No future hope for Israel in the Bible

[marks]

Blood doesn't count. It never did. It's faith.

It counts if you are descended from Jacob. That's the whole point of a great many prophecies.

To Christians.

Specifically,

1 Peter 1:1 KJV
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,



The diaspora, this referred to the Jews scattered - sown - thoughout Gentile countries.

2 Peter, on the other hand, is addressed to all believers:

2 Peter 1:1 KJV
Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

Much love!

 

[marks]

To the audience identified in 1 Peter 2:5.

"Ye".

That's a pronoun that must have an antecedant, so why you post this, I don't know. You'd do better to give the antecedant, and show that as the audience being addressed. It's actually found in chapter 1 verse 1,

1 Peter 1:1 KJV
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

Literally, the sojourners of the diaspora, that is, the scattering of Jews thoughout Gentile lands.

Much love!

 

[marks]

The supernatural SEED (Christ) is the offspring of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Matthew 22:32 (KJV) I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

This verse does not say Christians are the seed of Jacob.

Jesus, speaking to the Jews, speaks of the patriarchs. But again, there is no mention of Christians being the seed of Jacob, or of Isaac either, for that matter.

Much love!

 

[covenantee]

That's a pronoun that must have an antecedant, so why you post this, I don't know. You'd do better to give the antecedant, and show that as the audience being addressed. It's actually found in chapter 1 verse 1,

1 Peter 1:1 KJV
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

Literally, the sojourners of the diaspora, that is, the scattering of Jews thoughout Gentile lands.

Much love!

The antecedent of "ye" in 1 Peter 2:9 is "ye" in 1 Peter 2:5.

AKA The Church.

So why you attempt to racialize the Church, I don't know.

God is not a racist.

Nor can He be contorted into one.

 

[kdx]

It counts if you are descended from Jacob.

Let me quickly demolish this craziness:

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. (Rom 9,6-8)

There you have it. Those "of the flesh", the bloodline, are not the children of God. Thus saith the LORD. But who is? Christians, those "of the promise". If you are Christs, then you are Abrahams offspring, and heir according to promise. It cannot be any clearer than that.

Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written, “Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband.” Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. (Gal 4,25–28.)

Another text that makes the difference quite clear. Children of promise, the children of the heavenly Jerusalem, these are the Christians, and only they. The other Jerusalem, according to Paul, the in his time "present Jerusalem", the earthly one, is in slavery. Look, he goes on:

But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman. (Gal 4,30–31.)

Goodbye Old Testament / Old Covenant Israel. You will definitely not inherit the promises. Never.

By the way, don't you think it's funny how a lot of Dispensationalists accuse any non-friendly-to-present-day-Israel-adherents-with-regard-to-Gods-promises with anti-semitic tendencies (or at least their theology, according to these Dispensationalists, supposedly give way for anti-semitism, which is a form of racism), while at the same time upholding Israel as special because of their blood? Isn't this racism per se? I mean, you cannot get any clearer than that. It's insane, and disgusting, in my opinion.

 

[covenantee]

Let me quickly demolish this craziness:

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. (Rom 9,6-8)

There you have it. Those "of the flesh", the bloodline, are not the children of God. Thus saith the LORD. But who is? Christians, those "of the promise". If you are Christs, then you are Abrahams offspring, and heir according to promise. It cannot be any clearer than that.

Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written, “Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband.” Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. (Gal 4,25–28.)

Another text that makes the difference quite clear. Children of promise, the children of the heavenly Jerusalem, these are the Christians, and only they. The other Jerusalem, according to Paul, the in his time "present Jerusalem", the earthly one, is in slavery. Look, he goes on:

But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman. (Gal 4,30–31.)

Goodbye Old Testament / Old Covenant Israel. You will definitely not inherit the promises. Never.

By the way, don't you think it's funny how a lot of Dispensationalists accuse any non-friendly-to-present-day-Israel-adherents-with-regard-to-Gods-promises with anti-semitic tendencies (or at least their theology, according to these Dispensationalists, supposedly give way for anti-semitism, which is a form of racism), while at the same time upholding Israel as special because of their blood? Isn't this racism per se? I mean, you cannot get any clearer than that. It's insane, and disgusting, in my opinion.

Amen bro.

Dispensationalism extols "Christian" zionism, the ultimate oxymoron, and the ultimate racism.

 

[kdx]

The diaspora, this referred to the Jews scattered - sown - thoughout Gentile countries.

How does this rebuke me saying that they are Christians?

You seem to operate under the assumption that Jew and Christian are opposite terms. But this is not the case, in the Bible. Paul himself was a Jew, yet a Christian. It just means he was a blood-relative of Abraham, who happened to believe in Christ.

Jew is opposed to Gentiles, not to Christ. It's an ethnic group (descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob), although at that time also (in most cases) religiously involved.

That's why I don't like the term "Messianic Jew". It should better be called "Jewish Christian".

 

[kdx]

2 Peter, on the other hand, is addressed to all believers:

And no, that's probably not true. Second Peter seems to have the same audience. He writes, in his second letter, Chapter 3, Verse 1:

This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved.

 

[marks]

So why you attempt to racialize the Church, I don't know.

Well, I'm not. So there you go.

Much love!

 

[marks]

By the way, don't you think it's funny how a lot of Dispensationalists accuse any non-friendly-to-present-day-Israel-adherents-with-regard-to-Gods-promises with anti-semitic tendencies

Really, is that so?

Today I've learned something about you, sad but true.

Much love!

 

[kdx]

Really, is that so?

Sadly, it is. Just happened again a few days ago, if you want to watch the debate between Michael Brown and Steve Gregg.

 

[marks]

How does this rebuke me saying that they are Christians?

"Christians" doesn't have the same specificity that Peter used.

BTW I don't consider I'm rebuking you, I hope I'm not coming across that way.

That's why I don't like the term "Messianic Jew". It should better be called "Jewish Christian".

In Christ is neither Greek nor Jew, so neither "Jewish Christian" nor "Gentile Christian" apply, just "Christian".

Much love!

 

[TribulationSigns]

What you ask is not about Revelation.

Like duh, I didn't.

Ezekiel was the guardian of Israel, the watchman. His words concerned Israel.

Then answer my question, when did the battle of Gog and Magog take place concerning "Ezekiel's Israel." I am waiting.

And the Revelation regarding all humanity.

Since when did I asked you about Revelation 20? No, my question is about Ezekiel 38-39 that I asked you so focus on that, will ya?

If you insist on making a comparison, then you will only end up in the wrong direction.

Did I ask for a comparison? No.

But thanks for the stonewall — impressive how you avoided answering my actual question.

 

[kdx]

"Christians" doesn't have the same specificity that Peter used.

Well, every Christian has a nation he belongs to. And Peter just happened to write to his own countrymen in the diaspora, the Jews. Verse 7 of the passage reads:

"So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe..."

They are believers in Christ, jewish Christians, differentiated from all unbelievers.

BTW I don't consider I'm rebuking you, I hope I'm not coming across that way.

No you don't, I just accidentally wrote the wrong word. I meant to write refute.

In Christ is neither Greek nor Jew, so neither "Jewish Christian" nor "Gentile Christian" apply, just "Christian".

Yeah that's the best. However, since "Messianic Jew" is very popular, I was just given my opinion as to how it rather should be called, if you really want to keep the Jewishness in the appellation.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Certainly not the Zionist-"Israel" of today. When God in the Bible speaks of Israel, it is to be understood in His terms. So it has to be a covenant people. So if it is, in this passage (or any else), speaking about the Israel of the Old Testament, then this prophecy has already been fulfilled. Why? Because this Israel doesn't exist anymore. And if this passage is to be fulfilled in the future, it has to be fulfilled in the church, since that is the only "Israel", as defined by God, that still exists today, and will exist until the end of time.

Of course! It is my belief.

You made a grievous mistake before, when you wrote:

Really? Let's see...

You call the modern state of Israel a "re-establishment". But something can only be re-established if it is established upon the same terms. But this is not so. Old Testament Israel was established upon the Old Covenant. So if you want to "re-establish" that Israel, you would have to re-establish the Old Covenant itself, with all it's worship. But this is an impossible position to hold as a Christian, since this Covenant was replaced by the New. There is a new people of God, and if anyone (abrahamic blood or gentile) wants to have a part in God, he has to become part of this Covenant.

Facepalm. I was saying that the physical "NATION" Israel was re-established WITHOUT the Old Covenant or ANY covenant. It is just a nation like others. It does not represent God's kingdom just like the rest of the world. The New Testament Israel, the Church is.

I think people are easily being fooled just by the fact that the modern state of Israel goes by the name of "Israel". If it's called Israel, then it has to be Israel, right? This is nonsense.

No its not. Israel is Israel as "physical nation". It has same descendants, same heritage, same language, same tradition, and identity. The only thing they lack TODAY is a covenant and kingdom representation. Yet there are some people who believe that God has some unfinished business with Jewish Nation in the Middle East which is wrong. I have explained that the "true" Israel today is the New Testament Congregation, the Church. Get it?

If I open a company by the name of "Israel" and hire twenty jews to work there, that doesn't magically make it Old Testament Israel, too. That's crazy. But this is basically what is being suggested with the modern state of Zionist Israel.

LOL.... Boy, that is a big stretch. :-)

 

[covenantee]

Well, I'm not. So there you go.

Much love!

I don't go anywhere. I stay right here:

In God's New Will and Testament, all covenants and promises are fulfilled only in Christ, and in those who are in Christ.

The OT covenants and promises are the promissory clauses of God's Old Will and Testament, and they are both revoked and fulfilled in the promissory clauses of His New Will and Testament, written in the Blood of His Son Jesus Christ, the Divine Testator, coming into full force and effect upon His death.

If you have written your own Will and Testament, you will see that the very first clause states the following or its equivalent:

"I HEREBY REVOKE all former Wills and other testamentary dispositions by me at any time therefore made and declare this to be my Last Will and Testament."

This means that all former wills and testaments, and all of their promissory clauses in their entirety, are completely null and void. In their place, the promissory clauses of the current last new will and testament are the only ones in force and effect. Any promissory clause which appeared in the old will and testament, but does not appear in the new will and testament, is irrevocably null and void unless yet another new will and testament is made which re-includes it.

Thus we see:

Hebrews 9
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Hebrews 10
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Hebrews 8
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.

God`s New Will and Testament is everlasting:

Hebrews 13
20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant.

There is none greater.

We see other new promissory clauses of the New Will and Testament in:

Matthew 21:33-45
In this parable, the son, who is identified as the heir, typifies Christ.

Galatians 3:16
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

2 Corinthians 1:20
For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

Hebrews 1:1,2
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

In them, we see that the Heir and Beneficiary is Christ alone, that all of the promises are affirmed and confirmed in Him, and that He is Heir of all things. All includes the OT land promises, the restoration promises, the blessings promises, and all else. There are no exceptions.

God has appointed His Son alone as heir of all things. Unbelieving Israel is not an heir. Galatians 4:30-31.

His New Will and Testament contains even better promises:

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.

Such as:

Hebrews 11
16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

Additional promissory clauses in...:

Romans 8:16-17
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Galatians 3:29
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

...declare that those who are in Christ are heirs and joint heirs with Him.

But it is clear, plain, and undeniable:

There are no promissory clauses for anyone, Jew or Gentile...

Who is not in Christ under His New Covenant/Testament.

 

[kdx]

I was saying that the physical "NATION" Israel was re-established WITHOUT the Old Covenant or ANY covenant.

But how can you say it was re-established if it wasn't, by your own admission, re-established? It was, by your own admission, established, not re-established.

The Israel you read about in the Bible was a nation created and based/grounded on the Mosaic Covenant which God made, through Moses, with the people who came out of Egypt. This was Israel. The covenant was their law, it was a theocracy based on the Mosaic Covenant. It had civil and religious laws, the law of Moses. It was initiated by Moses:

And Moses took the blood and threw it on the people and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.” (Ex 24,8)

This defined Israel, this was Israel. They had their moral, civil and religious laws. It was a nation state based on the temple worship in Jerusalem. This whole thing God took away, when he brought the Romans in the first century. And instead, God brought in, this time through Jesus (not through Moses), another covenant, the New Covenant.

So the Zionist state of Israel today has nothing to do with all of that. It is not a (as you call it) "re-establishment", but merely an establishment of a nation in that area which just happens to share in the name of "Israel". But there was no command of God to anyone to do this very thing, as was the case with the establishment of the Old Covenant (there he had Moses), or as was the case with the establishment with the New Covenant (there he had Christ). Zionist-Israel is merely human, whereas the Old Israel of the Bible, and the New and current one, are both divine. They were both commanded and initiated by God.

LOL.... Boy, that is a big stretch. :-)

I had to use such an example just to get through with the point. Creating and naming a nation state "Israel" doesn't identify it in any way with an older nation state of "Israel", if the grounds of the older nation state of "Israel" are fundamentally different. And they are, as I am again trying to show you.

Get it?

Of course I do. My critique to you, as you are aware, concerns something else. I already saw that you don't hold dispensationalist leanings, and I am of course happy about that.

 

[TribulationSigns]

1 Peter 1:1 KJV
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

Literally, the sojourners of the diaspora, that is, the scattering of Jews thoughout Gentile lands.

Okay first...

It is axiomatic that when Christ speaks to the 12 Apostles, He's speaking to the whole Church in synergy. The, "when ye," refers to all the Church. When Christ said to the 12, "Watch, for ye know not when the Son of man cometh," He's talking to all of us, not just to the 12 standing there. If we were to think He only meant the 12 Apostles when He said "ye," then we're back to false teaching of Preterism because He said to them to watch concerning His return. So we need to consider these things "carefully."

Matthew 24:42-44

• "Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
• But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
• Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh."

Christ was talking to the whole Church through the 12. That is the way God inspired His Holy Word to be written to teach us. All of scripture is written to someone, to the children of Israel, to Timothy, to the Romans, to a man named Philemon, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, the Philippians, the Thessalonians, to the seven Churches of Asia, etc., etc., but it is ultimately for all of us. What would be the purpose of God recording in scripture his instruction to 1 (or 12) individuals except to instruct the Church? When God told the children of Israel to obey His word and not turn to the right hand or to the left to avoid it, He was talking to all of us. When He told them about the man of sin in Thessalonians, He was talking to us. If we start limiting scripture only to the individual people it is addressed to, we will find ourselves without instruction.

And one more thing, you mentioned strangers, the question for you is, exactly who are the strangers? Let find out with God's Word for "wisdom":

Eph 2:11-14
(11) Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
(12) That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
(13) But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
(14) For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

The Gentiles are the strangers from the Old Testament Covenant, but now under the new covenant, in Christ, we, Gentiles are now part of Israel.

Much Wisdom!

 

[kdx]

@TribulationSigns

You always say that "they have so many things in common, just no covenant", but this covenant is the very thing that defined the nation state of Israel in the first place. No Old Covenant = no re-established nation state of Israel. If you want to re-establish the old nation state of Israel, you would have to re-establish the Old Covenant.

So again, what we have in the middle east today is no re-established Israel, but merely a newly established nation, which has never been before.

 

[TribulationSigns]

But how can you say it was re-established if it wasn't, by your own admission, re-established? It was, by your own admission, established, not re-established.

I said "nation", not covenant being re-established. Boy, you are really reaching!

Of course I do. My critique to you, as you are aware, concerns something else. I already saw that you don't hold dispensationalist leanings, and I am of course happy about that.

You won't, as you learn more what I am teaching here.