70 AD revisited

[Timtofly]

LOL. Do you even think before you post? How do I use the OT to interpret Revelation 20?

When you claim the literal 1,000 year reign is symbolic.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Of Course. Where did I dispute that? I never said that you claim there are three mentions of the term Israel.

LOL. That's certainly how you are coming across.

Instead, I maintain that the interpretation you affirm logically requires the insertion of a third meaning of the term Israel --- one that is not present.

So, you are just denying that there is such thing as what some of us call "Spiritual Israel" then? Paul referred to Spiritual Israel in the following passage and called it "The Israel of God".

Galatians 6:15 Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation. 16 Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God.

What Paul indicated here is that being circumcised or not doesn't mean anything. Being a Jew or Gentile doesn't man anything, in other words, as he said elsewhere several times. Paul indicated that what counts and is being made a new creation in Jesus Christ. And then he said peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, or fit this description of being a new creation. He identified such people collectively as "the Israel of God". The Israel that people are part of because of something spiritual (being made a new creation spiritually) and not because of anything physical.

Interpretation is like standing on a bridge watching the river flow. Logically, the river as seen from the upstream side, must have continuity with the river as seen from the downstream side. The same is true of a given verse of scripture. Any particular verse of scripture will share continuity with the verse that precedes it and the verse that follows it.

Yes, absolutely.

Let's take a look at Romans 9:7, which is downstream of verse 9:6.

"nor are they all children(1) because they are Abraham’s(2) descendants(3)"

Here the apostle speaks about children, a Patriarch, and descendants.

(1)children
(2)Abraham
(3)descendants.

Could you look at verse 6 to see if we see the same pattern?

For they are not all Israel(1), who are descended(3) from Israel(2).

Here we see the same three elements as in verse 7.

(1)sons
(2)Jacob
(3)descendants

Verse 7 means to say that among all of Abraham's descendants, not every descendant will be considered a "child" with respect to God's promise concerning Abraham's children. Verse 6 means to say that among all of Jacob's descendants, not every descendant will be considered a "son" with respect to God's promise to Jacob.

I disagree that Jacob is in view anywhere there. As I have made clear several times already. When I comment on Romans 9:6, I always have Romans 9:6-8 in mind as a whole because Paul explained what he meant in verse 6 within verses 7 and 8.

Also, there is something else Paul said in verse 7 that we can't overlook.

Romans 9:7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.

Keeping in mind that Paul is going out of his way in Romans 9:6-8 to show that he's not talking about something related to who someone has physically descended from, what did he mean when he said "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned"? He couldn't be talking about the physical descendants of Isaac after saying "Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children". He was clearly talking in terms of the spiritual descendants of Abraham rather than physical. That is the case in regards to his reference to Isaac as well. As we can see by what he said here:

Galatians 4:28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise.

Paul said this to his fellow Christians, including Jew and Gentile believers. And this all relates to what Paul said in verse 6. So, it's clear to me that he had in Israel in mind that consisted only of those who were part of it spiritually.

As we would expect, these two ideas logically follow from Paul's earlier claim that the "adoption as sons" belongs to his kinsmen of the flesh. Romans 9:4

The interpretation you affirm inserts a completely foreign concept into the text: "spiritual Israel."

No, it does not. It takes all of scripture into account which your view does not. You are ignoring that he writes elsewhere several times that Gentile believers are fellowheirs with Israelite believers of God's promises that were originally made to Paul's "kinsmen of the flesh". I couldn't possibly disagree with you more. You have a carnal and earthly perspective on things when you should have a spiritual and heavenly perspective.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

How can I have a belief system I know very little about, except every one keeps accusing people of embracing it?

You must be a full Preterist, if I am a dispensationalists.

LOL. How can you know if you are one or not when you know very little about it? LOL.

I understand your view better than dispensationalism.

That isn't saying much since you barely understand my view at all as evidenced by the fact that you misrepresent it constantly.

I don't represent your view. I don't misrepresent your view either. I point out it is wrong.

It's pointless to claim that something is wrong when you don't even understand it.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

When you claim the literal 1,000 year reign is symbolic.

How does that mean I use the OT to interpret Revelation 20? It doesn't. Please think before you post.

 

[CadyandZoe]

LOL. That's certainly how you are coming across.


So, you are just denying that there is such thing as what some of us call "Spiritual Israel" then? Paul referred to Spiritual Israel in the following passage and called it "The Israel of God".

Galatians 6:15 Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation. 16 Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God.

What Paul indicated here is that being circumcised or not doesn't mean anything. Being a Jew or Gentile doesn't man anything, in other words, as he said elsewhere several times. Paul indicated that what counts and is being made a new creation in Jesus Christ. And then he said peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, or fit this description of being a new creation. He identified such people collectively as "the Israel of God". The Israel that people are part of because of something spiritual (being made a new creation spiritually) and not because of anything physical.

The locus of our disagreement will center on what Paul meant by the "kai" in verse 16. According to the NET commentary,

tn The word “and” (καί) can be interpreted in two ways: (1) It could be rendered as “also” which would indicate that two distinct groups are in view, namely “all who will behave in accordance with this rule” and “the Israel of God.” Or (2) it could be rendered “even,” which would indicate that “all who behave in accordance with this rule” are “the Israel of God.” In other words, in this latter view, “even” = “that is.”​

It is possible that there is a third interpretation. The word "kai" in this context may be an adverb, conveying a sense of surprise or the unexpected. It is simple for a man who has not undergone circumcision to say that it is not important. However, for a man living in a culture where circumcision is a vital and meaningful symbol of loyalty and devotion to God, it would be highly unusual for him to declare that "circumcision is not significant."

Paul looks forward to the arrival of an "Israel of God" where the presence or absence of foreskin will no longer matter, which will be a remarkable development. He is not implying that all who follow this rule are part of the Israel of God. Instead, he means that the Israel of God will be included among those who adhere to this rule.

I would assign the term "spiritual Israel" to that group. The term "Spiritual Israel" indicates individuals among the family or descendants of Israel, whom God chose to grant his blessing of eternal life.

I disagree that Jacob is in view anywhere there. As I have made clear several times already. When I comment on Romans 9:6, I always have Romans 9:6-8 in mind as a whole because Paul explained what he meant in verse 6 within verses 7 and 8.

So do I, as I pointed out earlier.

Also, there is something else Paul said in verse 7 that we can't overlook.

Romans 9:7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.

Keeping in mind that Paul is going out of his way in Romans 9:6-8 to show that he's not talking about something related to who someone has physically descended from, what did he mean when he said "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned"? He couldn't be talking about the physical descendants of Isaac after saying "Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children". He was clearly talking in terms of the spiritual descendants of Abraham rather than physical. That is the case in regards to his reference to Isaac as well. As we can see by what he said here:

Galatians 4:28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise.

I concur with your understanding of Galatians 4:28, which upholds the idea of "spiritual" descendants of Abraham, as you suggest. However, I differ in my opinion that Paul is conveying the same doctrine in Romans 9. Although circumcision is discussed in Galatians, it is not the subject in Romans. Instead, the theme here is whether God's faithlessness is a logical outcome of the Gospel. Has God's promise to Israel failed?

Paul said this to his fellow Christians, including Jew and Gentile believers. And this all relates to what Paul said in verse 6. So, it's clear to me that he had in Israel in mind that consisted only of those who were part of it spiritually.

Paul is engaged in a defense of his gospel against opponents who argue that his teachings suggest that God's promise to Jacob's descendants has failed. His main focus is on this promise and he states in his preface that "the adoption-as-sons" belongs to his kinsmen. In Galatians, Paul demonstrates why Gentiles are also included in the promise. In Romans, he explains why the promise does not apply to every descendant of Jacob. It is important to note that these are two distinct issues.

No, it does not. It takes all of scripture into account which your view does not. You are ignoring that he writes elsewhere several times that Gentile believers are fellowheirs with Israelite believers of God's promises that were originally made to Paul's "kinsmen of the flesh". I couldn't possibly disagree with you more. You have a carnal and earthly perspective on things when you should have a spiritual and heavenly perspective.

To fully comprehend Biblical concepts, we must analyze the entirety of Scripture. However, it is crucial to interpret each passage accurately in order to gain a complete understanding. Paul's point in Galatians differs from that in Romans, and it is important to consider all ideas as a whole to form a complete picture. Misinterpreting one argument by interjecting another will hinder our ability to comprehend the argument at hand.

Paul is creating an argument for "Spiritual Israel," which comprises Israel's offspring blessed with the Holy Spirit. Not every one of Paul's relatives will be classified as "Spiritual Israel" since God's selection determines inclusion in that group. Nonetheless, "Spiritual Israel" is not synonymous with the Body of Christ.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The locus of our disagreement will center on what Paul meant by the "kai" in verse 16. According to the NET commentary,

tn The word “and” (καί) can be interpreted in two ways: (1) It could be rendered as “also” which would indicate that two distinct groups are in view, namely “all who will behave in accordance with this rule” and “the Israel of God.” Or (2) it could be rendered “even,” which would indicate that “all who behave in accordance with this rule” are “the Israel of God.” In other words, in this latter view, “even” = “that is.”​

It's obvious to me that #2 is the correct interpretation. It lines up with what Paul said in Romans 9:6-8 which is that there is an Israel besides the physical nation of Israel that is entirely spiritual in nature. In Romans 9:6-8 he goes out of his way to show that being physically descended from Abraham and Isaac has nothing to do with being part of the Israel (Spiritual Israel, IMO) of which not all Israel (physical nation of Israel, IMO) is part. He makes it clear that being part of that Israel instead has to do with being a spiritual descendant of Abraham and being a child of God and of the promise.

It is possible that there is a third interpretation. The word "kai" in this context may be an adverb, conveying a sense of surprise or the unexpected. It is simple for a man who has not undergone circumcision to say that it is not important. However, for a man living in a culture where circumcision is a vital and meaningful symbol of loyalty and devotion to God, it would be highly unusual for him to declare that "circumcision is not significant."

Isn't this basically the same as the first interpretation? You're saying the word would mean "also" in this interpretation as well, right? But, you're adding an element of surprise or unexpectedness to it.

Paul looks forward to the arrival of an "Israel of God" where the presence or absence of foreskin will no longer matter, which will be a remarkable development. He is not implying that all who follow this rule are part of the Israel of God. Instead, he means that the Israel of God will be included among those who adhere to this rule.

He was not referring to a future entity there. He was talking about something that was true already at that time. He was saying peace and mercy to all those who follow the rule of becoming a new creation in Christ without regards to whether one has been circumcised or not. That applied to everyone who had been made a new creation in Christ up that point and from then on. Why, when he was focusing on a current reality and ongoing reality, would he then talk about it applying to a separate, future only entity?

Also, there's the fact that Paul repeatedly wrote about Jew and Gentile believers being brought together as one body and one people of God by the blood of Christ. Why would he talk about a separate people of God in this case when he put so much emphasis on the blood of Christ bringing all of God's people, Jew and Gentile, together as one?

I would assign the term "spiritual Israel" to that group. The term "Spiritual Israel" indicates individuals among the family or descendants of Israel, whom God chose to grant his blessing of eternal life.

No, the term Spiritual Israel simply refers to God's people in a spiritual sense, whether Jew or Gentile. By insisting that it can only include those who are physically descended from the nation of Israel and Abraham completely contradicts what Paul was saying in Romans 9:6-8. He went out of his way to show that who or what someone descends from does not matter in relation to what he was talking about.

So do I, as I pointed out earlier.

I concur with your understanding of Galatians 4:28, which upholds the idea of "spiritual" descendants of Abraham, as you suggest. However, I differ in my opinion that Paul is conveying the same doctrine in Romans 9. Although circumcision is discussed in Galatians, it is not the subject in Romans.

I completely disagree. The subject in both the Galatians and Romans 9 passages revolves around the spiritual descendants of Abraham rather than his physical descendants. In both cases Paul emphasizes the fact that physical things have nothing to do with being a spiritual descendant of Abraham and Isaac.

Instead, the theme here is whether God's faithlessness is a logical outcome of the Gospel. Has God's promise to Israel failed?

No, His promise succeeded spectacularly by way of the shed blood of Christ and His resurrection. What more could God have done for them than send His Son to die as a sacrifice for their sins?

Paul is engaged in a defense of his gospel against opponents who argue that his teachings suggest that God's promise to Jacob's descendants has failed. His main focus is on this promise and he states in his preface that "the adoption-as-sons" belongs to his kinsmen. In Galatians, Paul demonstrates why Gentiles are also included in the promise.

It's not as if Paul was not mindful of that when he wrote Romans.

In Romans, he explains why the promise does not apply to every descendant of Jacob. It is important to note that these are two distinct issues.

It is important to note that in each case (Galatians 3-4 and Romans 9) he was explaining what was required to be a spiritual offspring/seed of Abraham and Isaac. It had nothing to do with anything physical and only had to with being a spiritual child of God and of the promise.

To fully comprehend Biblical concepts, we must analyze the entirety of Scripture.

I don't feel as though you are doing this.

However, it is crucial to interpret each passage accurately in order to gain a complete understanding.

Yes, but it's helpful to interpret Romans 9:6-8 accurately by also referencing Galatians 3-4. They are not about two entirely different things as you are trying to claim.

Paul's point in Galatians differs from that in Romans,

Not when it comes to what is required to be one of the spiritual offspring of Abraham and Isaac, which does not include anything physical at all.

and it is important to consider all ideas as a whole to form a complete picture. Misinterpreting one argument by interjecting another will hinder our ability to comprehend the argument at hand.

And failing to see that two passages are related and using one to get a better understanding of the other will hinder our ability to comprehend the argument at hand as well.

Paul is creating an argument for "Spiritual Israel," which comprises Israel's offspring blessed with the Holy Spirit. Not every one of Paul's relatives will be classified as "Spiritual Israel" since God's selection determines inclusion in that group. Nonetheless, "Spiritual Israel" is not synonymous with the Body of Christ.

Wait a minute here. Were you not arguing against the existence of such a thing as "Spiritual Israel" before? And now here you are acknowledging it's existence? What is going on here?

 

[CadyandZoe]

It's obvious to me that #2 is the correct interpretation.

I don't see the spiritual/physical distinction in the passage. If you see a spiritual/physical distinction you brought it with you. The actual distinction in Romans 9 is "chosen/not chosen"

The following is an example:

for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”​

Here the apostle argues that before Jacob and Esau were born, God had chosen Jacob over Esau. In other words, the choice was made before either boy was alive long enough to manifest characteristics such as "spiritual orientation."

​

Isn't this basically the same as the first interpretation? You're saying the word would mean "also" in this interpretation as well, right? But, you're adding an element of surprise or unexpectedness to it.

It would be incorrect to say that I am "adding" to it. My argument is that the word "even" can also mean "surprise." Here is an absurd sentence to consider as an example.

"The judge was known for convicting everyone, even the innocent."

The previous sentence was intentionally ridiculous to showcase the usage of the word "even" in situations where the result is atypical. It appears that Paul is employing the term "kai" to convey this unexpected outcome. It is anticipated that a non-Jewish individual would adhere to the notion that circumcision is insignificant, but it is not predicted that a Jewish person would comply with that belief.

While I acknowledge that my interpretation could be incorrect, I want to clarify that I have not included any additional information that does not already exist.

He was not referring to a future entity there.

Our debate is focused on the meaning of "The Israel of God" in Paul's epistle to the Galatians, as well as the meaning of "Israel" in his epistle to the Romans. It is important to keep these two issues separate to avoid confusion. And I seem to have confused them. I apologize.

I completely understand and agree with your point about Paul's reference in the book of Galatians. It was indeed a current reality at the time of writing, and the Israel of God already existed during that period. On the other hand, the "Israel" mentioned in Romans 9 pertains to a future Israel. I apologize for any confusion I may have caused earlier.

Regardless, the question persists as to whether Paul's intention was to create a new definition for the term "Israel" to represent the body of Christ. Personally, I do not believe that was his intent. In Romans 9, Paul's objective is to demonstrate why a partial hardening of Israel does not indicate that God's word to them has failed. The Israel referred to in Romans 9 could be described as "the Israel of the promise," to use a coined phrase.

In this passage, the writer aims to explain why certain descendants of Jacob are not included in a promise made by God to Paul's kinsmen, whom he refers to as "of the flesh". In his letter to the Galatians, he argues that non-Jewish individuals do not need to follow Jewish customs to achieve justification. These are two different arguments, and getting oriented to the argument is the key to the proper interpretation.

Also, there's the fact that Paul repeatedly wrote about Jew and Gentile believers being brought together as one body and one people of God by the blood of Christ. Why would he talk about a separate people of God in this case when he put so much emphasis on the blood of Christ bringing all of God's people, Jew and Gentile, together as one?

As I was studying Romans chapters 9 through 11, I noticed a shift in Paul's argument from individual salvation to the salvation of a whole nation. Interestingly, Paul doesn't use the term "Israel" for eight chapters. However, starting from chapter 9 and ending in Chapter 11, Paul redirects his focus towards the people and nation of Israel. In these three chapters, Paul doesn't argue for the unification of Jews and Gentiles into one body, as he frequently does. Instead, his argument centers around a promise that God made specifically to the nation and people of Israel. I agree that Paul often wrote about bringing Jews and Gentiles together as one body, but in this instance, he's making a distinct point.

No, the term Spiritual Israel simply refers to God's people in a spiritual sense, whether Jew or Gentile.

Your interpretation of Romans 6-8 seems plausible, but it may be incomplete without considering the rest of the chapter and the following two chapters. I suggest taking a closer look at Paul's entire argument, starting from chapter 9 and concluding in chapter 11. In these chapters, Paul portrays a "Spiritual Israel" comprising the physical descendants of Jacob who have been blessed by God with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Paul calls them "a remnant." At the time of writing, Israel is partially hardened as Paul said, But he anticipates a time when "all Israel shall be saved."

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation that Paul is discussing Gentile inclusion in Romans 9. His examples involve God choosing to bless one physical descendant of Abraham over another physical descendant of Abraham. Specifically, Paul references God's decision to bless Isaac instead of Ishmael and Jacob instead of Esau. Notably, Paul does not mention spiritual "descent" in his examples.

I completely disagree. The subject in both the Galatians and Romans 9 passages revolves around the spiritual descendants of Abraham rather than his physical descendants.

I don't see evidence of your position.

No, His promise succeeded spectacularly by way of the shed blood of Christ and His resurrection. What more could God have done for them than send His Son to die as a sacrifice for their sins?

Christians universally acknowledge that the Cross of Christ is the foundation of our salvation. However, there are other Spiritual blessings that are also vital to our salvation. In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul enumerates some of the other Spiritual blessings that God has bestowed upon His adopted children. One of these blessings is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, which Paul calls "an earnest of our inheritance." The prophets also speak of the softening of the heart and the circumcision of the heart. It is not by chance that Paul mentions the partial hardening of Israel. While some members of Israel have been blessed with a soft heart, others have not. Paul is addressing the question of why God softens the hearts of some individuals in Israel while leaving others hardened.

It is important to note that in each case (Galatians 3-4 and Romans 9) he was explaining what was required to be a spiritual offspring/seed of Abraham and Isaac.

I don't see spirituality in Romans 9. Here, Paul is focused on God's sovereignty.

Yes, but it's helpful to interpret Romans 9:6-8 accurately by also referencing Galatians 3-4. They are not about two entirely different things as you are trying to claim.

I hesitate to superimpose Galatians over Romans.

Wait a minute here. Were you not arguing against the existence of such a thing as "Spiritual Israel" before? And now here you are acknowledging it's existence? What is going on here?

I assume that you understand what I am referring to, given your attention to the conversation. After contemplating our discussion for several weeks, I have come to the conclusion that "Spiritual Israel" is an appropriate term to describe the spiritual remnants of Jacob's progeny, whom God will bless with the Holy Spirit's inner workings. Therefore, I have taken inspiration from your choice of words. I apologize if my previous language caused any confusion.

I think about what you say.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

I've been sharing this forever. But for the sake of any new readers I will repost this.

If you will compare Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse it appears to me that Jesus interpreted the "People of the ruler to come" as the Roman Army who, under the Roman general, destroyed the city and the sanctuary in 70 AD. Jesus said, in that Discourse, that Jerusalem would be surrounded by armies. That happened twice, once in 66 AD and again, in 70 AD. The 1st approach to Jerusalem by the Roman Army gave warning to Christian believers in Israel to escape to the nearby mountains. This they did by leaving for Pella, an area beyond the reach of the invading Army.

I've been relentlessly attacked by strict Futurists and called a Preterist for this belief. But this was the predominant belief in the Early Church. Only a couple of Church Fathers projected the "70th Week of Dan 9" to be something future (Irenaeus and Hippolytus). Largely, the entire 70 Weeks Prophecy has been interpreted to be fulfilled in the time in and around Jesus' earthly ministry, which was completed at the cross, and followed by the judgment of the Jewish People in 70 AD.

For the record, historical interpretations like this does not make one a Preterist, and I am not--not even a Partial Preterist. Nor does it make one a strict Historicist Interpreter--I'm not that either. It's just that some prophecies were, in fact, fulfilled historically, such as the 586 BC destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. Some prophecies remain future--not the 70 Weeks Prophecy, however, in my opinion.

Dan 9.The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on it.

In my view, the Roman Leader "confirmed" God's covenant of destruction upon the Jewish People for breaking their agreement under the Law. And he began by having the Jewish Messiah killed, followed by the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD.

Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

What this plainly says is that the "Great Tribulation," so often cited by strict Futurists as the Reign of Antichrist, actually began as a punishment against the Jewish People. And this led to an age-long Diaspora of the Jewish People, until the Gentile nations have had their opportunity to be nations of God, and God tires of their own apostacies and hostilities towards the Jewish People.

Reading this original post and all the following arguments (a lot of it nasty, childish and uninformed), I'm surprised no one has brought up the pink elephant jumping up and down in the centre of the room. That is, in 70 AD there was no abomination of desolation. It did not happen.

For all the talk about people knowing their history, it does not seem anyone is all that familiar with Josephus' narrative. The temple got burned (it was not an official decision, supposedly) and no one desecrated the Holy of Holies. There was some sacrifice to a roman god done AFTER it burned to the ground. But the main point is that there was nothing done that desecrated the site while it was still a functioning temple to God. This could not possibly be any kind of fulfillment of the final part of the 70 Weeks prophecy.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I don't see the spiritual/physical distinction in the passage. If you see a spiritual/physical distinction you brought it with you.

In Romans 9:6-8 Paul clearly makes a distinction between those who are physical descendants and those who are not. That's why he says "Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.". How can you not see a spiritual/physical distinction here? He talked about something that is true of some people, but not because they are Abraham's physical descendants. That's a strong clue that he was talking about a spiritual reality there rather than one determined by anything physical.

Then in verse 8 Paul said "In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring". Again, how can you not see a spiritual/physical distinction here? It's obvious. Paul was speaking here about "God's children" who are "children of the promise" and "are regarded as Abraham's offspring". And he made it clear that all of that is not because they were "children by physical descent". A very clear spiritual/physical distinction was being made there. And you still miss it. Please ask God for wisdom (James 1:5-7) because right now your understanding of all this is very far from the truth.

Our debate is focused on the meaning of "The Israel of God" in Paul's epistle to the Galatians, as well as the meaning of "Israel" in his epistle to the Romans. It is important to keep these two issues separate to avoid confusion. And I seem to have confused them. I apologize.

I see no reason to keep them separate. I believe in interpreting scripture with scripture whenever possible.

I completely understand and agree with your point about Paul's reference in the book of Galatians. It was indeed a current reality at the time of writing, and the Israel of God already existed during that period.

I give you credit for acknowledging that you were previously not interpreting that correctly.

On the other hand, the "Israel" mentioned in Romans 9 pertains to a future Israel. I apologize for any confusion I may have caused earlier.

No, it does not pertain to a future Israel. Where does Paul indicate that? He said "not all who ARE descended from Israel ARE Israel". He did NOT say "not all in the future who are descended from Israel WILL BE Israel".

I don't have time to respond to any more of your post right now. I'll look at it another time.

 

[covenantee]

Reading this original post and all the following arguments (a lot of it nasty, childish and uninformed), I'm surprised no one has brought up the pink elephant jumping up and down in the centre of the room. That is, in 70 AD there was no abomination of desolation. It did not happen.

For all the talk about people knowing their history, it does not seem anyone is all that familiar with Josephus' narrative. The temple got burned (it was not an official decision, supposedly) and no one desecrated the Holy of Holies. There was some sacrifice to a roman god done AFTER it burned to the ground. But the main point is that there was nothing done that desecrated the site while it was still a functioning temple to God. This could not possibly be any kind of fulfillment of the final part of the 70 Weeks prophecy.

Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near.

The Roman armies were God's instruments to wreak desolation upon Jerusalem. They were an abomination to the Jews because of the pagan ensigns which they worshipped and bore in battle.

You err.

 

[marks]

I have come to the conclusion that "Spiritual Israel" is an appropriate term to describe the spiritual remnants of Jacob's progeny, whom God will bless with the Holy Spirit's inner workings.

Absolutely!

Much love!

 

[marks]

It lines up with what Paul said in Romans 9:6-8 which is that there is an Israel besides the physical nation of Israel that is entirely spiritual in nature.

That's not actually what Paul said, though. He was defining, Who is Israel? Not all of Abraham's children, only the one of promise. And not all of Isaac's children, only the one of election. He goes on to talk about the rement who will be saved. How Israel tried to be righteous by the Law, instead of faith.

And like Paul taught, God can have mercy and can harden, He blinded part of Israel, but the time would come that all of Israel would be saved.

And throughout this entire passage he continues to contrast Israel and the gentiles, including saved gentiles.

In short, these chapters 9-11 address, among other things, how God's promises to Israel are still valid, and that God considers the true Israel to be the Israelites who believe, who are of faith, as are we gentiles. But at no time does Paul blend gentiles and Israel into a spiritual Israel. He maintains the contrast throughout.

Much love!

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near.

The Roman armies were God's instruments to wreak desolation upon Jerusalem. They were an abomination to the Jews because of the pagan ensigns which they worshipped and bore in battle.

You err.

ugh, you again. How about reading the words in Scripture. You are wrong in so many, many ways.

 

[covenantee]

ugh, you again. How about reading the words in Scripture. You are wrong in so many, many ways.

Name one.

I read Jerusalem, armies, and desolation.

What words are you reading?

 

[Jay Ross]

Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near.

The Roman armies were God's instruments to wreak desolation upon Jerusalem. They were an abomination to the Jews because of the pagan ensigns which they worshipped and bore in battle.

You err.​

It seems to me that God foretold of the destruction of the temple and the scattering of the Israelite in 70 AD in 2 Chronicles 7:19-22: -

2 Chronicles 7:19-22: - 19 “But if you turn away and forsake My statutes and My commandments which I have set before you, and go and serve other gods, and worship them, 20 then I will uproot them from My land which I have given them; and this house which I have sanctified for My name I will cast out of My sight, and will make it a proverb and a byword among all peoples.​

​

21 “And as for this house, which is exalted, everyone who passes by it will be astonished and say, ‘Why has the Lord done thus to this land and this house?’ 22 Then they will answer, ‘Because they forsook the Lord God of their fathers, who brought them out of the land of Egypt, and embraced other gods, and worshiped them and served them; therefore He has brought all this calamity on them.’ ”​

What Jesus was describing in Luke 21:20 is found in the book of Revelation and occurs in the Little While period of the Seventh Age:

Revelation 12:13-17: - The Woman Persecuted​

​

13 Now when the dragon saw that he had been cast to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male Child. 14 But the woman was given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness to her place, where she is nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent. 15 So the serpent spewed water out of his mouth like a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away by the flood. 16 But the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up the flood which the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. 17 And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.​

​

Revelation 19:17-21: - The Beast and His Armies Defeated​

​

17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the birds that fly in the midst of heaven, “Come and gather together for the supper of the great God, 18 that you may eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, both small and great.”​

​

19 And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. 20 Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. 21 And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse. And all the birds were filled with their flesh.​

​

Revelation 20:7-10: - Satanic Rebellion Crushed​

​

7 Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea. 9 They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them. 10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.​

​

Matching Scripture with Scripture is important to gain any understanding of the End Times.

 

[covenantee]

It seems to me that God foretold of the destruction of the temple and the scattering of the Israelite in 70 AD in 2 Chronicles 7:19-22: -

I concur.

What Jesus was describing in Luke 21:20 is found in the book of Revelation and occurs in the Little While period of the Seventh Age:

What Jesus was describing was recognized by the Judaean Christians during the period approaching 70 AD as the fulfillment of the warning sign which would trigger their flight to safety. Matthew 24:15,16; Luke 21:20,21.

They heeded His warning and fled and survived.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Reading this original post and all the following arguments (a lot of it nasty, childish and uninformed), I'm surprised no one has brought up the pink elephant jumping up and down in the centre of the room. That is, in 70 AD there was no abomination of desolation. It did not happen.

For all the talk about people knowing their history, it does not seem anyone is all that familiar with Josephus' narrative. The temple got burned (it was not an official decision, supposedly) and no one desecrated the Holy of Holies. There was some sacrifice to a roman god done AFTER it burned to the ground. But the main point is that there was nothing done that desecrated the site while it was still a functioning temple to God. This could not possibly be any kind of fulfillment of the final part of the 70 Weeks prophecy.

Yes, I'm quite familiar with that point of view. My counter-argument is that you're defining the Abomination of Desolation (AoD) much too narrowly. Antiochus 4 desecrated the altar and the temple, by sacrificing swine, by putting idols in the temple compound, etc. Even more, the Syrians were pagans who did not belong in the vicinity of the temple--not even in Jerusalem or Israel.

There was to be "one law" for all in Israel. However, Israel was under judgment for their own failings, and God allowed a pagan intrusion--a desecration of the holy place.

So Daniel described another AoD, a pagan army what he called "the people of the ruler to come" who would "desolate the city and the sanctuary." The pagan Romans held idolatrous eagle standards and intruded upon the holy place just as the Syrians had before them. They were the "abomination" come to "desolate" the temple by destroying it.

Dan 9.27 indicated that this Army come to destroy the city would be set against the temple. Jesus used different words saying the same thing. He said armies would encircle Jerusalem like vultures gathering to their food. They were "abominable" because they were pagans intruding upon the holy place. And they were "desolators" because they were standing around the city intending to destroy the temple.

You are defining the AoD as strictly a pig sacrifice in the temple, such as Antiochus 4 did. The Jews tend to define it that way.

But again, that is too narrow a definition. Not just the pig sacrifice but also the Syrian army were pagans and were "abominations" in the holy place. They did not destroy the temple, but they desecrated it and destroyed many thousands of Jews.

In that way, "desolation" can infer either the murder of people or to the destruction of property. Both the Syrians and the Romans were abominable "desolators."

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Yes, I'm quite familiar with that point of view. My counter-argument is that you're defining the Abomination of Desolation (AoD) much too narrowly. Antiochus 4 desecrated the altar and the temple, by sacrificing swine, by putting idols in the temple compound, etc. Even more, the Syrians were pagans who did not belong in the vicinity of the temple--not even in Jerusalem or Israel.

There was to be "one law" for all in Israel. However, Israel was under judgment for their own failings, and God allowed a pagan intrusion--a desecration of the holy place.

So Daniel described another AoD, a pagan army what he called "the people of the ruler to come" who would "desolate the city and the sanctuary." The pagan Romans held idolatrous eagle standards and intruded upon the holy place just as the Syrians had before them. They were the "abomination" come to "desolate" the temple by destroying it.

Dan 9.27 indicated that this Army come to destroy the city would be set against the temple. Jesus used different words saying the same thing. He said armies would encircle Jerusalem like vultures gathering to their food. They were "abominable" because they were pagans intruding upon the holy place. And they were "desolators" because they were standing around the city intending to destroy the temple.

You are defining the AoD as strictly a pig sacrifice in the temple, such as Antiochus 4 did. The Jews tend to define it that way.

But again, that is too narrow a definition. Not just the pig sacrifice but also the Syrian army were pagans and were "abominations" in the holy place. They did not destroy the temple, but they desecrated it and destroyed many thousands of Jews.

In that way, "desolation" can infer either the murder of people or to the destruction of property. Both the Syrians and the Romans were abominable "desolators."

There is no narrow definition. It means to desolate the temple. Make it unholy for sacrifice. This modern "reimagining" everything is just anti-biblical.

Jesus was VERY CLEAR about it.
[Mat 24:15 LSB] 15 "Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),

There is no way you can explain this away as not being inside the Holy of Holies. No way.

 

[covenantee]

There is no narrow definition. It means to desolate the temple. Make it unholy for sacrifice. This modern "reimagining" everything is just anti-biblical.

Jesus was VERY CLEAR about it.
[Mat 24:15 LSB] 15 "Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),

There is no way you can explain this away as not being inside the Holy of Holies. No way.

There is no reference to the temple or the holy of holies in Matthew 24:15. The reference is to the holy place, for which Luke 21:20 provides the identification, which was Jerusalem, known in Scripture as the holy city (Nehemiah 11:1; Matthew 4:5; 27:53).

The appearance of the Roman armies advancing on Jerusalem was the signal Jesus had given for the Judaean Christians to flee. (Matthew 24:15,16; Luke 21:20,21). During the period approaching AD 70, they fled, and survived.

 

[Randy Kluth]

There is no narrow definition. It means to desolate the temple. Make it unholy for sacrifice. This modern "reimagining" everything is just anti-biblical.

Jesus was VERY CLEAR about it.
[Mat 24:15 LSB] 15 "Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),

There is no way you can explain this away as not being inside the Holy of Holies. No way.

I already did. You don't have to accept it. The "holy place" that Matthew and Mark described was described by Luke as being the city of Jerusalem. That was the "holy place" where Roman armies encircled the city.

There were 2 AoDs in Daniel, and both Matthew and Mark referred to the one in Dan 9, in which the AoD would be an army set against the temple, come to destroy the city and the sanctuary. That's what Scriptures say to me--you can fashion it any way you want.