible states something plainly.

I believe that is a useless concept then since we don't all always agree on when the Bible is stating something plainly. Who is the one who gets to decide what is supposedly stated plainly? You?

For instance we have Biblical authority to say that in the parable of the tares, we know "the harvest" is the end of the age. This is plainly stated.

I agree with that. That was a case where Jesus explained exactly what something in a parable meant in reality.

If we say that the angel seals 144,000 Jewish men, that also is plainly stated, so if I say that 144,000 Jewish men are sealed, that has Biblical authority. If someone were to say, it's not actually a numbered group like that, they would lack Biblical authority, unless, of course, there were a passage that tells us this is "the fullness of all believers", or whatever one might think it means other than a numbered group of Jewish men.

It seems to me that "Biblical authority" doesn't mean much in that case since you seem to define that to mean that we should assume that a statement like that should be taken literally. To me, Biblical authority would mean that it means whatever God intended it to mean, even if it's not meant to be interpreted literally. And it would mean that the meaning of it does not contradict any other scripture.

I don't believe it is intended to be interpreted literally in terms of being a literal 144,000 or of being all men. You say it is all men because it describes them as virgins who have not been defiled with women, right? But, we have scripture which talks about believers in terms of being virgins spiritually.

2 Corinthians 11:1 Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me. 2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

There is a symbolic evil entity described in Revelation called mystery Babylon and it is described as a harlot woman. So, is there any reason that the virgins who don't defile themselves with women couldn't be virgins in a spiritual sense (pure spiritually) who don't defile themselves with evil spiritual "women" like mystery Babylon? I don't believe so. I would say we have Biblical Authority to allow for that possibility.

The other thing to consider here regarding that particular scripture is to ask why God would separate out virgin men as a special group? Does that really make sense? Does God favor single men over married men for some reason? Is God sexist like that where He wouldn't want any women to be in a special group like that? I thought there was neither male nor female in the church (Galatians 3:26-28)? If God was going to set aside a special group like that, I see no basis for thinking it would only consist of single men and no married men, no women and no children. It seems to me that God would put an emphasis on people being virgins spiritually moreso than sexually. If it had to do with being virgins sexually then why just men and not women virgins, also?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

So then based on this, you are saying that this,

Jeremiah 31:35-37 KJV
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.

. . . no longer applies?

That is, as pertaining to the House of Israel and the House of Judah? The "seed of Israel"?

I don't see that.

What I see is that this is part of that new covenant, just as is specified in places such as Ezekiel.

Can you please address what I said about the Hebrews 8:6-13 passage first before I address what you're saying here? It seems that you expect me to answer all your questions without you answering any of mine first.

Do you believe that Hebrews 8:6-13 speaks of the past establishment of the new covenant or not? You put an emphasis on interpreting things as they are written. Well, it is written in Hebrews 8:7 that the new covenant "WAS ESTABLISHED upon better promises". So, can you address that, please? Why is it that you think the new covenant has not yet been established, when the text says that it was established already? I don't believe it makes any sense to try to interpret the prophecy without starting with the understanding that the new covenant was already established long ago. Otherwise, you will not be looking at the prophecy objectively.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

So, what proves a fact in the Bible?

Give me an example of a fact in the Bible and then I'll tell you. Until then, I'm not even sure what you're talking about. Do you understand that we are mostly discussing our BELIEFS in this thread and not proven facts?

Why not stick with proven facts? Can we do that? What is the criteria?

I don't know. You tell me. I thought we were mostly discussing our beliefs here, not proven facts.

 

[marks]

Give me an example of a fact in the Bible and then I'll tell you. Until then, I'm not even sure what you're talking about. Do you understand that we are mostly discussing our BELIEFS in this thread and not proven facts?


I don't know. You tell me. I thought we were mostly discussing our beliefs here, not proven facts.

I guess we've been speaking at cross purposes. Sorry for taking your time.

Much love!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I beg your indulgance for a bit . . .

John 20:22-23 KJV
22) And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23) Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Literal or figurative?

I ask, because there is no parallel passage.

It depends on what you mean by literal or figurative here. It's not literal in the sense that we (believers) can forgive sins. Only God can forgive sins. The Pharisees and scribes got mad at Jesus because He was forgiving people's sins by His own authority, thereby equating Himself with God (Mark 2:5-7). But, it is literal in the sense of talking about the literal remission of sins. But, what it doesn't make clear is that the reason it says "whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them" is because it is the Holy Spirit within them that is giving them that authority, so it is the Spirit of God actually doing the remission of sins, not the person declaring that a person's sins have been forgiven.

 

[marks]

It depends on what you mean by literal or figurative here. It's not literal in the sense that we (believers) can forgive sins.

Jesus didn't say that we could forgive sins, however, He did give those men the authority to do so. At least, that's what the plain saying is, or so it seems to me.

There is no parallel passage to this one. So is this factual? Or no? And why, or why not?

That the Apostles had the authority to remit - send away - sins, and that if they did so, those sins would be remitted? (I'm thinking same as you, by God's power, just the same, per the Apostle's declaration)

Much love!

 

[rwb]

I didn't say they didn't believe them. Read what I actually say instead of reading things into what I say. My point is that there is nothing in the NT to support your interpretations of those OT passages. That tells me that the NT authors did not have the same understanding of those OT passages as you do. Why else can you not find anything in the NT to support your doctrine?

It would seem that he gives little to no heed about what is written concerning ethnic Israel in the NT. His doctrine comes from reading the Old Testament prophets while ignoring what is written in the New.

 

[marks]

It would seem that he gives little to no heed about what is written concerning ethnic Israel in the NT. His doctrine comes from reading the Old Testament prophets while ignoring what is written in the New.

Really? Not to me.

It all harmonizes. And there is nothing in the NT to make me think that God won't fulfill those promises made in the OT. OR the prophecies. Do you realize what you are saying when you start choosing which prophecies will and won't be fulfilled the way they are written?

I mean, you accept the prophecies of the first coming as written, why not the second? You accept prophecies fulfilled in Israel's past as written, why not their future?

You say I ignore NT passages. Which do I ignore? What specific thing have I written that leads you to think I'm ignoring which specific passage? Let's talk about it. Or are you only speaking in generalities?

Much love!

 

[rwb]

Every one of them?

Most actually didn't return after the captivity. And they came back in various groups spread out over years. And did angels gather them? I'm not seeing the fulfillment. And then they were expelled from the land again, so that absolutely does not fulfill those prophecies. That is an integral part, that they would never again have to leave.

Much love!

You're reading every one of them into the prophesy! That is not what the prophets of Old or the New Testament say! That's why you cannot acknowledge that after 70 years of captivity the remnant, that is those who had faith did return to the re-built city and Holy Temple, the second time. Since only the remnant returned you assume the prophesy is still not fulfilled because you wrongly assume that the prophesy MUST include every single Jew, so you look for a third returning. That my friend is called dispensational Zionism and is not found in the Bible but read into it. Many here have tried to show you your error in doctrine, but you refuse to accept what is plainly written.

 

[marks]

You're reading every one of them into the prophesy! That is not what the prophets of Old or the New Testament say!

This is what they say, actually, and I've posted several passages several times.

Much love!

 

[marks]

but you refuse to accept what is plainly written.

Wow!! That's not what the others are saying. It seems to me it's just the opposite.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Like I've said, we all have very different ways of reading the Bible, and I knew at the beginning we wouldn't reach agreement because of it.

Everyone have a wonderful and blessed day!

Much love!