Christ uses the barren fig tree as an example of their apostasy, when He saw it bear no fruit. He cursed the fig tree (OC Israel), saying never again shall there be life found in them. And there was not, is not and never shall be, with the exception of the remnant of Jews who believed in Christ who had come with a New Covenant.
If a remnant of Jews remain, and if Jews can convert to Christ, then certain the nation of Israel can be restored. A "new tree" can be planted.
Rom 11.28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.
Matt 23.38 Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”
Isa 6.13 And though a tenth remains in the land, it will again be laid waste. But as the terebinth and oak leave stumps when they are cut down, so the holy seed will be the stump in the land.”
Isa 11.1 A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit...
10 In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his resting place will be glorious.
A tree can be cut down. But God said the stump that remains can re-grow. Or, it can be replanted...
Isa 37.31 Once more a remnant of the kingdom of Judah will take root below and bear fruit above.
This small remnant of faithful Jewish Christians were the beginning of the fig tree in the parable that Christ tells His disciples to observe, and when they see life on the fig tree they had seen and heard Christ curse, then they would know the Kingdom of God has come to the earth with the advent of Christ, and the fig tree would no longer represent the nation that was under the Old Covenant but would represent the whole world that people from every nation of the earth would become part of when they turned to Christ in faith, with repentance, believing on Him for eternal life.
We both agree the Jewish remnant of faith became an international community. That is not a point of contention.
You continue to repeat this ideal "literal restoration" for Israel. But this opinion is foreign to Scripture.
This argument is a "language issue!" I would argue that by definition "Israel" is a term referencing "Literal Israel!" Far from being "foreign to Scripture" it is the very definition of the word as used in Scripture!
All this was understood by Jews and Christians until the term came under the influence of allegorical interpretation. Then "Israel," used as an allegory for the Church, began to mean something non-literal.
The allegorized form of the word became the normal use of the word in the Church. This displacement of the original meaning of the term "Israel" is what I call "Replacement Theology."
There is no question that God expanded the faith community from a small believing remnant of Israelites to many Christian nations. However, the word "Israel" still means Literal Israel. It has not assumed a new definition.
Acts 1:6 (KJV) When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
This verse does not help you Randy. This verse only shows how fixated the Jews were before the advent of Christ, with the belief that they alone belonged to the Kingdom of God. They had not at that moment yet received the Holy Spirit within them.
To say the Disciples of Jesus, in his presence, were misinformed or unspiritual in asking the question about Israel's restoration begs the question: why did Jesus fail to correct them?
But he didn't. He assumed their question was legitimate, and explained it in a broader context, not at all denying that Israel would eventually be restored.
Acts 3.19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, 20 and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. 21 Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets.
Jesus called for his apostles to be witnesses 1st to Israel, and then to other nations--in fact all nations. None of this exempted the witness to Israel which was to fulfill the promises made to Abraham, that he would have a nation in Canaan.
Simply put, Jesus was saying that a long period of time, an outreach to the Gentiles, would precede the fulfillment of Israel's Hope. That Hope was not being denied.
It didn't matter that these first Jewish converts to Christ thought the Kingdom of God would come through Old Covenant Israel, and it doesn't matter if early Church fathers believed that Israel would be the recipient of the Kingdom of God. It doesn't matter IF it cannot be proven through the Word of God. And it cannot, because the Kingdom of God has never been exclusively of Israel.
Just because the Kingdom of God is not exclusively of Israel today does not mean that Israel is not intended to be the recipient of the Kingdom of God. In fact, Jesus implied that very thing, that Israel had been the recipient of God's Kingdom, and that is would be, for a time, transferred to another nation, which I believe was the Roman Empire.
Matt 21.43 “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit."
What dramatically changed from the Old Covenant to the New, was that for an outsider to belong to Israel and partake of the blessings possessing the Kingdom of God afforded them, one must submit to Judaism.
Again, this point is not in contention. We both believe that under OT requirements, redemption ceremonies would have to occur in Jerusalem alone, among the Jewish People in the land of Israel. This didn't mean that God confined Mercy only to Israel. It only meant that Israel were the guardians of ceremonies that explained the necessity of atonement for Sin.
The fact Israel held these ceremonies did not mean they were not the recipients of God's Mercy any longer. It would just require a very long time of national punishment before their nation would be prepared to receive Christian Mercy for violating and breaking the Covenant entirely. And they broke the Covenant entirely by rejecting their Messiah.
The OT Covenant may be used as a kind of allegory of NT Grace, but NT Grace does not delegitimize the prior use of the OT Covenant. On the contrary, in its time the OT Covenant did authentically dispense grace, if only in a limited way. And it really did have value in keeping Israel connected to God spiritually, as well as blessed materially. It just didn't provide Eternal Life, which was reserved for the work of Christ.
There is this effort to create a dichotomy between the OT and the NT, between Israel and the Church. But it fails to see the different values in each. Instead, all value is placed on the OT fulfillment in Christ, disqualifying not just the OT Law but also the OT promises regarding Israel.
That's why God gave Old Covenant Israel the Laws and the Prophets. Both point out the inability for mankind to save themselves through anything they might do.
"Doing things" was not the problem. The legal work Christ alone could do was the problem. Israel perfectly well "did things" to please and obey God. And these things had value through faith.
The only thing they couldn't do was self-atone, nor were they ever asked to do things apart from God's word. That word was supposed to be in them, inspiring their obedience. As such, their deeds could follow them into the future eternal Kingdom.
What your opinion of the nation of Israel seems to be is that there must be a national conversion to Christ, because it has always been God's intention that they as a political people must be called a Christian nation.
Yes.
But you also say this national conversion isn't really national at all, because not all of them will be called a Christian??? That's a really conflicting and contradictory view imo.
I think this is often the problem when fellow believers don't understand what I'm saying. And this is because the entire history of the Church has been covered over in Replacement Theology (as I see it).
I've gone to pains to explain on a particular thread about this "Political Salvation."
CLICK It is a distinct definition of "Salvation" that gets conflated with Evangelical Salvation. The 2 kinds of Salvation are related, because Israel's obedience to God, or their "spirituality," led to their political deliverance. If you care, read the thread: Political Salvation.
Thank you. I enjoy the conversation!