Watching and Preparing

[ScottA]

We prepare for that distant event, ie Christ's Coming strictly by remaining ready spiritually, as always, continuing to walk in our converted lifestyle, remaining true to Christ. If we remain true to him today we are ready today, even if the event remains a long ways off.

We cannot prepare for that event physically but it is not yet of curremt concern. It belongs to the "times and seasons" category that we are not to try to anticipate and physically see or prepare for.

The preparation and readiness Jesus was referring to is the same as is required for salvation: Change (aka, repentance).

Most have not "changed' in the way that is required--which is, as Paul said, "the renewing of your mind." Most have remained in their old frame of mind and thinking, except for being receptive to the promises--which is not a renewing of the mind readiness at all.

Jesus came after centuries of natural miracles, performed more natural miracles, then added to that an announcement that the kingdom of God (who is spirit--not natural) had come upon them, preached being born again--not natural--but spiritual, then died and ascended to be with the Father (spiritual)--while repeatedly saying "Follow Me."

But did anyone "change' from the former natural way of things to the spiritual way Jesus demonstrated?

Hardly.

No, most remain like a deer in the headlights, while not heeding or fully understanding the response by the angels after Jesus had risen, saying, "He is not here; for He is risen, as He said." and "why do you stand gazing up into heaven?"

Why indeed! After all, Jesus explained, saying, "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Still most wait expecting to see Jesus coming as if born again in the flesh.

 

[HappyOma]

In the discussion where Jesus discussed this, particularly Luke's version, he indicated that the temple's destruction would precipitate a long and terrible "great tribulation" for the Jewish people before the end would come. This would be the worst exile and punishment the Jews had ever known, which is certainly true of the "Jewish Diaspora" of the NT age!

Jesus recognized that some Jews misread his Coming, which in their mind was associated with his Kingdom. They thought that if Jesus came as Messiah, then the proof would be in his establishment of God's Kingdom on earth. Wrong!

The Jewish nation could not enter into the Kingdom immediately because the bad eggs had to be taken out. But God did not want to judge all Israel immediately, which would lead to their annihilation as a nation. Instead, he let them go off--as a nation--into the wilderness of the Jewish Diaspora, with relatively few individuals coming to salvation. This allowed for time to reach out to other nations who had yet to begin a believing nations. And in the meanwhile, Jews would get saved, one by one.

Jesus will come back to the Jews just as he left the Jews. He will come to the nation of Israel, as well as to all nations of faith who wish to repent and submit to him.

When Jesus comes again, he will indeed judge the nation of Israel. But by then he will have established a definite remnant of believers among the Jews in Israel. So he will bring about a complete reformation of the nation at his Coming, returning the nation to "chosen" status along with all the nations who do likewise.

I disagree. The work on the cross was finished when on the cross Jesus said, "It is finished." Nothing to bring to heaven except himself where he now stands before the Father on our behalf.

We look to Jesus because in troubled times he is our redemption. We are always to look to him for guidance in treacherous times and even in good times.

When Jesus comes the 2nd time it will be to *bodily* save us, by redeeming us from these fallen carnal bodies. It will be the resurrection and glorification. Currently, we have a down payment on our Eternal Life, which is the life we have presently through Jesus. It is not, however, yet capable of bodily redemption. That awaits the 2nd Coming.

No, we are not yet physically redeemed. We aren't raised from the dead. We aren't yet glorified.

 

[HappyOma]

Jesus has not come back yet.
When Jesus returns we get the final Day of Judgment and 2 Peter 3:10-13.

Jesus said He was returning to those of His day (Mat. 10:23; 16:27, 28; 24:34; 26:64). His inspired writers placed His return in their day (James 5:8, 9; 1 Peter 4:7; 1 John 2:18; Rev. 1:1, 3; 22:6, 10, etc.). You are ignoring the timing because it doesn't fit your incorrect paradigm concerning the NATURE of His return. Please axknowledge the clear timing.

 

[HappyOma]

As for the 2nd Coming at the end of the age, we would expect Israel to be back in her place again, per Ezekiel 37.

Ezekiel 37 was fulfilled when the Jews returned from captivity in Babylon. It is not about OUR future. Furthermore, Jesus taught that the age in which He and those of His day were then living was "about to come" (Mat. 13). The Mosaic/Old Covenant age ended in A. D. 70 at the Lord's return and the Messianic/Church Age began in its fullness. "The power of the Holy people" came to an end (Dan. 12) in A. D. 70. A million Jews died at that time and the rest were taken into captivity and dispersed throughout the known world. That which falsely claims to be OT Israel today is the creation of the U. N. and bears no resemblance to that of Scripture.

 

[HappyOma]

No, we are not yet physically redeemed. We aren't raised from the dead. We aren't yet glorified.

We are not to be "physically" redeemed. The death Jesus came to overcome was NOT physical death--it was spiritual death (i.e., separation from God). Being "raised from the dead" is to be fully restored to complete fellowship with God--the fellowship lost in the first Adam. This is apparent by the timing and the audience you refuse to acknowledge. THEY were to be changed--and THEY were.

 

[HappyOma]

if you wish to read from Scriptures what preceded the 70 AD event, read the Olivet Discourse and consider the "birthpains" Jesus listed

ALL of the these things in the Olivet Discourse were directed at those very disciples standing right there with Him. THEY were to live through all of it--in THEIR generation. Jesus said so. Will we not acknowledge HIS timing of events?

 

[HappyOma]

When Jesus returns we get the final Day of Judgment and 2 Peter 3:10-13.

Why did Peter write the second letter to THEM? He sought to stir up their remembrance of what the prophets had told them and the "commandments of the Lord and Savior" through their apostles" (2 Peter 3:1-3). THEY were in the last days (see Heb. 1) and the scoffers Peter mentioned were of THEIR own day. Because of the OT prophets, the words of Jesus, and the teachings of the apostles, they earerly and jusitifiably awaited His soon return to THEM. They were growing impatient. Peter assured them that what God had promised (His coming to THEM) would be fulfilled. The scoffers of their day knew what they believed. They knew about the teaching of that day Jesus was to return soon to them. That is why they mocked THEM.

We also must remember what the OT prophets taught in regards to "heaven and earth." For the Jew, "heaven and earth" was represented by their relationship with God as seen in their holy city and the Temple. The "old heaven and earth" pertained to the things of the Old Covenant, which accordidng to the writer of Hebrews was even then "growing old, becoming obsolete, and READY to pass away" (Heb. 13). A transtion was about to happen from the "old heaven and earth" (Judaism/The Old Covenant) to the "near heaven and earth" (The Church/The New Covenant). That is what Peter spoke of. He in no way had the physical heaven and earth in mind. We see this in his admonishment for them to live lives of "holiness and godliness" because of the coming destruction of the old and establiset of the new. It is in the things of the New Covenant (the new heaven and earth) where "righteousness dwells."

 

[HappyOma]

I disagree. The work on the cross was finished when on the cross Jesus said, "It is finished." Nothing to bring to heaven except himself where he now stands before the Father on our behalf.

Please read Hebrews 9 where it is clear that Jesus entered the heavenly Holy of Holies "by means of His own blood." What was finished on the cross was the slaying of the sacrifice. Just as the earthly high priest took the shed blood of the sacrificial lamb into the Most Holy Place of the earthly temple and sprinkled it on the altar there, so the Great High Priest, in fulfillment of all priestly things, took His "blood" to the heavenly altar and "sprinkled" it there. And as with the earthly priest, He had to exit that holy place in demonstration of the acceptance of the sacrficie by God. He did that in A. D. 70 at His coming "a second time."

The writer of Hebrews makes it plain that Jesus came the first time (Advent) to "deal with sin" (Heb. 9). He dealt with sin on the cross by paying the blood sacrifice. However, the writer goes on to state that He was to come a SECOND time "for salvation." Salvation is not complete unless and until the Second Coming has occurred. All who look for a future coming of Christ must not teach that people die and go to heaven.

The earthly things of the earthly temple were "copies of the heavenly things." Christ entered into "heaven itself" (vs. 24). Please observe the timing. The writer of Hebrews, addressing those of HIS own day, wrote: "NOW to appear in the presence of God on OUR behalf." In THEIR day, He was to appear NOW. Notice when Christ was said to have appeared. "AT THE END OF THE AGES." They were living at the "end of the ages." He was to appear to THEM, who eagerly awaited Him! And He did.

Please reconsider your understanding of the NATURE of His return, the NATURE of the resurrection, and the NATURE of the judgment so that you will then be free to accept the clear timing given to those events.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The preparation and readiness Jesus was referring to is the same as is required for salvation: Change (aka, repentance).

Most have not "changed' in the way that is required--which is, as Paul said, "the renewing of your mind." Most have remained in their old frame of mind and thinking, except for being receptive to the promises--which is not a renewing of the mind readiness at all.

Jesus came after centuries of natural miracles, performed more natural miracles, then added to that an announcement that the kingdom of God (who is spirit--not natural) had come upon them, preached being born again--not natural--but spiritual, then died and ascended to be with the Father (spiritual)--while repeatedly saying "Follow Me."

But did anyone "change' from the former natural way of things to the spiritual way Jesus demonstrated?

Hardly.

No, most remain like a deer in the headlights, while not heeding or fully understanding the response by the angels after Jesus had risen, saying, "He is not here; for He is risen, as He said." and "why do you stand gazing up into heaven?"

Why indeed! After all, Jesus explained, saying, "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Still most wait expecting to see Jesus coming as if born again in the flesh.

That may be. I don't know how many actually are missing the point about "being ready?" But I agree--we are to be ready by living the "Saved" life. Thank you.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Please read Hebrews 9 where it is clear that Jesus entered the heavenly Holy of Holies "by means of His own blood." What was finished on the cross was the slaying of the sacrifice. Just as the earthly high priest took the shed blood of the sacrificial lamb into the Most Holy Place of the earthly temple and sprinkled it on the altar there, so the Great High Priest, in fulfillment of all priestly things, took His "blood" to the heavenly altar and "sprinkled" it there. And as with the earthly priest, He had to exit that holy place in demonstration of the acceptance of the sacrficie by God. He did that in A. D. 70 at His coming "a second time."

The writer of Hebrews makes it plain that Jesus came the first time (Advent) to "deal with sin" (Heb. 9). He dealt with sin on the cross by paying the blood sacrifice. However, the writer goes on to state that He was to come a SECOND time "for salvation." Salvation is not complete unless and until the Second Coming has occurred. All who look for a future coming of Christ must not teach that people die and go to heaven.

The earthly things of the earthly temple were "copies of the heavenly things." Christ entered into "heaven itself" (vs. 24). Please observe the timing. The writer of Hebrews, addressing those of HIS own day, wrote: "NOW to appear in the presence of God on OUR behalf." In THEIR day, He was to appear NOW. Notice when Christ was said to have appeared. "AT THE END OF THE AGES." They were living at the "end of the ages." He was to appear to THEM, who eagerly awaited Him! And He did.

Please reconsider your understanding of the NATURE of His return, the NATURE of the resurrection, and the NATURE of the judgment so that you will then be free to accept the clear timing given to those events.

I do not disagree that our Salvation will only be complete with the resurrection, which takes place at Christ's Return. I was only saying that Salvation was legally finalized at the Cross.

 

[Randy Kluth]

ALL of the these things in the Olivet Discourse were directed at those very disciples standing right there with Him. THEY were to live through all of it--in THEIR generation. Jesus said so. Will we not acknowledge HIS timing of events?

That's what I said. The Birthpains Jesus referred to were signs that the 70 AD was about to take place in Jesus' generation. This is in contrast with the signs of Jesus' 2nd Coming.

 

[Randy Kluth]

We are not to be "physically" redeemed. The death Jesus came to overcome was NOT physical death--it was spiritual death (i.e., separation from God). Being "raised from the dead" is to be fully restored to complete fellowship with God--the fellowship lost in the first Adam. This is apparent by the timing and the audience you refuse to acknowledge. THEY were to be changed--and THEY were.

I disagree. We are to be "physically redeemed" by resurrection at the Return of Christ. We were *legally redeemed* at the Cross and received a downpayment on our future resurrection.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Ezekiel 37 was fulfilled when the Jews returned from captivity in Babylon. It is not about OUR future. Furthermore, Jesus taught that the age in which He and those of His day were then living was "about to come" (Mat. 13). The Mosaic/Old Covenant age ended in A. D. 70 at the Lord's return and the Messianic/Church Age began in its fullness. "The power of the Holy people" came to an end (Dan. 12) in A. D. 70. A million Jews died at that time and the rest were taken into captivity and dispersed throughout the known world. That which falsely claims to be OT Israel today is the creation of the U. N. and bears no resemblance to that of Scripture.

I disagree with "Replacement Theology." Eze 37 speaks of a literal physical restoration of the Israeli nation to their land, which is happening in our own time. Israel is not yet there, however, since they remain "unspiritual" as a country. Jesus will come back to separate the sheep from the goats.

The Old Covenant ended at the Cross--not at 70 AD. The remaining shell of OT worship continued up until 70 AD, when it was fully exposed as rejected by God.

The "nearness" of the Kingdom Age has everything to do with access Jesus made for people to obtain membership in this Kingdom, regardless of how far off in time it would be before it comes. He dismissed interest in determining length of time, admitting that a long exile would have to exist for Israel first. The priority is to accept Salvation today so that we are ready today.

 

[HappyOma]

I disagree with "Replacement Theology."

And you should disagree with it. Realized eschatology is NOT "replacement theology," Randy. It is FULFILLMENT theology. The beginning of God's people is found Adam. It is reaffirmed in Noah and then in Abram, through whom all the nations of the earth would be blessed (Gen. 12). God created a national people through whom His Messiah and Savior would come. That "national" people are NOT all of the faith of Abraham and are not all SPIRITUAL Israel.

All who are believers in Christ Jesus are of the spiritual SEED of Abraham. Paul made it clear that its circumcision of the HEART that makes one a child of God and not circumcision of the flesh. No one is replacing anyone. WE are part of ABRAHAM; he is our brother in faith. Paul told us that Christ came to tear down the middle wall of partition between the Jew and the Gentile and to make of the two ONE NEW MAN.

The charge of "replacement theology" is a convenient handle to toss upon preterists but it is a misnomer. Israel was NOT replaced by the Church. The two are from the SAME faith. Within national Israel, God always had His remnant--those who truly belonged to Him. The salvation brought in Christ Jesus provided that for which OT TRUE Israel had longed. THAT salvatoin and faith of Abraham was given to the Gentiles, and many of them believed. It is one body and one church. Always has been and always will be.

 

[Zao is life]

Randy said:
In my view, Jesus was using "watching" as a synonym for "being ready." If we "watch" we are in fact getting "ready" as Jesus used the term.

But as you say, these concepts are not necessarily the same unless used in a context that joins them. In this case, "watching" is "being ready."

But outside of how Jesus is using "watching," it can fall woefully short of "being ready." For example, I could be engaged in all kinds of eschatological preparation by drawing up prophetic maps, interpreting current events, and even selling some of my material belongings. But if we are not walking in step with the Lord spiritually we are not really "being ready." We are just engaging in a "prophetic watch."

Sentry duty is not necessarily "getting ready." To get ready properly we have to be walking with the Lord, and not just engaging our minds in developing prophetic calendars and schemes. To try to anticipate the signs and times in this way goes against what Jesus specifically said regarding anticipating his Return.

We are *not* to know times and seasons as our main focus in order to get ready for his Coming. Rather, we are to be engaged in the ministry we are called to presently in specific preparation for that event. We bring the message of warning to the world first, and then comes the end.

What Jesus told his Disciples of in the Olivet Discourse was a different context from his Coming, though Jesus compared these events. But in the case of the fall of the Temple, Jesus warned his Disciples that the time for that to happen had already come, that it would happen in *their generation."

But by contrast Jesus' Return is going to follow a long Jewish Exile and Diaspora that necessarily precedes his Coming. He will not Come until after they have been sent into Exile for the longest punishment in the history of the Jews. Only then will he Return.

In the meantime it is our duty to continue with this job of testifying to the Gospel and warning the world of coming Judgment. He will not come until God sees fit to do so.

To be ready for that event we are now given opportunity to relay the message that we can be converted spiritually in order to repent and be spared God's hostility towards Sin. To be "ready" therefore is to be *converted* and to remain true to this conversion spiritually and morally.
There is a difference between "knowing" by intellectual assent (ginosko) and "knowing" through an experience of the senses (eido). Both of them are used in the discourse. And both words are used in Matthew 24:33.
Mar 13:29 ISV In the same way, when you SEE (eido) these things taking place, you will know that the Son of Man is near, right at the door.

Mat 24:33 KJV So likewise ye, when ye shall SEE all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

Someone said:
There is a difference between "knowing" by intellectual assent (ginosko) and "knowing" through an experience of the senses (eido). Both of them are used in the discourse. And both words are used in Matthew 24:33.
Mar 13:29 ISV In the same way, when you SEE (eido) these things taking place, you will know that the Son of Man is near, right at the door.
Mat 24:33 KJV So likewise ye, when ye shall SEE all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

Randy said:
I agree that there is a difference between knowing by senses, and thus preparing, and knowing intellectually. But they can also be the same thing. This would be a distinction without a difference.

That is, I can intellectually assent to Jesus' Coming and at the same time recognize with my eyes physical evidence that his Coming is near, though that is not yet possible--we see nothing that suggests he is coming in the immediate moment.

What we must recognize is the difference between the need to physically prepare for and physically see things that are happening now, and things that are distant and in the future. The things that are happening now are our priority, and not the distant things.

I suggest that in the Olivet Discourse Jesus was comparing the relatively imminent judgment against the Jews in 70 AD and the 2nd Coming Jesus' Disciples were asking him about. The one event was already up on the calendar and had to be physically prepared for. The other event was distant and not important to try to physically prepare for or anticipate. Distant things are subject to "times and seasons" that are under the Father's care, and not our present concern (Acts 1.7).

We prepare for that distant event, ie Christ's Coming strictly by remaining ready spiritually, as always, continuing to walk in our converted lifestyle, remaining true to Christ. If we remain true to him today we are ready today, even if the event remains a long ways off.

We cannot prepare for that event physically but it is not yet of curremt concern. It belongs to the "times and seasons" category that we are not to try to anticipate and physically see or prepare for.

The lesson is, I think, to be engaged in things that are happening now, or about to happen imminently, just as Jesus' Disciples had to prepare for the relatively imminent event of 70 AD. The things that are far off we don't need to speculate on because our higher priority is in doing things now that must precede Christ's Coming.

We must preach the Gospel of conversion and we must warn the world of God's judgment against their Sin. This is our priority and must precede the actual time of Christ's Return.

I agree with the main thrust of your post but I would take it a step further because IMO Jesus does not want us to overly concern or trouble ourselves with current events happening on the sinking ship we all live on, but He has given certain events, and a certain event as "the sign of the times".

"You will hear of wars and rumors of wars. Make sure that you are not alarmed, for this must happen, but the end is still to come." Matthew 24:6.

 

[Randy Kluth]

And you should disagree with it. Realized eschatology is NOT "replacement theology," Randy. It is FULFILLMENT theology.

I think there is a connection between Replacement Theology and Realized Eschatology. In my book Replacement Theology is when Israel is no longer viewed as a literal nation that God has determined to save *as a nation* to represent the true God in their politics and society.

The beginning of God's people is found Adam. It is reaffirmed in Noah and then in Abram, through whom all the nations of the earth would be blessed (Gen. 12). God created a national people through whom His Messiah and Savior would come. That "national" people are NOT all of the faith of Abraham and are not all SPIRITUAL Israel.

God has never required 100% compliance with His Law, or 100% of the people having genuine faith, in order to establish a nation under Himself or in covenant with Himself. The failure of Israel or of any nation called to serve God is not an end to God's promise, but only a temporary setback.

All who are believers in Christ Jesus are of the spiritual SEED of Abraham. Paul made it clear that its circumcision of the HEART that makes one a child of God and not circumcision of the flesh. No one is replacing anyone. WE are part of ABRAHAM; he is our brother in faith. Paul told us that Christ came to tear down the middle wall of partition between the Jew and the Gentile and to make of the two ONE NEW MAN.

The basis of salvation of individuals is the same Divine word that forms the basis of God's salvation of nations. It is based on fidelity to God's word. The difference is only on the scope, whether it applies to an individual's eternal destiny or to a nation's temporal blessings.

God's standards under the Law involved the same God and the same holiness as exists now under the covenant of Christ. Both were equally "spiritual." The only difference is that under the New Covenant redemption has been legally completed, whereas under the Law of Moses is was looking forward to that completion.

Creating a division between OT reality and NT reality on a spiritual basis is a form of Marcionism. He in effect created 2 separate gods, thinking the Law was very different from the NT God.

It is just as bad to view OT realities as purely symbolic of NT realities. This has truth in it, of course, since the Law was fulfilled in Christ. However, we must not dismis all of the literal promises made under the old covenant. The NT teaches that those promises could not be withdrawn and were eternal regardless of the need to fulfill the Law in Christ.

The charge of "replacement theology" is a convenient handle to toss upon preterists but it is a misnomer. Israel was NOT replaced by the Church. The two are from the SAME faith. Within national Israel, God always had His remnant--those who truly belonged to Him. The salvation brought in Christ Jesus provided that for which OT TRUE Israel had longed. THAT salvatoin and faith of Abraham was given to the Gentiles, and many of them believed. It is one body and one church. Always has been and always will be.

"True Israel" has always been the literal nation, regardless of how many fell short. The existence of a faithful remnant was only indicative of a lapse, and not the cause of a change in definition from National Israel to a now "True Israel" represented only by those who are faithful.

Certainly we may distinguish those in the nation who are faithful, or even those who are Saved. But national Israel remains defined as "National Israel," and even the loss of many faithful will not prevent God from bringing revival and restoration to the full nation.

 

[HappyOma]

I think there is a connection between Replacement Theology and Realized Eschatology. In my book Replacement Theology is when Israel is no longer viewed as a literal nation that God has determined to save *as a nation* to represent the true God in their politics and society.

God has never required 100% compliance with His Law, or 100% of the people having genuine faith, in order to establish a nation under Himself or in covenant with Himself. The failure of Israel or of any nation called to serve God is not an end to God's promise, but only a temporary setback.

The basis of salvation of individuals is the same Divine word that forms the basis of God's salvation of nations. It is based on fidelity to God's word. The difference is only on the scope, whether it applies to an individual's eternal destiny or to a nation's temporal blessings.

God's standards under the Law involved the same God and the same holiness as exists now under the covenant of Christ. Both were equally "spiritual." The only difference is that under the New Covenant redemption has been legally completed, whereas under the Law of Moses is was looking forward to that completion.

Creating a division between OT reality and NT reality on a spiritual basis is a form of Marcionism. He in effect created 2 separate gods, thinking the Law was very different from the NT God.

It is just as bad to view OT realities as purely symbolic of NT realities. This has truth in it, of course, since the Law was fulfilled in Christ. However, we must not dismis all of the literal promises made under the old covenant. The NT teaches that those promises could not be withdrawn and were eternal regardless of the need to fulfill the Law in Christ.


"True Israel" has always been the literal nation, regardless of how many fell short. The existence of a faithful remnant was only indicative of a lapse, and not the cause of a change in definition from National Israel to a now "True Israel" represented only by those who are faithful.

Certainly we may distinguish those in the nation who are faithful, or even those who are Saved. But national Israel remains defined as "National Israel," and even the loss of many faithful will not prevent God from bringing revival and restoration to the full nation.

 

[HappyOma]

I see no scriptural support for anything you wrote. What did Paul write about the true Israel of God?

To the Ephesians he wrote of God's breaking down the "middle wall of partition" between Jew and Gentile and made of the two ONE NEW MAN. In Galatians 6, he addresses the issue of the Jews who were demanding that Gentiles be circumcised, while they themselves did not even keep the law but boasated in their standing as the "circumcised." Paul, himself a "Hebrew of Hebrews" who boasted in his circumcision and Jewish heritage (Phil. 3:4-6) expressed the need to be boasters in "the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ." It was not the circumcision of the OT nation of Israel nor the uncircumcision of the Gentiles that counted for anything. What matters is a "new creation." To the saints at Rome, Paul wrote that one was a Jew INWARDLY and not OUTWARDLY. One is a Jew who is circumcised in his heart (Rom. 2).

The writer of Hebrews compared the old with the new, stating that the old ("first") covenant with the nation of Israel was not perfect. If it had been, the author states, "there would have been no occasion to look for a second" (Heb. 8:7). He goes on to establish the timing of the end of that old covenant with the physical nation of Israel--in the writer's own day the covenant was "growing old, becoming obsolete, and READY to pass away" (vs. 13). The old and everything associated with the nation of Israel was abolished when everything pertaining to it was destroyed in A. D. 70 (i.e., the Temple and Jerusalem). National Israel was no more and was to be no more. The New, the Second, the Perfect Covenant and the eternal Kingdom came forth victorious. The people of God were made up of ALL the nations of the world in fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham. WE are the spiritual seed of Abraham and we all make up spiritual ISRAEL--God's only people forever. Again, that is NOT replacement theology--it is BIBLICAL fulfillment theology. "And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise" (Galatians 3:29).

That which calls itself "Israel" today is not OT Israel and is not of God. It is the creation of the U. N. True Isreal is NOT a nation--it is made up of those of the faith of Abraham and his spiritual seed from ALL nations.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I see no scriptural support for anything you wrote. What did Paul write about the true Israel of God?

You may not have spent enough time in the Scriptures? What I said, whether you agree or not, should be understood as based on one view of Scriptures, if you are a veteran Bible student.

1st, Paul indicated that the promises of God are eternal, and not subject to time and covenant. Do you understand where I get that from?

2nd, whatever Paul says about who is acting like a true Israelite, he is not re-defining the term "Israel." The Scriptures do not teach re-definition. Rather, they teach authentic practice as Israel was called to practice God's Law.

Paul taught in Romans 9-11 that even in the NT era, when Israel as a nation has failed, a remnant remains until Christ returns to save "all Israel." Contrary to the opinion of some, "all Israel" is referring to an "entire nation," and not to the rebirth of every individual of the Israeli state.

Many times in the OT era Israel's practice under the Law, faithfully and nationally, brought them *political salvation* to preserve the promise of a nation representing the true God. This "political salvation" is what Paul is talking about, and is clearly understood from the pronouncements of the "blessings" on Mt. Gerazim in the OT Scriptures.

To the Ephesians he wrote of God's breaking down the "middle wall of partition" between Jew and Gentile and made of the two ONE NEW MAN.

Yes, and this opening of the barrier between Israel and other nations, with respect to a covenant relationship with God, has nothing to do with re-defining "Israel." Israel was brought into covenant relationship with God while they still had lots of problems in their membership or citizenry. And God has now opened the door for many other nations, with all of their "warts and pimples."

God is looking for nations to carry the message of His grace. He only started with Israel because He had to start somewhere, and chose to start with a faithful man of God, namely Abraham. Israel fell in history a number of times, and many Christian nations have fallen, as well. None of this means that God only chose remnants, and did not choose nations to represent the entire social package as He wished Christianity to affect it.

In Galatians 6, he addresses the issue of the Jews who were demanding that Gentiles be circumcised, while they themselves did not even keep the law but boasated in their standing as the "circumcised." Paul, himself a "Hebrew of Hebrews" who boasted in his circumcision and Jewish heritage (Phil. 3:4-6) expressed the need to be boasters in "the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ." It was not the circumcision of the OT nation of Israel nor the uncircumcision of the Gentiles that counted for anything. What matters is a "new creation." To the saints at Rome, Paul wrote that one was a Jew INWARDLY and not OUTWARDLY. One is a Jew who is circumcised in his heart (Rom. 2).

Yes, Paul is speaking about Israel's failure to enter into the new covenant of Christ and leave the old Law of Moses behind, which had been focused on bringing them into the New Covenant. We are not to enter into "Religion," but rather, into Christ. Israel had known God, and not just "Religion." But over time, the revelation fails, as it does in all nations. Israel was just the 1st to fail, and by no means indicates they will stay "fallen." They can be recovered when the time is right.

The writer of Hebrews compared the old with the new, stating that the old ("first") covenant with the nation of Israel was not perfect. If it had been, the author states, "there would have been no occasion to look for a second" (Heb. 8:7).

The temporal nature of the Old Covenant does not mean it was meaningless and worthless! Following that Law Israel did right, was spiritual, and followed God's righteousness. Backsliding in the nation does not mean the system was flawed!

He goes on to establish the timing of the end of that old covenant with the physical nation of Israel--in the writer's own day the covenant was "growing old, becoming obsolete, and READY to pass away" (vs. 13). The old and everything associated with the nation of Israel was abolished when everything pertaining to it was destroyed in A. D. 70 (i.e., the Temple and Jerusalem).

Well yes, Israel failed in the time of Jesus' earthly ministry. And it took a full generation for the Temple to fall--perhaps 40 years? None of this means Israel cannot rise again, which is what I think the Prophets foretold. God's promises cannot fail. It will happen, I think.

National Israel was no more and was to be no more.

God made eternal promises to Abraham on behalf of his national posterity. They are "eternal." Israel's failure in the NT era will not stop them from regrouping when Christ returns. And in a sense that process has already begun with the restoration of the Israeli nation in the Middle East.

 

[HappyOma]

You may not have spent enough time in the Scriptures? What I said, whether you agree or not, should be understood as based on one view of Scriptures, if you are a veteran Bible student.

1st, Paul indicated that the promises of God are eternal, and not subject to time and covenant. Do you understand where I get that from?

2nd, whatever Paul says about who is acting like a true Israelite, he is not re-defining the term "Israel." The Scriptures do not teach re-definition. Rather, they teach authentic practice as Israel was called to practice God's Law.

Paul taught in Romans 9-11 that even in the NT era, when Israel as a nation has failed, a remnant remains until Christ returns to save "all Israel." Contrary to the opinion of some, "all Israel" is referring to an "entire nation," and not to the rebirth of every individual of the Israeli state.

Many times in the OT era Israel's practice under the Law, faithfully and nationally, brought them *political salvation* to preserve the promise of a nation representing the true God. This "political salvation" is what Paul is talking about, and is clearly understood from the pronouncements of the "blessings" on Mt. Gerazim in the OT Scriptures.

Yes, and this opening of the barrier between Israel and other nations, with respect to a covenant relationship with God, has nothing to do with re-defining "Israel." Israel was brought into covenant relationship with God while they still had lots of problems in their membership or citizenry. And God has now opened the door for many other nations, with all of their "warts and pimples."

God is looking for nations to carry the message of His grace. He only started with Israel because He had to start somewhere, and chose to start with a faithful man of God, namely Abraham. Israel fell in history a number of times, and many Christian nations have fallen, as well. None of this means that God only chose remnants, and did not choose nations to represent the entire social package as He wished Christianity to affect it.

Yes, Paul is speaking about Israel's failure to enter into the new covenant of Christ and leave the old Law of Moses behind, which had been focused on bringing them into the New Covenant. We are not to enter into "Religion," but rather, into Christ. Israel had known God, and not just "Religion." But over time, the revelation fails, as it does in all nations. Israel was just the 1st to fail, and by no means indicates they will stay "fallen." They can be recovered when the time is right.

The temporal nature of the Old Covenant does not mean it was meaningless and worthless! Following that Law Israel did right, was spiritual, and followed God's righteousness. Backsliding in the nation does not mean the system was flawed!

Well yes, Israel failed in the time of Jesus' earthly ministry. And it took a full generation for the Temple to fall--perhaps 40 years? None of this means Israel cannot rise again, which is what I think the Prophets foretold. God's promises cannot fail. It will happen, I think.

God made eternal promises to Abraham on behalf of his national posterity. They are "eternal." Israel's failure in the NT era will not stop them from regrouping when Christ returns. And in a sense that process has already begun with the restoration of the Israeli nation in the Middle East.