22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[stunnedbygrace]

Because that proves that not everything in the book is chronological, as some seem to assume.

This is odd…that’s basically what I was saying about prophecy, that it’s not strictly chronological as written and jumps around.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You have to reinterpret your paradigm if you claim these verses are future. You declare all authority, but oops, there is that 7th Trumpet declaration that does not fit all authority until a certain point in time. So those verses are not challenging the authority of Christ, it is referring to the subjection of all kingdoms to that authority. Still does not negate that Jesus will rule over all nations from Jerusalem. That is God's Word that you toss into the scrap bin.

It's impossible to take you seriously with your nonsense. And your insults do nothing but remind everyone yet again that you are completely incapable of making a coherent argument using scripture.

Jesus as King will set up a throne in current Jerusalem, and you will never be able to refute that point.

I've refuted it many times.

The 7th Trumpet is declaring that all kingdoms are now fully submitted. If you think they are currently submitted, how, if many are in open rebellion? Has it stopped raining for months in every nation?

No, the 7th trumpet will show that all of Christ's enemies will have been destroyed, as Revelation 11:18 indicates. Him ruling over all has nothing to do with whether or not everyone is submitted to Him. Whether everyone submits to Him or not, He is still King of kings and Lord of lords right now.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

This is odd…that’s basically what I was saying about prophecy, that it’s not strictly chronological as written and jumps around.

It doesn't just jump around by introducing a topic in one verse and then immediately change to a different topic, though. That was the point I was making before. But, now it looks like you're saying Isaiah 65:17-19 is about the new heavens and new earth and then the topic changes to a supposed earthly millennial kingdom in verse 20. Most Premils I've talked to who deny that verse 20 is about the new heavens and new earth say that the topic changes from verse 17 to 18, so they say verses 18-25 relate to a supposed earthly millennial kingdom.

You're just not seeing that Isaiah was describing the new heavens and new earth figuratively, so he wasn't saying there would literally be death during a supposed earthly millennial kingdom or that there would be 100 year old children during that time or anything like that. He was describing eternity in a figurative way that could be understood at that time way back then thousands of years ago.

Also, regarding verse 20, a good point was made about it way back in post #1157 by Marty Fox. He posted this translation of the verse:

Isaiah 65:20 “Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; the one who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere child; the one who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed.

It says "never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days". In what? What was described previous to that verse, which was the new heavens and new earth and the new Jerusalem. It's saying there will never again be "an infant who lives but a few days" once the new heavens and new earth are ushered in.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Wait now, what? A dragon in all these verses is a physical thing?

Of course a dragon is a physical thing. Are you not even able to understand even the simplest of things?

The symbolism is that John uses the implication of a dragon, not that John is actually seeing a dragon.

You really accept John saw an actual dragon?

These are visions of symbols that John saw. Yes, he saw a dragon with seven heads and ten horns. He also saw things like a beast with seven heads and ten horns. And he saw seven candlesticks which symbolically represents churches. It says he saw those things, so we should think he saw something else?

If so, you are really thinking John was dreaming about dragons, and that was God's way of showing him the future? That is really some kind of messed up belief system there.

It's messed up to think that John saw symbolic things in his visions? I think it's messed up to think otherwise. I don't know why I bother with your nonsense. You're in your own world and no one can comprehend 99% of the things you say.

 

[Phoneman777]

Where are you speaking of in Jeremiah?

Jeremiah 4:23-26 KJV -A CLEARLY AN APOCALYPTIC MESSAGE of the Second Coming.

Can you finally see this coming period of a darkened, desolate, empty, deserted, uninhabited, deathly silent Earth can ONLY fit in berween the Second Coming of Jesus and the Resurrection of the Damned 1,000 years later?

 

[stunnedbygrace]

It doesn't just jump around by introducing a topic in one verse and then immediately change to a different topic, though. That was the point I was making before. But, now it looks like you're saying Isaiah 65:17-19 is about the new heavens and new earth and then the topic changes to a supposed earthly millennial kingdom in verse 20. Most Premils I've talked to who deny that verse 20 is about the new heavens and new earth say that the topic changes from verse 17 to 18, so they say verses 18-25 relate to a supposed earthly millennial kingdom.

You're just not seeing that Isaiah was describing the new heavens and new earth figuratively, so he wasn't saying there would literally be death during a supposed earthly millennial kingdom or that there would be 100 year old children during that time or anything like that. He was describing eternity in a figurative way that could be understood at that time way back then thousands of years ago.

Also, regarding verse 20, a good point was made about it way back in post #1157 by Marty Fox. He posted this translation of the verse:

Isaiah 65:20 “Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; the one who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere child; the one who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed.

It says "never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days". In what? What was described previous to that verse, which was the new heavens and new earth and the new Jerusalem. It's saying there will never again be "an infant who lives but a few days" once the new heavens and new earth are ushered in.

Well, once again, the one who fails to reach even the young age of 100 will be thought accursed. Which doesn’t mean what it says literally to you.

 

[Timtofly]

I'm not saying that "every other single chapter in Revelation does that". I was just using that as an example. It isn't the only place where it's not chronological from one chapter to the next, though.

No, I'm not. As usual, all you have to offer are false accusations.

Because that proves that not everything in the book is chronological, as some seem to assume. So, since it clearly is not chronological from the end of chapter 11 to chapter 12, then people should consider the possibility of it not being chronological in other places such as Revelation 19 and 20 as well.

What is your point? That is irrelevant to anything that we're discussing.

Nobody says the book of Revelation is chronological from front to back.

We say Revelation 20 is chronologically after 19.

Then you deny that because "the whole book is not chronological", because of chapter 12. I have never seen you ever use another chapter to prove your point.

 

[L.A.M.B.]

Stunned, this is how ppl avoid the TRUTH of the word of God.

Is it literal,symbolic or a metaphor or better yet an allegory. Go fiqure ! The word says what it says ,few however let the Spirit teach them !

 

[Timtofly]

It's impossible to take you seriously with your nonsense. And your insults do nothing but remind everyone yet again that you are completely incapable of making a coherent argument using scripture.

I've refuted it many times.

No, the 7th trumpet will show that all of Christ's enemies will have been destroyed, as Revelation 11:18 indicates. Him ruling over all has nothing to do with whether or not everyone is submitted to Him. Whether everyone submits to Him or not, He is still King of kings and Lord of lords right now.

Where did I say Jesus is not currently King of kings and Lord of lords right now?

Revelation 11:15

"And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever."

You refuted this?

 

[WPM]

Jeremiah 4:23-26 KJV -A CLEARLY AN APOCALYPTIC MESSAGE of the Second Coming.

Can you finally see this coming period of a darkened, desolate, empty, deserted, uninhabited, deathly silent Earth can ONLY fit in berween the Second Coming of Jesus and the Resurrection of the Damned 1,000 years later?

Destroyed, emptied, regenerated and then repopulated with the glorified redeemed.

 

[WPM]

Well, once again, the one who fails to reach even the young age of 100 will be thought accursed. Which doesn’t mean what it says literally to you.

I have covered this many times on this thread with you but you have carefully sidestepped the actual evidence. Isaiah 65 is speaking about the NHNE, not some imaginary millennium in the future, which none of the OT prophets, Christ or any of the NT writers recognized. What is more: it doesn't say that people die there. Read the original Hebrew.

Let us have a literal word-by-word look at the Hebrew pertaining to Isaiah 65:20.

לֹא־יִֽהְיֶ֨ה מִשָּׁ֜ם עֹ֗וד ע֤וּל יָמִים֙ וְזָקֵ֔ן אֲשֶׁ֥ר
Lo'- yihªyeh mishaam `owd `uwl yaamiym wªzaaqeen 'ªsher
Not be hence more an infant [of] days, an old man after

לֹא־
lō-
Not

יִֽהְיֶ֨ה
yih-yeh
Be

מִשָּׁ֜ם
miš-šām
Hence

ע֗וֹד
‘ō-wḏ,
More

ע֤וּל
‘ūl
an infant

יָמִים֙
yā-mîm
[of] days

וְזָקֵ֔ן
wə-zā-qên,
an old man

אֲשֶׁ֥ר
’ă-šer
After

What is this telling us?

Basically: a child will never become old on the new earth.

לֹֽא־יְמַלֵּ֖א אֶת־יָמָ֑יו כִּ֣י הַנַּ֗עַר בֶּן־מֵאָ֤ה שָׁנָה֙ יָמ֔וּת
Lo'- yªmalee''et- yaamaayw Kiy hana`ar ben- mee'aah shaanaah yaamuwt
Not fulfill your days inasmuch a child old an hundred years die

לֹֽא־
lō-
Not

יְמַלֵּ֖א
yə-mal-lê
Fulfill

אֶת־
’eṯ-
Your

יָמָ֑יו
yā-māw;
Days

כִּ֣י
kî
Inasmuch

הַנַּ֗עַר
han-na-‘ar,
a child

בֶּן־
ben-
Old

מֵאָ֤ה
mê-’āh
Hundred

שָׁנָה֙
šā-nāh
Years

יָמ֔וּת
yā-mūṯ,
Die

What is this telling us?

The exact same thing, only in different terms.

This is called synonymous parallelism. It is telling us that a child will never become old on the new earth. This line reinforces what has just been said. It confirms the thought of the impending reality of no more death in the eternal state for the righteous. In eternity there will be no more aging or dying. It is not going to be like our corrupt age where infants eventually get old. It will not be like the here-and-now where a man could live to be an old person of a hundred years of age and then die.

This passage is actually saying the opposite to what many think. What this is saying is: there will be no more aging, curse or death on the new earth. Every glorified saints will have come to full maturity in Christ with their new perfect eternal bodies. It is the next line of Isaiah 65:20 that has confused many, because the translators have not interpreted it in a literal word-for-word sense. It is not saying there will be more babies, death and old men. It is saying the opposite to what they are alleging. It is saying that there will be no more aging: children getting old, old people and people dying! It is describing eternity to an Old Testament audience in terms they can grasp.

The new heavens and new earth will indeed be a glorious victorious perfect state where death is unknown. God is saying that the eternal state will actually be free of death for young and old alike. This passage is telling us that there will be no more death on the new earth! The Hebrew word Lo' (Strong’s 3808) means “no” or “not.” The word is a simple negation. The word is found twice in this much-debated new heavens and new earth verse.

Debate in Isaiah 65:20 centers in on the use of the original word yaamuw meaning “die” or “death.” What should we relate it to? Is there indeed “death” on the new earth? Also, should the death be related to the “child” in the second phrase or the “sinner” in the third phrase? What is more, in what way should it read? I must admit, if we are to read it in its most natural way it fits perfectly with the context. So why change it? I believe it should be applied to the “child” as it should agree with the first phrase that is simply a reinforcement of the same truth. It then fits perfectly with the whole overall teaching of the prophet on the perfection and bliss of the eternal state.

No (לֹֽא־ or Lo') longer will an infant become like an old man,
No (לֹֽא־ or Lo') longer will a child reach one hundred and die.

This is Old Testament verbiage that describes eternity to the Old Testament listener. It is telling us: no one is going to age! This relates to the new heaven and new earth not some supposed future millennium – that will never happen.

 

[jeffweeder]

I have covered this many times on this thread with you but you have carefully sidestepped the actual evidence. Isaiah 65 is speaking about the NHNE, not some imaginary millennium in the future, which none of the OT prophets, Christ or any of the NT writers recognized. What is more: it doesn't say that people die there. Read the original Hebrew.

Let us have a literal word-by-word look at the Hebrew pertaining to Isaiah 65:20.

לֹא־יִֽהְיֶ֨ה מִשָּׁ֜ם עֹ֗וד ע֤וּל יָמִים֙ וְזָקֵ֔ן אֲשֶׁ֥ר
Lo'- yihªyeh mishaam `owd `uwl yaamiym wªzaaqeen 'ªsher
Not be hence more an infant [of] days, an old man after

לֹא־
lō-
Not

יִֽהְיֶ֨ה
yih-yeh
Be

מִשָּׁ֜ם
miš-šām
Hence

ע֗וֹד
‘ō-wḏ,
More

ע֤וּל
‘ūl
an infant

יָמִים֙
yā-mîm
[of] days

וְזָקֵ֔ן
wə-zā-qên,
an old man

אֲשֶׁ֥ר
’ă-šer
After

What is this telling us?

Basically: a child will never become old on the new earth.

לֹֽא־יְמַלֵּ֖א אֶת־יָמָ֑יו כִּ֣י הַנַּ֗עַר בֶּן־מֵאָ֤ה שָׁנָה֙ יָמ֔וּת
Lo'- yªmalee''et- yaamaayw Kiy hana`ar ben- mee'aah shaanaah yaamuwt
Not fulfill your days inasmuch a child old an hundred years die

לֹֽא־
lō-
Not

יְמַלֵּ֖א
yə-mal-lê
Fulfill

אֶת־
’eṯ-
Your

יָמָ֑יו
yā-māw;
Days

כִּ֣י
kî
Inasmuch

הַנַּ֗עַר
han-na-‘ar,
a child

בֶּן־
ben-
Old

מֵאָ֤ה
mê-’āh
Hundred

שָׁנָה֙
šā-nāh
Years

יָמ֔וּת
yā-mūṯ,
Die

What is this telling us?

The exact same thing, only in different terms.

This is called synonymous parallelism. It is telling us that a child will never become old on the new earth. This line reinforces what has just been said. It confirms the thought of the impending reality of no more death in the eternal state for the righteous. In eternity there will be no more aging or dying. It is not going to be like our corrupt age where infants eventually get old. It will not be like the here-and-now where a man could live to be an old person of a hundred years of age and then die.

This passage is actually saying the opposite to what many think. What this is saying is: there will be no more aging, curse or death on the new earth. Every glorified saints will have come to full maturity in Christ with their new perfect eternal bodies. It is the next line of Isaiah 65:20 that has confused many, because the translators have not interpreted it in a literal word-for-word sense. It is not saying there will be more babies, death and old men. It is saying the opposite to what they are alleging. It is saying that there will be no more aging: children getting old, old people and people dying! It is describing eternity to an Old Testament audience in terms they can grasp.

The new heavens and new earth will indeed be a glorious victorious perfect state where death is unknown. God is saying that the eternal state will actually be free of death for young and old alike. This passage is telling us that there will be no more death on the new earth! The Hebrew word Lo' (Strong’s 3808) means “no” or “not.” The word is a simple negation. The word is found twice in this much-debated new heavens and new earth verse.

Debate in Isaiah 65:20 centers in on the use of the original word yaamuw meaning “die” or “death.” What should we relate it to? Is there indeed “death” on the new earth? Also, should the death be related to the “child” in the second phrase or the “sinner” in the third phrase? What is more, in what way should it read? I must admit, if we are to read it in its most natural way it fits perfectly with the context. So why change it? I believe it should be applied to the “child” as it should agree with the first phrase that is simply a reinforcement of the same truth. It then fits perfectly with the whole overall teaching of the prophet on the perfection and bliss of the eternal state.

No (לֹֽא־ or Lo') longer will an infant become like an old man,
No (לֹֽא־ or Lo') longer will a child reach one hundred and die.

This is Old Testament verbiage that describes eternity to the Old Testament listener. It is telling us: no one is going to age! This relates to the new heaven and new earth not some supposed future millennium – that will never happen.

Wonderfully explained again Paul. The NT confirms it and makes it even more clear.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I have covered this many times on this thread with you but you have carefully sidestepped the actual evidence. Isaiah 65 is speaking about the NHNE, not some imaginary millennium in the future, which none of the OT prophets, Christ or any of the NT writers recognized. What is more: it doesn't say that people die there. Read the original Hebrew.

Let us have a literal word-by-word look at the Hebrew pertaining to Isaiah 65:20.

לֹא־יִֽהְיֶ֨ה מִשָּׁ֜ם עֹ֗וד ע֤וּל יָמִים֙ וְזָקֵ֔ן אֲשֶׁ֥ר
Lo'- yihªyeh mishaam `owd `uwl yaamiym wªzaaqeen 'ªsher
Not be hence more an infant [of] days, an old man after

לֹא־
lō-
Not

יִֽהְיֶ֨ה
yih-yeh
Be

מִשָּׁ֜ם
miš-šām
Hence

ע֗וֹד
‘ō-wḏ,
More

ע֤וּל
‘ūl
an infant

יָמִים֙
yā-mîm
[of] days

וְזָקֵ֔ן
wə-zā-qên,
an old man

אֲשֶׁ֥ר
’ă-šer
After

What is this telling us?

Basically: a child will never become old on the new earth.

לֹֽא־יְמַלֵּ֖א אֶת־יָמָ֑יו כִּ֣י הַנַּ֗עַר בֶּן־מֵאָ֤ה שָׁנָה֙ יָמ֔וּת
Lo'- yªmalee''et- yaamaayw Kiy hana`ar ben- mee'aah shaanaah yaamuwt
Not fulfill your days inasmuch a child old an hundred years die

לֹֽא־
lō-
Not

יְמַלֵּ֖א
yə-mal-lê
Fulfill

אֶת־
’eṯ-
Your

יָמָ֑יו
yā-māw;
Days

כִּ֣י
kî
Inasmuch

הַנַּ֗עַר
han-na-‘ar,
a child

בֶּן־
ben-
Old

מֵאָ֤ה
mê-’āh
Hundred

שָׁנָה֙
šā-nāh
Years

יָמ֔וּת
yā-mūṯ,
Die

What is this telling us?

The exact same thing, only in different terms.

This is called synonymous parallelism. It is telling us that a child will never become old on the new earth. This line reinforces what has just been said. It confirms the thought of the impending reality of no more death in the eternal state for the righteous. In eternity there will be no more aging or dying. It is not going to be like our corrupt age where infants eventually get old. It will not be like the here-and-now where a man could live to be an old person of a hundred years of age and then die.

This passage is actually saying the opposite to what many think. What this is saying is: there will be no more aging, curse or death on the new earth. Every glorified saints will have come to full maturity in Christ with their new perfect eternal bodies. It is the next line of Isaiah 65:20 that has confused many, because the translators have not interpreted it in a literal word-for-word sense. It is not saying there will be more babies, death and old men. It is saying the opposite to what they are alleging. It is saying that there will be no more aging: children getting old, old people and people dying! It is describing eternity to an Old Testament audience in terms they can grasp.

The new heavens and new earth will indeed be a glorious victorious perfect state where death is unknown. God is saying that the eternal state will actually be free of death for young and old alike. This passage is telling us that there will be no more death on the new earth! The Hebrew word Lo' (Strong’s 3808) means “no” or “not.” The word is a simple negation. The word is found twice in this much-debated new heavens and new earth verse.

Debate in Isaiah 65:20 centers in on the use of the original word yaamuw meaning “die” or “death.” What should we relate it to? Is there indeed “death” on the new earth? Also, should the death be related to the “child” in the second phrase or the “sinner” in the third phrase? What is more, in what way should it read? I must admit, if we are to read it in its most natural way it fits perfectly with the context. So why change it? I believe it should be applied to the “child” as it should agree with the first phrase that is simply a reinforcement of the same truth. It then fits perfectly with the whole overall teaching of the prophet on the perfection and bliss of the eternal state.

No (לֹֽא־ or Lo') longer will an infant become like an old man,
No (לֹֽא־ or Lo') longer will a child reach one hundred and die.

This is Old Testament verbiage that describes eternity to the Old Testament listener. It is telling us: no one is going to age! This relates to the new heaven and new earth not some supposed future millennium – that will never happen.

No matter how many times you post that, I simply disagree. I do not agree with your interpretation.

 

[Timtofly]

Isaiah 65:20 “Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; the one who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere child; the one who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed.

It says "never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days". In what? What was described previous to that verse, which was the new heavens and new earth and the new Jerusalem. It's saying there will never again be "an infant who lives but a few days" once the new heavens and new earth are ushered in.

How is one accursed in the next reality? You have to explain how any one can fail to reach 100.

What verse claims no one will be considered accursed after this verse that states one who dies before 100 is accursed?

 

[Timtofly]

Of course a dragon is a physical thing. Are you not even able to understand even the simplest of things?

These are visions of symbols that John saw. Yes, he saw a dragon with seven heads and ten horns. He also saw things like a beast with seven heads and ten horns. And he saw seven candlesticks which symbolically represents churches. It says he saw those things, so we should think he saw something else?

It's messed up to think that John saw symbolic things in his visions? I think it's messed up to think otherwise. I don't know why I bother with your nonsense. You're in your own world and no one can comprehend 99% of the things you say.

Because John was alert and awake and writing things down as he saw them. His words were symbolizing what he was literally seeing.

John was not dreaming. John was literally awake.

 

[WPM]

No matter how many times you post that, I simply disagree. I do not agree with your interpretation.

It forbids your claims. You cannot add unto Scripture in order to support your private interpretation.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You refuse to address the multiple holes in your theological position. You have to. Your posts are constantly evasive. You sidestep the many arguments that forbid your teaching. This is something we Amils are accustomed to on these forums. This demonstrates the extra-biblical error of Premil.

Paul, we haven't examined MY theological position yet. We are still answering YOUR objections to Premillennialism, which are based on faulty assumptions and misconstrued interpretations. You are the one who is avoiding my rebuttals.

Your view is what I would call a "kluge", a work around fix. Your view depends on Augustine's view that the New Testament reveals the Old Testament, which is a faulty hermeneutic. Your view is not based on a fair examination of the text, but a narrative superimposed over the text, obscuring what the text actually says. In order to avoid Old Testament truth, you define the term "Spiritual Israel" so that you might appropriate all of God's positive promises for yourself, and you define the term "natural Israel" so you can distance yourself from all the negative ones.

Your view depends on the redefinition of many words and terms. A fair examination of the text reveals that God will use Israel in the future, for his glory, but Amillennialism redefines "Israel" in order to obscure these passages and avoid this fact.

I am not being evasive. I'm being direct. I am not impressed with your arguments, which I have easily defeated.

You create two peoples of God in violation to the inspired facts. The New Testament makes clear; there is only one elect people.

As I said, we haven't examined MY point of view yet. If we ever get around to MY perspective, I maintain that there is only one elect people. Your charge is unwarranted and unfounded. And if there is anything tiresome about this thread, it is your presumption.

There is only one good olive tree, not two; one body, not two; one bride, not two; one spiritual temple, not two; one people of God, not two; one household of faith, not two; one fold, not two; one man, not “twain,” and one elect of God throughout time.

Yeah, okay. There is only one olive tree. But as I tried to tell you, the olive tree does not represent Israel. You know that, which is why you use the appellations, "natural Israel" and "spiritual Israel." As I said above, Amillennialism appropriates all the positive promises God made to Israel by labeling themselves as "spiritual Israel".

Your interpretation of Ephesians 2 is another prime example of misappropriation based on a lie. YOU are not Israel. YOU did not enter the citizenship of Israel. Paul did NOT say that Gentiles became members of the citizenship of Israel. He plainly tells you that the elect are united into a new man, members of the household of God. You assert something Paul never said, i.e. that we entered the citizenship of Israel. You clearly misunderstood.

When you maintain this, not only do you redefine the term "Israel", you redefine the term "citizenship", which means "one who is a citizen of a country." Citizenship of Israel is NOT a marker that defines the elect, just as being Jewish does not define the elect.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

How is one accursed in the next reality? You have to explain how any one can fail to reach 100.

What verse claims no one will be considered accursed after this verse that states one who dies before 100 is accursed?

They think the verse does not mean that. They think that anyone dying before 100 will be considered accursed means that no one will be considered accursed and no one will die.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

It forbids your claims. You cannot add unto Scripture in order to support your private interpretation.

No, your interpretation of it forbids what I think it means.

 

[CadyandZoe]

No one could surely dispute we are looking at an Israeli tree. Romans 11:24 explains, speaking about natural Israel: “these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?” This is an Israeli tree that holds Israeli citizens. But it was not merely a natural Israeli tree but a spiritual Israeli tree. After all, if it were simply natural there would be absolutely no reason to cut out natural Israelites simply on the grounds of their race. We are clearly looking at a spiritual tree that accommodates both the believing Jew and the believing Gentile from both Old and New Testament. It embodies all those who belong to the “household of faith” throughout time.

Those who are part of this symbolic tree enjoy a common spiritual identity that is reflected in a new type of citizenship. It is a spiritual citizenship that is heaven-centered which only believers can enjoy. This symbolic tree represents the Israel of God from throughout the nations – the only Israel God recognizes. No unbeliever is part of it because partaking in its blessing and sustenance comes through the exercise of faith. This joining of Jews and Gentiles together fulfilled many of the promises Abraham received about the nations being blessed in him (Genesis 12:1-3, 17:3-8, 17:15-16, 18:18 and 22:16-18).

The Olive Tree itself doesn't represent the people of Israel. It represents all the people whom God is "cultivating" into a holy tree. This tree would include people like Abel, Enoch, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to name a few. Paul doesn't refer to the tree as natural; he refers to the branches as natural. God chose to have a relationship with the descendants of Jacob, referring to them as his holy people. And these people are "natural" branches because by virtue of birth, they have a rich history of involvement with Yahweh. Paul mentions this fact briefly earlier in the letter.

Romans 3:1-2
Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.

The Jewish people had an advantage because God was cultivating them as a people: giving them his oracles, he trained them and gave them knowledge and insight into his will for mankind. The fact that some of them didn't believe his oracles didn't keep God from keeping his promises to them. As Paul says, God remains faithful. The Olive tree represents that rich root of knowledge, insight and divine revelation and the holy people associated with that relationship. God is cultivating them as a people. Some of them believed in him; some of them don't.

According to Paul's theology, hardening of the heart is the predicate for unbelief. Thus, he says that a partial hardening has come over Israel, meaning, not every person in Israel is a believer. Some of them are not believers.

Paul explains how this partial hardening has been to our advantage, because it was unbelieving Jews who put the messiah on the cross. Paul argues that this transgression became "riches" for the Gentiles to make the Jewish people Jealous. Paul acknowledges that the Jewish people transgressed and failed but he also anticipates a day when God's promise to them will be fulfilled. In other words, the partial hardening will be removed.

In the meantime, the Gentiles are grafted onto the cultivated olive tree. Does this mean that Gentiles are grafted into Israel? No. It means that Gentiles have been grafted into the tree that represents God's cultivation. Now the Gentiles have the benefit of being cultivated by God. Gentiles now have access to the rich root of the cultivated olive tree: knowledge, insight and divine revelation. Gentiles can now enter into the holy people of God. The Gentiles can now partake of that rich root, that vast knowledge of the divine will for mankind.

The Tree doesn't represent Israel: It represents God's cultivation. Israel are natural branches because historically, he was involved with the Jewish people for thousands of years. The promises belong to them. Because of their transgression, putting the messiah on the cross, the Gentile peoples now have an opportunity to partake of that rich body of knowledge and insight, but they remain connected to that insight by faith. As long as the Gentiles continue to believe the word of God and remain, God will continue to cultivate them. But as soon as they abandon the faith, God will remove his insights and leave them in the dark.

Paul predicts a time of reversal when the natural branches will be grafted in again, while the Gentiles will be cut off.

Maybe tomorrow.