I'd like to have a calm, rational conversation about End Times...anyone?

[Wormwood]

Naomi25

Concerning (Rev. 9) I do not believe these to be helicopters. I do take it literally. I believe these creatures are supernatural and demonic or evil in origin as they come from the bottomless pit. And, I believe these are not unseen by man at this time. I believe all is visible to mankind.

You had great geological changes occur on the earth and a change in heaven also in (Rev.6:12-14). This caused mankind to see that they were seen by God and the Lamb, Christ. (Rev.6:15-16). Just as heaven is opened so I believe mankind's eyes are now opened to the Spirit world, be it good or evil. There is no reason for it not to be this way. For this is the end. This is the time of the 'wrath of the Lamb'. (6:16)

Concerning your conversation with Wormwood and dispensationalists fixation upon Israel, I don't see how it is a fixation when Israel is found throughout the whole Bible. And amillennialists must be equally fixated on Israel though their interpretation of who Israel is is not the same.

As to the temple being rebuilt and the sacrifices again started during the millennium, do you see these as an insult to God before Christ came? Because they never put away sin. Do you believe these sacrifices started again are for the purpose of removing sin? We don't.

Stranger

Yes, it is an insult in my mind because those things were foreshadowing the coming of Christ and his great work of redemption. To reinstitute the Temple and sacrifices is to act as if Christ and his cross were of null effect! The sacrifices pointed to his sacrifice. The temple is a copy of heavenly realities where Christ sits and intercedes with us by his blood at the right hand of the Father. God's plan for Israel was to be the lineage through with the Savior would come. To reinstitute the Temple, sacrifices and physical Israel is like saying the first covenant is what really mattered and the Church of Jesus Christ is nothing more than a parenthesis in human history rather than the fulfillment of God's promises to both Israel and the world.

 

[Stranger]

Yes, it is an insult in my mind because those things were foreshadowing the coming of Christ and his great work of redemption. To reinstitute the Temple and sacrifices is to act as if Christ and his cross were of null effect! The sacrifices pointed to his sacrifice. The temple is a copy of heavenly realities where Christ sits and intercedes with us by his blood at the right hand of the Father. God's plan for Israel was to be the lineage through with the Savior would come. To reinstitute the Temple, sacrifices and physical Israel is like saying the first covenant is what really mattered and the Church of Jesus Christ is nothing more than a parenthesis in human history rather than the fulfillment of God's promises to both Israel and the world.

Without a doubt those things spoke to Christ and His sacrifice. But, if sacrifices are so ordered by God, then it is not treating Christ and his cross as null. Just as the sacrifices pointed to a greater Sacrifice, so sacrifices can also look back to a greater Sacrifice.

Understand that in my view, the dispensational view, this temple where the sacrifices are given is not in heaven. It is on earth during the millennium. It is not the Church that is offering sacrifices. It is the redeemed Israel that has come out of the Tribulation. That God planned the Saviour to come out of Israel is true. But that is not all that was planned for Israel. And the promises to Israel go back to the Abrahamic Covenant of which the Law was a part. Just as the New Covenant is a part.

If God cannot fulfill His promises to Israel then what confidence do you have that He will fulfill all His promises to the Church?

Stranger

 

[Naomi25]

Naomi25

Concerning (Rev. 9) I do not believe these to be helicopters. I do take it literally. I believe these creatures are supernatural and demonic or evil in origin as they come from the bottomless pit. And, I believe these are not unseen by man at this time. I believe all is visible to mankind.

You had great geological changes occur on the earth and a change in heaven also in (Rev.6:12-14). This caused mankind to see that they were seen by God and the Lamb, Christ. (Rev.6:15-16). Just as heaven is opened so I believe mankind's eyes are now opened to the Spirit world, be it good or evil. There is no reason for it not to be this way. For this is the end. This is the time of the 'wrath of the Lamb'. (6:16)

True. It is possible that there could come a time when heaven rolls back the veil between the seen and unseen worlds and we behold what is going on behind that curtain.

But it is just as possible that Revelation is only describing for us that reality, is it not? That would not make it any less true, or real or relevant for us. And in a way it makes the book of Revelation the peeling back of that curtain for us...his children who read the book, so we won't be left in the dark.

Either view can be supported by scripture...or perhaps it would be more accurate to say...neither one can be invalidated by it. It then comes down to which view you think becomes most likely when you view them alongside all the rest of scripture, or makes the best sense when reading the whole of Revelation.

Clearly you think the Dispensationalist view has that weight, and I do not. I cannot see anywhere in the bible a teaching that has a time period where people are aware and viewing the spiritual plane. From the way I read it, people live their lives, being given ample opportunities to come to Christ, but when they meet him (either upon death or his return)...that's it. It will come as a 'surprise' to them and they will have no second chance. They will live once, have once chance and that's it. I can see no references to a time period where they will be suddenly seeing great demonic monsters that will make them suddenly question that spiritual reality of life. I only read their mocking of Christians for believing in such things. If you hit Revelation and suddenly see all of these things, which seem to oppose everything else you've read in the NT so far, are you just going to change your whole belief system? We already know because of what is written in the epistles and gospels that an unseen spiritual battle rages right now. Why is it so hard to believe that Revelation depicts that or something similar? Why must you go back and wiggle and change your reading of the NT to fit? Surely that cannot be the correct biblical exegesis.

Concerning your conversation with Wormwood and dispensationalists fixation upon Israel, I don't see how it is a fixation when Israel is found throughout the whole Bible. And amillennialists must be equally fixated on Israel though their interpretation of who Israel is is not the same.

Israel is found throughout the bible because she was the vessel God used to bring Christ into the world. But she should not be fixated upon. It's like the temple, in a way, I suppose. It was just a building. Perhaps a glorious building that had a very special meaning and should be respected. But without God's presence there, it was just bricks and mortar. It in itself was not holy or special. Israel was picked by God for a special purpose, it's true, and because of that he loves them. But they are not holy in and of themselves. Once Christ had come, he made a new people out of Jews and Gentiles. He took away distinctions, so why on earth are we trying to put them back?

And I'm afraid I'm not sure I follow you on how Amil's are also fixated on Israel. I like the Jews, actually. I think they have every right to be in the land...it's their land for goodness sake! And I want them to come to Jesus...he's their Messiah! But I'm not obsessed with their rebuilding of the temple, or finding the right cow, or making a peace treaty, or whatever....They need to protect themselves, and find Jesus. Is that fixation?

As to the temple being rebuilt and the sacrifices again started during the millennium, do you see these as an insult to God before Christ came? Because they never put away sin. Do you believe these sacrifices started again are for the purpose of removing sin? We don't.

Alright. Let me try and analogy. It might be a bad one, but I'll try it anyway. Imagine your wife had a spa bath, which she loved to soak in during the winter, cause she got really cold (sorry, using what I know!). But the pipes where broken and the only water she could get into the tub was slightly muddy and yucky, but it was better than nothing, and she could look forward to when they would be fixed. So, for years, that's what she put up with. Muddy water.
But then, the plumber came and fixed the pipes! She had sparkling clean water she could use and it was awesome!
Now imagine she's relaxing in her nice tub, clean water, a good book, whatever...and someone comes in and dumps in some mud. Just for "remembrance' sake. How do you think that would go down?
Because that's what Dispensationalists are suggesting. Humans sinned against God... a cosmic insult, treason. A stench in his nostrils. The animal sacrifices were a band-aid fix, as someone (may have been you) said. It was an ugly way to make do for a disgusting thing. Then Jesus came and wiped it all clean, washing the smell and dirt and grime away. And yet you think Israel needs to light up the fires and start stinking it up just so God can remember? Why would he want them to dump mud back into the tub? It's slightly ridiculous, isn't it?
Especially when you consider the symbolism behind it and what Jesus himself demanded as remembrance of his sacrifice. The reason for animal sacrifices was because blood was required to pay for sin. If not our blood, then it was to be the blood of lambs etc. Then Jesus' blood was spilled. It was all quite gruesome and horrible. And yet Jesus told us to remember his sacrifice by the cup and bread. Not with actual blood and death, but with food...which symbolized life and celebration. God is saying "enough with the slaughter". Jesus's work WAS enough.

If God cannot fulfill His promises to Israel then what confidence do you have that He will fulfill all His promises to the Church?

He has fulfilled his promises to Israel. In Christ. Christ is the fulfillment of all inheritances and promises. And that's how we can be sure he will fulfill his promises to us...because he is the first fruits of said inheritance. When the next age comes, every saved person will receive all God's promises through Jesus. Some we have now in Him, some we'll receive then. But we can be assured of them.

In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. - Eph 1:11-14

 

[Stranger]

Naomi25

You bring many good points. Yet, you say God has fulfilled his promises to Israel in Christ. But you don't say 'how'. Are you saying (Eph. 1:11-14) is addressed to Israel?

Stranger

 

[Wormwood]

Without a doubt those things spoke to Christ and His sacrifice. But, if sacrifices are so ordered by God, then it is not treating Christ and his cross as null. Just as the sacrifices pointed to a greater Sacrifice, so sacrifices can also look back to a greater Sacrifice.

Thank your for your well thought reply. I disagree with this statement because it seems clear to me that the book of Hebrews says this cannot be the case.

“In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” (Hebrews 8:13, NKJV)

“For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.” (Hebrews 10:1–4, NKJV)

“For here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come. Therefore by Him let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name.” (Hebrews 13:14–15, NKJV)

So if it is true that the first covenant has "vanished away" and that the blood of bulls and goats pointed to "the good things to come" and we seek a city "to come" then why would would we expect the old covenant to reappear? Why would expect sacrifices to point backwards when their purpose was to point to the good thing to come? Why would we refocus on earthly Jerusalem when we are told to seek a city heavenly city to come? Again, all this seems to be directly contradictory to the teaching of the NT.

Moreover, the reason I have such an issue with this is that there are zero NT verses that make any such suggestion! The basis of all of this comes from a misunderstanding (in my view) of the OT promises. Dispensationalists claim that Jesus failed to fulfill the promises of the OT and that basically the church has to be raptured away so God can fulfill the promises that were left unfulfilled to Israel. However, the NT is EMPHATIC that Jesus has fulfilled all God's promises both to Israel and the entire world!

Rather than spend a great deal of time on this, let me just quote an author that I think nails this issue powerfully. I think this will also address some of your questions directed at Naomi, so I really feel it is worth the read. I apologize for the lengthy quote, but I encourage you to read through it carefully and examine the texts and decide for yourself if what this author says is accurate or not.

This identification of the church as God’s New Covenant Israel is not arbitrary speculation. The NT itself specifically speaks of the church as God’s temple, God’s Jerusalem, and God’s Israel today. In 2 Cor 6:16 Paul says, “What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God,” God’s dwelling place on earth today. Paul also says, “Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? … For the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are” (1 Cor 3:16–17; see Eph 2:21–22; 1 Pet 2:5). Though it has a physical presence in this world, the church is nevertheless a spiritual temple, since its identity as such is based on our spiritual relation to God through Jesus Christ.

The church is also God’s true Jerusalem today—a spiritual, heavenly Jerusalem, in contrast with the physical city. Paul makes this very distinction in Gal 4:21–31, where he says Hagar and Sarah represent God’s two covenants. The Old Covenant, which proceeded from Mount Sinai, “corresponds to the present Jerusalem,” whose children (the Jews) are in bondage (v. 25). The New Covenant, though, corresponds to “the Jerusalem above,” which is the mother of Christians who dwell in freedom (v. 26). The former is the “present” Jerusalem in the sense that it belongs to the old creation, to the pre-Messianic level of existence. The latter is the “above” Jerusalem in the sense of “heavenly.” In other words, it belongs to the new Messianic level of reality, the new creation begun through Christ’s death and resurrection. It is truly the spiritual Jerusalem, since its citizens are “born according to the Spirit” and not “according to the flesh” (v. 29).

Hebrews 12:18–24 makes a similar contrast between OT Israel, a physical nation attached to a physical mountain (Sinai); and New Covenant Israel, those who “have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem” (vv. 18–22). The latter is specifically identified with “the church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven” and with everything spiritual (v. 23). Christians are citizens of this heavenly Jerusalem (Phil 3:20). See references to “the new Jerusalem” in Rev 3:12; 21:2,10.

If the church is God’s new temple and God’s new Jerusalem, we are not surprised to see it identified in the NT as God’s new Israel. The pre-Messianic Israelites took pride in being physically descended from Abraham (Matt 3:9; John 8:33,39; 2 Cor 11:22), but the true Messianic Israel of the new era is composed of those who are related to Abraham spiritually. “Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham” (Gal 3:7). Jesus Christ is the one true seed of Abraham (Gal 3:16); but all who believe in Christ and are baptized into him take on his identity and become one with him (Gal 3:26–28) and therefore are true descendants of Abraham also: “And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise” (Gal 3:29).

The true Israel exists not on the level of the physical but on the level of the spiritual: “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit” (Rom 2:28–29). This distinction between the true (spiritual) Israel and the false (physical) Israel is also emphasized in Phil 3:2–3: “Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision; for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh.”

In view of this there can be no doubt that Paul is referring to the church when he speaks of “the Israel of God” in Gal 6:15–16: “Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation. Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God” (NIV). The words of ordination originally applied to physical Israel (Exod 19:5–6) now apply to this new Israel, the church: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession” (1 Pet 2:9).

All who accept Jesus as Messiah belong to this Messianic Israel, whether they be Jews by birth or Gentiles by birth. God is no longer interested in this genealogical distinction. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28; see Rom 10:12–13; 1 Cor 12:13; Col 3:11). Those formerly known as Jews and Gentiles are now all part of the same group (Eph 2:11–16); they are all branches on the same tree (Rom 11:17–24).

In view of this abundant and emphatic teaching that the church is God’s New Covenant Israel, how can anyone presume to limit OT prophecy about Israel simply to pre-Messianic, physical Israel? Such an approach is not true to the nature of prophetic language, and especially it is not true to the nature of reality as such. The new Israel is just as real as the old one, and in a sense is the true Israel for which the old one was just a forerunner. Thus it is only natural to expect much OT prophecy about Israel, Jerusalem (Zion), and the temple to refer to this spiritual, Messianic Israel, the church.

In fact on several occasions the NT itself applies such OT prophecy about Israel to the church. A main example is Jer 31:31–34, where God prophesies that the Old Covenant will be replaced by a new and different one. The key point here is that God promised to make this new covenant “with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah” (v. 31). I have heard literalists declare that this prophecy has not yet been fulfilled, since God has not made such a new covenant yet with the house of Israel, namely, with physical Israel. This well illustrates the absurdity of the literalist approach, since the NT makes it clear that this prophecy has already been fulfilled. Christ has already established this new covenant through the shedding of his blood (Luke 22:20), specifically in fulfillment of Jer 31:31–34 (see Heb 8:7–13; 10:11–18). Thus “the house of Israel” with whom this covenant has been made must refer to the new Israel, the church.

Jack Cottrell, The Faith Once for All: Bible Doctrine for Today (Joplin, MO: College Press Pub., 2002), 467–470.

 

[Stranger]

Wormwood

I would say to remember that the millennium, in my view, is not heaven. It is the rule of Christ upon the earth, where His will is done as opposed to the constant rebellion of man in the past. And the millennial temple is an earthly temple located in Jerusalem. In other words it is not the heavenly city that the believers seek. For those living in the millennium, that city is yet future. (Rev. 21:9-27)

As to going back to the Mosaic Law, I would say during the millennium that it is the Law of the Kingdom instead of the Mosaic Law. And this Law is more strict than the Mosaic Law. Remember when Christ said several times when giving the Kingdom Law in (Matt. 5-7), 'you have heard it said, but I say to you'. This is why the 'Sermon on the Mount' must not be seen as the law over the Church.

Concerning the sacrifices, having Israel again give animal sacrifices does nothing to remove what Christ has already done. The animal sacrifices have always pointed to what Christ will or has accomplished. Again, this is not heaven. It is on earth and a people on earth, and many will not be saved as time goes on. In my view, these people do not make up the Church. And they come under a different law. So it is not us going back to sacrifices. It is a new dispensation, a new time, where the sacrifices now, look back instead of forward.

As for the Church being or replacing Israel, I of course disagree. Though a true Jew is one who is inwardly, being a true believer, and not just an outward show, this does not mean a saved Gentile is a Jew. The true Jew is the Jew who believes rightly. The 'Israel of God' in (Gal. 6:16) I believe to be just that, the 'Israel of God'.

As for the New Covenant fulfillment in (Jer. 31:31-34), of course the New Covenant has been established. But Israel has yet to come under it. And Israel is in view here. It is the same Israel who were under the Mosaic Covenant. Note the terms 'house of Israel', and 'house of Judah'.

Note the promise of God in (Jer. 31:35-37). These are found throughout the prophets of the Old Testament. If God is not faithful to these, how can we trust His promises to the Church? These speak of the 'seed of Israel', not the seed of Abraham.

I didn't cover everything you gave, but I don't have time now. I realize as you do also, this all goes back to our different methods of interpretation. Thus we will never agree, but can show at least why we believe as we do.

Stranger

 

[Guestman]

Isn't it interesting! Everyone reads without bias! Honestly...no one can read the bible without bias. We all like to think we do, but we don't. And I think those who claim to, are those who are only more confused than the rest of us. Everyone has presuppositions.

Amil people come with covenant understandings, and I believe Dispensationals come with an Israel centered hermeneutic.
We believe that the bible is built up on God's covenants with his people...covenants of promise, covenants of works, covenants of obligation made to Israel, and so on. We also say the in the NT Jesus speaks of a lot of the OT passages and reinterprets them....so we have a Christ centered hermeneutic. Bascially we say that the NT tells us how to interpret the OT.
Dispensationalist, however (as I understand it), believe that there are two distinct purposes; one for Israel, and one for 'the church'. They look at Daniel as the 'key' to prophetic understanding because they have an Israel centered hermenutic. Because of this, they see Daniel and the OT as telling us what the NT means, what it can say about end time, Israel and the church.

These are the basic operating assumptions we come to scripture with. And please don't try and tell me that you don't come without any. Even if I haven't managed to paint your dispensationalist beliefs correctly, you do have some, and you do come to scripture with them. You have a full life behind you. You have lived, learned, grown, read, understood, held opionions. All these things come with you whenever you open the word. You are not an island. No one is. So I would beg you not to tell me I need to come to scripture unbiased as you have done, and only then may I see the truth.



I follow you so far, and wouldn't disagree on anything.



Now I've lost you. Don't dispensationalists usually say that the 'he' who makes a covenant with the many is the antiChrist? I mean, I agree with you that Daniel is actually talking about Jesus. But then, you seem to talking about the Abrahamic covenant, but we know that Jesus came to make a new covenant with his elect (Jer 31:31, Luke 22:20). Then you seem to say that that the Abrahamic covenant becomes the new covenant...which negates the word "new", really, doesn't it? And then you seem to fit the last 'week' to the time period surrounding Jesus' death, which is unusual for a dispensationalist, isn't it? Or am I understanding you incorrectly? At this point I'm too confused about what you believe to discuss it in any kind of depth, or argue for or against it.



So...once again I might be misunderstanding you, but, from what I understand: if you believe that Christ's work brought and end to the 70th week in 36C.E. and that bought into the fold both Jew and Gentile, making the Mosaic Law obsolete....then why do you hold to a position that states the 70th week is yet to come (the Tribulation), that the Jews have a separate destiny that must play out in the Tribulation and that the promises made to them must yet be fulfilled to them and only them, rather than to the one people of God now...which was God's plan all along? I don't really follow your logic here. Sorry.

Let's see if Daniel 9:24-27 can be simplified. Its purpose is to lay out the time table that "have been determined for your people (Daniel's or those who honor Jehovah not just "the Lord" or the Jews; see 1 Sam 2:30 whereby Jehovah God says that "those honoring me will be honored, but those despising me will be treated with contempt") and your holy city (the city of ancient Jerusalem was abandoned in 33 C.E., along with the nation of natural Israel as God's people [Matt 23:37-39], having been replaced with "heavenly Jerusalem", Heb 12:22 and the "Israel of God", Gal 6:16, a spiritual nation made up of people from all the nations that form God's Kingdom, see Rom 9:6-8 and Rev 5:9, 10).....to terminate the transgression, to finish off sin, to make atonement for error (by providing an everlasting sacrifice [or "corresponding ransom", 1 Tim 2:5, 6] that required a perfect man buy back what the perfect man Adam lost for his offspring), to bring in everlasting righteousness (whereby all those exercising faith [not just having faith or born into a covenant with God such as the Mosaic Law covenant] can live forever), to seal up the vision and the prophecy (to ensure that all the prophecies relating to the Messiah for that time are fulfilled) to anoint the Holy of Holies (in preparation for the building of the spiritual temple, replacing the physical temple in Jerusalem)".(Dan 9:24)

Now comes the time table, giving the starting point as "from the issuing of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Leader, there will be 7 weeks, also 62 weeks (or 483 years that began in 455 B.C.E. during the reign of Artaxerxes, Neh 2:1, 5 and came down to 29 C.E. or 69 full "weeks of years")".

The seventieth "week of years", from 29 C.E. to 36 .E. is the one whereby the Messiah is "cut off......at the half of the week".(Dan 9:26, 27) Hence, Jesus died on the torture stake on Nisan 14, 33 C.E. in fulfillment of this, causing "sacrifice and gift offering to cease" at the temple in Jerusalem.(Dan 9:27a)

But the Abrahamic covenant (that was established in 1943 B.C.E. with Abraham because of his unswerving loyalty to Jehovah God that was validated 430 years before the Mosaic Law covenant with the nation of Israel in 1513 B.C.E., Gal 3:17) continued on until 36 C.E. in order to allow for inclusion of Gentiles or "people of the nations", that began with the Roman army officer Cornelius.(Acts 10)

This covenant permitted for "people of the nations" to be declared righteous along with natural Jews who exercised faith in Jesus shed blood to make up God's Kingdom of 144,000 "kings and priests" to rule over the earth.(Rev 5:9, 10; 14:1) Therefore, "those who adhere to faith are being blessed together with Abraham, who had faith".(Gal 3:9)

 

[Naomi25]

Naomi25

You bring many good points. Yet, you say God has fulfilled his promises to Israel in Christ. But you don't say 'how'. Are you saying (Eph. 1:11-14) is addressed to Israel?

Stranger

I'm saying that Eph 1:11-14 is addressed to anyone in Christ, regardless of their background.

I know Dispensationalist think we Amil's hold to what you call 'replacement' theology. That basically, we're saying that the Church has now become Israel, and as such the 'old' Israel, has no more to play in God's agenda for mankind. That's not true.

What we hold to is probably more truly called 'expansion theology'. We believe that within the Nation of Israel God always had those he considered his elect, even in the OT (Rom 11:2-5). At Paul's time, he considered himself one of these elect...a 'remnant' within the nation who rejected Christ as their Messiah.

What we see in the NT is that God doesn't dismiss Israel and the blessings and promises he made to her. They are still present in the Jewish elect like Peter, Paul and the Christian Jews today, and of course Christ himself. But he adds into the elect those from the Gentiles. We call it the Church, but if we had come to saving relationship with God back in the OT, like Ruth, for example, we would have become Israelite's. We are not 'replacing' Israel, we are joining her.

This is why I don't have a problem with Romans 9-11. I feel quite happy in saying that I read it stating that God will, at the end of this age, bring large numbers of Jews to faith in Jesus. I think the fact that national Israel is back in her land is a good indication that God does have plans for her. But any plan that does not draw them to an individual saving faith and relationship with Jesus is not biblical. God is not going to send them back to the OT way of doing things because they rejected Jesus. Jesus was always the grand plan...the only plan that would actually save us. The notion that God is going to want them to build another temple (when he went to the trouble to dismantle the last one so thoroughly) and burn offerings again (even if only for remembrance) is just not right. If Jesus came for them, then He came for them....they will accept him as we have done, and become part of the elect, or they will not. Truly, there is no place in scripture for a third category.


As far as Christ fulfilling God's promises etc, let's consider. We already know that when Jesus came he fulfilled the Mosaic Law, which, essentially finished the 'old' covenant, as it's blessings were dependent upon their obedience to those laws. I say 'finished', rather than 'did away with' because I suppose the distinction is important: the Mosaic Law was important because it showed sin. It showed us how a holy God expected righteous people to live...something we could never live up to. When Christ 'finished' it, he completed and 'won' it for us, rather than threw it away, or dismissed it. One cannot dismiss how a holy God is, or how righteousness is supposed to be.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them - Mt:5:17
In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away - Heb 8:13

We also know that when God was speaking to Abraham about the promises to him, he told Abraham that God would use him to 'bless all the nations'. (in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.-Gen 12:3b) He was clearly talking about Jesus here. Through Israel, Jesus Christ would come and the gospel would be offered to the world...to all the nations.

It's also interesting to note that Paul, when looking back at the promise God made to Abraham, interpreted this as not a 'land' promise, as such...as in, not 'the land Israel', but of a much wider promise:

For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. - Rom 4:13

Paul then goes on to say:

That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all - Rom 4:16

Well! Isn't that interesting! I find it so! Paul is linking it (and us) all together! Once we are in Christ, in faith, we are all under that promise. And that promise is for the inheritance of the whole world! Not one tiny piece of land! Start thinking bigger!

We also need to consider the nature of foreshadowing...of types and shadows, that appears in scripture, and the why's of them. You see them everywhere! The first Adam, the second Adam. The Exodus (Moses bringing his people out of slavery), our exodus (Jesus bringing us out of slavery). The passover lamb (in Egypt), the ultimate Passover lamb (Christ). The roles God ordains in scriptures. The priests, the kings, the prophets...and how Christ is all in one. You start to see how the OT is one long story, one precursor to Jesus. If the Mosaic Law tells us how badly we need Jesus to save us, so too does the OT. Again and again we see that we need this one, perfect man, this second Adam, this Passover lamb, this Prophet/Priest/King, to come and save us. He fulfills all of these things. In him we receive the promise of blessing, of salvation, of rescue, of land (all of it!), of a perfect King, who is even now seated at the right side of God (Mark 16:19; Heb 1:3, 10:12; Rev 3:21).

 

[Wormwood]

I would say to remember that the millennium, in my view, is not heaven. It is the rule of Christ upon the earth, where His will is done as opposed to the constant rebellion of man in the past. And the millennial temple is an earthly temple located in Jerusalem. In other words it is not the heavenly city that the believers seek. For those living in the millennium, that city is yet future. (Rev. 21:9-27)

Stranger,

I appreciate your response. I understand that the millennium is not heaven and is not the ultimate destination that dispensationalists long for. Yet it still seems to focus God's promises (all the promises of the OT) on an earthly city in the Middle East. Why would Paul explicitly tell believers not to focus on these things if they are legitimate things to long for because they mark the rule of Jesus?

As to going back to the Mosaic Law, I would say during the millennium that it is the Law of the Kingdom instead of the Mosaic Law. And this Law is more strict than the Mosaic Law. Remember when Christ said several times when giving the Kingdom Law in (Matt. 5-7), 'you have heard it said, but I say to you'. This is why the 'Sermon on the Mount' must not be seen as the law over the Church.

So you believe Matthew 5-7 doesn't apply to Christians? I think dismissing large segments of Jesus' teaching as not applicable to Christians is a serious mistake. Jesus told his disciples to teach "everything I have commanded you" in the great commission. He didn't say, "Teach everything except the stuff that only applies when the Kingdom is established on earth." Moreover, Jesus' parables about the Kingdom (wheat/tares, yeast/dough, sheep/goats etc.) make it clear (at least to me) that the Kingdom is not easily perceived and that many will not be able to distinguish the good from the bad until the day God separates them. If the Kingdom only refers to a visible, earthly rule, it would seem these parables make little sense.

Concerning the sacrifices, having Israel again give animal sacrifices does nothing to remove what Christ has already done. The animal sacrifices have always pointed to what Christ will or has accomplished. Again, this is not heaven. It is on earth and a people on earth, and many will not be saved as time goes on. In my view, these people do not make up the Church. And they come under a different law. So it is not us going back to sacrifices. It is a new dispensation, a new time, where the sacrifices now, look back instead of forward.

Then why not offer sacrifice now? Why should we not remember Christ's blood by offering the blood of bulls and goats again? In my view, the "abomination which causes desolation" relates specifically to the ongoing animal sacrifices in the Temple after the ultimate sacrifice was given. This is what brought God's judgment on Jerusalem and it's destruction. Again, pointing backwards just does not make sense to me. Christ's blood is still accessible to all today and we do not need to slaughter a sheep to remember it. Its like leaving little trail of M&Ms to lead you to a mountain of candy...but then suggesting you need another trail of M&Ms after you have received the mountain. Why do you need the signs that point to the real thing when you now have the real thing? Personally, I think it undermines the cross of Christ to re offer animals...it is like saying we need to go back to the old because the new wasn't sufficient or powerful enough to remember on its own.

As for the Church being or replacing Israel, I of course disagree. Though a true Jew is one who is inwardly, being a true believer, and not just an outward show, this does not mean a saved Gentile is a Jew. The true Jew is the Jew who believes rightly. The 'Israel of God' in (Gal. 6:16) I believe to be just that, the 'Israel of God'.

I appreciate what Naomi said on this and I agree. The church didn't "replace" Israel so much as the Church consists of true Israel...Jews and Gentiles. The Gentiles were grafted into the already existing faithful Israel...that is what the Church is. Israel was never cut out of the equation so its incorrect to suggest they were "replaced." Rather, Gentiles were included into the already existing remnant of believing Jews who were faithful to God.

As for the New Covenant fulfillment in (Jer. 31:31-34), of course the New Covenant has been established. But Israel has yet to come under it. And Israel is in view here. It is the same Israel who were under the Mosaic Covenant. Note the terms 'house of Israel', and 'house of Judah'.

I think the following message from Paul speaks directly to this issue...

“But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.” (Romans 9:6–8, NKJV)

Paul makes clear that God's promises to Israel do not fail or fall incomplete in Christ. They are fulfilled in Christ because God's promises always belonged to people of faith, not merely a people of flesh. Paul's example is Isaac. Ishmael was also a child of Abraham's flesh. But what made Isaac his TRUE son was because he was born of promise and faith whereas Ismael was flesh alone. Paul is saying that God's promises always belonged to people of faith and those who rely on flesh alone have never been a part of God's chosen. If a Gentile has faith as Abraham did, they become a child of promise. If a person relies on flesh alone, they are no different than Ismael who was not an heir.

Note the promise of God in (Jer. 31:35-37). These are found throughout the prophets of the Old Testament. If God is not faithful to these, how can we trust His promises to the Church? These speak of the 'seed of Israel', not the seed of Abraham.

I didn't cover everything you gave, but I don't have time now. I realize as you do also, this all goes back to our different methods of interpretation. Thus we will never agree, but can show at least why we believe as we do.

My above comment about Abraham and true Israel applies to this as well. I understand this is a deep topic and we likely will never see eye to eye. yet is is a good thing to have a kind and involved discussion on the issue. I appreciate your honest and kind-hearted exchange. I hope we will both be edified as we explore these ideas further. Be blessed.

 

[101G]

GINOLJC, to all. I have been following this conversation, reading all the posts. many good points are made, thank God. but what Naomi25 said is true. "What we see in the NT is that God doesn't dismiss Israel and the blessings and promises he made to her. They are still present in the Jewish elect like Peter, Paul and the Christian Jews today, and of course Christ himself. But he adds into the elect those from the Gentiles. We call it the Church, but if we had come to saving relationship with God back in the OT, like Ruth, for example, we would have become Israelite's. We are not 'replacing' Israel, we are joining her". a BIG shout out here, I'm of the same belief. I don't believe in a replacement theology of Israel, but a fellowship Theology of the two, that are JOINED as one.

second, with the Daniel 70 weeks, this is my belief. the 70 weeks of years was fulfilled with the coming messiah and the destruction of the Physical Temple. for Daniel stated that the 70 week was with Israel, (Daniel People), and the Temple. I see no gap in the 70 weeks. but I do see a prophecy that is in progress even as we speak, which I believe is the LAST dispensation of God "WORK" in mankind. scripture, Psalms 110:1 "A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool". the Lord Jesus is setting right now as we speak. the until (time) is not known only by the father. this period of Grace was foretold by God himself. scripture, 1 Peter 1:10-12 "Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into". and the apostle Paul confirm this dispensation, a dispensation of GRACE. scripture, Ephesians 3:2-8 "If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ".

that's the PROMISE,..... what is it? that the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel. I think that is crystal clear.

one might need to re-read this post again.
hope this help.

 

[Stranger]

I'm saying that Eph 1:11-14 is addressed to anyone in Christ, regardless of their background.

I know Dispensationalist think we Amil's hold to what you call 'replacement' theology. That basically, we're saying that the Church has now become Israel, and as such the 'old' Israel, has no more to play in God's agenda for mankind. That's not true.

What we hold to is probably more truly called 'expansion theology'. We believe that within the Nation of Israel God always had those he considered his elect, even in the OT (Rom 11:2-5). At Paul's time, he considered himself one of these elect...a 'remnant' within the nation who rejected Christ as their Messiah.

What we see in the NT is that God doesn't dismiss Israel and the blessings and promises he made to her. They are still present in the Jewish elect like Peter, Paul and the Christian Jews today, and of course Christ himself. But he adds into the elect those from the Gentiles. We call it the Church, but if we had come to saving relationship with God back in the OT, like Ruth, for example, we would have become Israelite's. We are not 'replacing' Israel, we are joining her.

This is why I don't have a problem with Romans 9-11. I feel quite happy in saying that I read it stating that God will, at the end of this age, bring large numbers of Jews to faith in Jesus. I think the fact that national Israel is back in her land is a good indication that God does have plans for her. But any plan that does not draw them to an individual saving faith and relationship with Jesus is not biblical. God is not going to send them back to the OT way of doing things because they rejected Jesus. Jesus was always the grand plan...the only plan that would actually save us. The notion that God is going to want them to build another temple (when he went to the trouble to dismantle the last one so thoroughly) and burn offerings again (even if only for remembrance) is just not right. If Jesus came for them, then He came for them....they will accept him as we have done, and become part of the elect, or they will not. Truly, there is no place in scripture for a third category.


As far as Christ fulfilling God's promises etc, let's consider. We already know that when Jesus came he fulfilled the Mosaic Law, which, essentially finished the 'old' covenant, as it's blessings were dependent upon their obedience to those laws. I say 'finished', rather than 'did away with' because I suppose the distinction is important: the Mosaic Law was important because it showed sin. It showed us how a holy God expected righteous people to live...something we could never live up to. When Christ 'finished' it, he completed and 'won' it for us, rather than threw it away, or dismissed it. One cannot dismiss how a holy God is, or how righteousness is supposed to be.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them - Mt:5:17
In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away - Heb 8:13

We also know that when God was speaking to Abraham about the promises to him, he told Abraham that God would use him to 'bless all the nations'. (in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.-Gen 12:3b) He was clearly talking about Jesus here. Through Israel, Jesus Christ would come and the gospel would be offered to the world...to all the nations.

It's also interesting to note that Paul, when looking back at the promise God made to Abraham, interpreted this as not a 'land' promise, as such...as in, not 'the land Israel', but of a much wider promise:

For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. - Rom 4:13

Paul then goes on to say:

That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all - Rom 4:16

Well! Isn't that interesting! I find it so! Paul is linking it (and us) all together! Once we are in Christ, in faith, we are all under that promise. And that promise is for the inheritance of the whole world! Not one tiny piece of land! Start thinking bigger!

We also need to consider the nature of foreshadowing...of types and shadows, that appears in scripture, and the why's of them. You see them everywhere! The first Adam, the second Adam. The Exodus (Moses bringing his people out of slavery), our exodus (Jesus bringing us out of slavery). The passover lamb (in Egypt), the ultimate Passover lamb (Christ). The roles God ordains in scriptures. The priests, the kings, the prophets...and how Christ is all in one. You start to see how the OT is one long story, one precursor to Jesus. If the Mosaic Law tells us how badly we need Jesus to save us, so too does the OT. Again and again we see that we need this one, perfect man, this second Adam, this Passover lamb, this Prophet/Priest/King, to come and save us. He fulfills all of these things. In him we receive the promise of blessing, of salvation, of rescue, of land (all of it!), of a perfect King, who is even now seated at the right side of God (Mark 16:19; Heb 1:3, 10:12; Rev 3:21).

Concerning your belief about the remnant of Israel, I agree. And I agree with your understanding that there will be more of the elect Jews brought into the Church towards the last days. My view is that because God is getting ready to establish the believing nation of Israel again, is why He must shift the elect to the land of Israel instead of the Gentiles. Because it is the elect who will believe.

(Rom.11:25) "...blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in." Those who are blind here must be the nation Israel. Not the Church. But that blindness will be removed. "until" Which means Israel as a nation will believe. And of course, every individual Jew will place faith in Jesus Christ, as their Messiah. The establishment of the 'kingdom of God' on earth during the millennium, is not a going back. That kingdom was never established. The millennial temple in (Ez.40-44) has never been built. But I believe will be.

Concerning (Rom. 4:13,16), I agree that God has promised Abraham that he shall be heir of the world, and that is obtained by faith and not by Law. Even when the Mosaic Law was in existence, it was still only by faith. That never changed. And as (16) says, that assures that all the seed receive the promises, whether they are found under Law or the faith of Abraham. So, yes, we as believers receive these promises given to Abraham to rule over the whole world. But, that doesn't mean there is not to be a land of Israel and a nation of Israel, from which Jesus Christ will rule over the earth. And it doesn't mean that the Church as a separate body will not be ruling with Him. We will. Jesus Christ ruling in Israel, which will be the head of the nations and much bigger than present Israel, and the Church ruling with Him is thinking pretty big. The Church is not confined to that earthly inheritance.

I agree with you that all in the Old Testament points toward Jesus Christ. But as I said, establishing the kingdom of God on earth is not going back. It is going on because it has not occurred yet. Not every prophecy in the Old Testament has been fulfilled. Do you believe the prophecies concerning Christ's second coming have been fulfilled yet? Of course not. Christ is certainly the fulfillment of all that is in the Old Testament. But this thing is still playing out.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Stranger,

I appreciate your response. I understand that the millennium is not heaven and is not the ultimate destination that dispensationalists long for. Yet it still seems to focus God's promises (all the promises of the OT) on an earthly city in the Middle East. Why would Paul explicitly tell believers not to focus on these things if they are legitimate things to long for because they mark the rule of Jesus?



So you believe Matthew 5-7 doesn't apply to Christians? I think dismissing large segments of Jesus' teaching as not applicable to Christians is a serious mistake. Jesus told his disciples to teach "everything I have commanded you" in the great commission. He didn't say, "Teach everything except the stuff that only applies when the Kingdom is established on earth." Moreover, Jesus' parables about the Kingdom (wheat/tares, yeast/dough, sheep/goats etc.) make it clear (at least to me) that the Kingdom is not easily perceived and that many will not be able to distinguish the good from the bad until the day God separates them. If the Kingdom only refers to a visible, earthly rule, it would seem these parables make little sense.



Then why not offer sacrifice now? Why should we not remember Christ's blood by offering the blood of bulls and goats again? In my view, the "abomination which causes desolation" relates specifically to the ongoing animal sacrifices in the Temple after the ultimate sacrifice was given. This is what brought God's judgment on Jerusalem and it's destruction. Again, pointing backwards just does not make sense to me. Christ's blood is still accessible to all today and we do not need to slaughter a sheep to remember it. Its like leaving little trail of M&Ms to lead you to a mountain of candy...but then suggesting you need another trail of M&Ms after you have received the mountain. Why do you need the signs that point to the real thing when you now have the real thing? Personally, I think it undermines the cross of Christ to re offer animals...it is like saying we need to go back to the old because the new wasn't sufficient or powerful enough to remember on its own.



I appreciate what Naomi said on this and I agree. The church didn't "replace" Israel so much as the Church consists of true Israel...Jews and Gentiles. The Gentiles were grafted into the already existing faithful Israel...that is what the Church is. Israel was never cut out of the equation so its incorrect to suggest they were "replaced." Rather, Gentiles were included into the already existing remnant of believing Jews who were faithful to God.



I think the following message from Paul speaks directly to this issue...

“But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.” (Romans 9:6–8, NKJV)

Paul makes clear that God's promises to Israel do not fail or fall incomplete in Christ. They are fulfilled in Christ because God's promises always belonged to people of faith, not merely a people of flesh. Paul's example is Isaac. Ishmael was also a child of Abraham's flesh. But what made Isaac his TRUE son was because he was born of promise and faith whereas Ismael was flesh alone. Paul is saying that God's promises always belonged to people of faith and those who rely on flesh alone have never been a part of God's chosen. If a Gentile has faith as Abraham did, they become a child of promise. If a person relies on flesh alone, they are no different than Ismael who was not an heir.



My above comment about Abraham and true Israel applies to this as well. I understand this is a deep topic and we likely will never see eye to eye. yet is is a good thing to have a kind and involved discussion on the issue. I appreciate your honest and kind-hearted exchange. I hope we will both be edified as we explore these ideas further. Be blessed.

The kingdom of God on earth was a thing to be prayed for. "Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth." (Luke. 11:2-4) And even during the millennial rule, it shall be a prayer also. (Matt. 6:9-15) "Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven." Again, the establishment of the millennial kingdom is not going back. It is going forward. Christ is the Sacrifice, the King, the High Priest. This priesthood is not of the Law. It is of Melchizedek.

I believe (Matt. 5-7) are the laws of the millennial kingdom. They will be over a believing Israel which will extend over the earth as Israel is the ruling nation during that time. Of course application can be made to the believer just like we do with the Mosaic law. But these are not laws that govern the Church. Those would come later in the New Testament epistles. The parables of the kingdom speak to the 'mystery form of the kingdom'. That is a form it took due to Israel's rejection of the kingdom offer due to their rejection of the King. And the Church is part of that mystery form.

We don't sacrifice animals now, because we are not supposed to. Christ gave us the Lord's Supper to observe which points back to His broken body and shed blood. But during the millennium God will have the temple built and sacrifices reinstated for Israel to observe. Again, the millennium isn't heaven. There will be people born during the millennium who will not be believers. Yet they will be forced to obey the laws of righteousness and Christ. Perhaps the sacrifices are for them also to prompt their thinking concerning the One who now rules, Jesus Christ. I don't know the exact reason, but I do believe these sacrifices will be reinstated. (Ez. 40:42, 44:11)

See my reply to Naomi concerning Israel and the Church.

I agree that the children of promise are counted as the seed. It is just that I believe both the Church and the believing nation of Israel, will consist of that seed. As others of different groups also. The saints before Israel were counted as the seed. As are the Tribulation saints. But neither are part of Israel or the Church. But they are saved and children of promise.

It is certainly a deep topic. Appreciate your response also. All of us are still learning.

Stranger

 

[101G]

GINOLJC, to Stranger. I agree with much of what you said, but will you explain the necessity of re-instating sacrifices. I want to be clear, is this animals you're speaking of?
you said, "We don't sacrifice animals now, because we are not supposed to. Christ gave us the Lord's Supper to observe which points back to His broken body and shed blood. But during the millennium God will have the temple built and sacrifices reinstated for Israel to observe". please explain why the re-installing of , if it's animals that will be sacrifice.

second, I agree with you to a point when, you said, "I agree that the children of promise are counted as the seed. It is just that I believe both the Church and the believing nation of Israel, will consist of that seed". I believe this is true, because we are ONE BODY. but my question is this, and relates to the question above, "how can the nation be sacrificing again, and not the rest of us who came into fellowship with the nation. for we're to speak the same thing and have the same mind and be in the same judgments in CHRIST Jesus, (see 1 Cor 1:10). the same mind and Judgment = same opinion. the seven Letters written to the seven churches clearly warns against Syncretism.

 

[Stranger]

GINOLJC, to Stranger. I agree with much of what you said, but will you explain the necessity of re-instating sacrifices. I want to be clear, is this animals you're speaking of?
you said, "We don't sacrifice animals now, because we are not supposed to. Christ gave us the Lord's Supper to observe which points back to His broken body and shed blood. But during the millennium God will have the temple built and sacrifices reinstated for Israel to observe". please explain why the re-installing of , if it's animals that will be sacrifice.

second, I agree with you to a point when, you said, "I agree that the children of promise are counted as the seed. It is just that I believe both the Church and the believing nation of Israel, will consist of that seed". I believe this is true, because we are ONE BODY. but my question is this, and relates to the question above, "how can the nation be sacrificing again, and not the rest of us who came into fellowship with the nation. for we're to speak the same thing and have the same mind and be in the same judgments in CHRIST Jesus, (see 1 Cor 1:10). the same mind and Judgment = same opinion. the seven Letters written to the seven churches clearly warns against Syncretism.

Yes it is animals I am speaking of. See the verses I gave. (Ez.40:42, 44:11)

As far as a necessity to accomplish any part of salvation, I didn't say that. The animal sacrifices in the Old Testament were not a necessity to accomplish the salvation of Christ either. They did point to the sacrifice of Christ. They were there to do that because God wanted them there to do that. I can only say that they are there in the millennium to do the same thing. Only they look back to the Sacrifice of Christ.

In my view, the Church and Israel are not one body. Both are children of promise and counted as the seed. But not one body. Consider them siblings.

Stranger

 

[101G]

to Stranger. thanks for the response. you said, "They did point to the sacrifice of Christ". true, and if it did, question, "why start sacrifices again". the scriptures, when concering Christ, states the opposit. Hebrews 7:22 "By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself”.

Knowing this, Hebrews 10:10 "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all". so there is no need for any more sacrifices. see, if one is purged of sin what's the reason for an animal sacrifice, when one have been made "FOREVER". Hebrews 10:1 "For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. verse 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins". this is correct, and supported, Hebrews 9:12 "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?".

second, I must disagree with you, to a point. but I need to correct myself. the Church and Israel is not one body, thank you. my correction is this, the "remnant of Israel", not Israel herself, but the "remnant" of Israel and the Gentiles is the one body, the CHURCH. my bad...... (smile).

 

[Naomi25]

Concerning your belief about the remnant of Israel, I agree. And I agree with your understanding that there will be more of the elect Jews brought into the Church towards the last days. My view is that because God is getting ready to establish the believing nation of Israel again, is why He must shift the elect to the land of Israel instead of the Gentiles. Because it is the elect who will believe.

(Rom.11:25) "...blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in." Those who are blind here must be the nation Israel. Not the Church. But that blindness will be removed. "until" Which means Israel as a nation will believe. And of course, every individual Jew will place faith in Jesus Christ, as their Messiah. The establishment of the 'kingdom of God' on earth during the millennium, is not a going back. That kingdom was never established. The millennial temple in (Ez.40-44) has never been built. But I believe will be.

Concerning (Rom. 4:13,16), I agree that God has promised Abraham that he shall be heir of the world, and that is obtained by faith and not by Law. Even when the Mosaic Law was in existence, it was still only by faith. That never changed. And as (16) says, that assures that all the seed receive the promises, whether they are found under Law or the faith of Abraham. So, yes, we as believers receive these promises given to Abraham to rule over the whole world. But, that doesn't mean there is not to be a land of Israel and a nation of Israel, from which Jesus Christ will rule over the earth. And it doesn't mean that the Church as a separate body will not be ruling with Him. We will. Jesus Christ ruling in Israel, which will be the head of the nations and much bigger than present Israel, and the Church ruling with Him is thinking pretty big. The Church is not confined to that earthly inheritance.

I agree with you that all in the Old Testament points toward Jesus Christ. But as I said, establishing the kingdom of God on earth is not going back. It is going on because it has not occurred yet. Not every prophecy in the Old Testament has been fulfilled. Do you believe the prophecies concerning Christ's second coming have been fulfilled yet? Of course not. Christ is certainly the fulfillment of all that is in the Old Testament. But this thing is still playing out.

Stranger

I'm afraid I don't have the time to answer all of your reply, I'm sorry, so I'll just touch on a few things.

I think this is where we start to see the separation in how Amil's and Dispensationalists see the OT! You see Ez 40 as a literal temple that must be rebuilt in a millennial period. Where as I see the NT talking about God's temples in a completely different way. Consider:

Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? - 1 Cor 3:16

So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit. - Eph 2:19-22

Then another angel came out of the temple in heaven, and he too had a sharp sickle. - Rev 14:17

And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. - Rev 21:22

So, the NT tells us that 1) in a way the Church is a temple of God, because we have his Spirit dwelling within us. 2) That there is a temple IN heaven, and 3) the Lord our God IS our temple. So, with this understanding, and with this reading of scripture and the OT, why should we understand that any time since Christ's coming would require a physical temple? If we have Christ's Church, his Spirit, his presence (if the Millennium is real), why would a physical temple be needed? Would it not be redundant? Just as the going back to the actual sacrifices would be redundant, I suppose.

As far as all the prophecies of Christ's second coming being fulfilled yet. Well...I suppose that depends. I have heard some differences within the Amil camp itself on what is required before Christ's second coming, and I can see some biblical support for both camps, so I sway a bit. But I guess I would say; definitely, that most 'prophecies' would be fulfilled by his actual return!
Breaking it down further, however; like I said above...I do give credence to biblical support to a large wave of Jewish conversion to Christ before the end (Rom 11:25). I even see biblical support for a final Antichrist (1 John 1:18; 2 Thess 2:3). I expect things will get progressively harder for Christians as things go along (Luke 21:12; Jn 15:20; 2 Tim 3:12).

That's all I've got time for at present, sorry.

 

[Wormwood]

Naomi,

I think the Dispensational view is that the Church is raptured away completely at this time and therefore the Church age has ended and a new dispensation begins (perhaps the Spirit doesn't dwell in Israelites at this time which is why they need the Temple again?). In any event, it seems to me like none of these theories are based anywhere in the NT. All of them come from a literalist reading of OT prophecies that suggest Christ's first coming fell short of fulfilling them and therefore he has to come again and set up an earthly kingdom to fulfill the promises to Israel that God has yet to keep.

Again, my view is that these ideas are completely foreign to the NT. All of God's promises are "yes" to us in Christ (Paul says). I think the idea that Christ didn't fulfill all of the Law and Prophets and that he has to set up an earthly Kingdom and Temple in order to fulfill those things is very contrary to the NT author's views. Again, the Old Covenant has passed away because it has been superseded by a new and better one. The idea that God has to go back to the first one to fulfill unmet promises is very troubling to me. It suggests that Christ and the Church were a secondary and inferior plan to God's original purposes for Israel. Meanwhile, the NT teaches (in my mind) that the Church and the new covenant are far above and beyond anything the OT had to offer and those who taught otherwise (seeking to keep Gentiles and Jews distinct or mandating ceremonial laws and rites) were twisting the Gospel and undermining the cross of Christ (at least this is how Galatians reads to me).

 

[Stranger]

to Stranger. thanks for the response. you said, "They did point to the sacrifice of Christ". true, and if it did, question, "why start sacrifices again". the scriptures, when concering Christ, states the opposit. Hebrews 7:22 "By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself”.

Knowing this, Hebrews 10:10 "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all". so there is no need for any more sacrifices. see, if one is purged of sin what's the reason for an animal sacrifice, when one have been made "FOREVER". Hebrews 10:1 "For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. verse 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins". this is correct, and supported, Hebrews 9:12 "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?".

second, I must disagree with you, to a point. but I need to correct myself. the Church and Israel is not one body, thank you. my correction is this, the "remnant of Israel", not Israel herself, but the "remnant" of Israel and the Gentiles is the one body, the CHURCH. my bad...... (smile).

That's fine. Many disagree with me and others here. But I would say or ask, why take the Lords Supper? It looks back to something already done. We take it because we believe Christ instituted it.

Remember also, we the Church are not involved in these sacrifices. This is not heaven. It is the millennium. Remember (Ez. 40:42, 44:11) in your studies.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

I'm afraid I don't have the time to answer all of your reply, I'm sorry, so I'll just touch on a few things.

I think this is where we start to see the separation in how Amil's and Dispensationalists see the OT! You see Ez 40 as a literal temple that must be rebuilt in a millennial period. Where as I see the NT talking about God's temples in a completely different way. Consider:

Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? - 1 Cor 3:16

So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit. - Eph 2:19-22

Then another angel came out of the temple in heaven, and he too had a sharp sickle. - Rev 14:17

And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. - Rev 21:22

So, the NT tells us that 1) in a way the Church is a temple of God, because we have his Spirit dwelling within us. 2) That there is a temple IN heaven, and 3) the Lord our God IS our temple. So, with this understanding, and with this reading of scripture and the OT, why should we understand that any time since Christ's coming would require a physical temple? If we have Christ's Church, his Spirit, his presence (if the Millennium is real), why would a physical temple be needed? Would it not be redundant? Just as the going back to the actual sacrifices would be redundant, I suppose.

As far as all the prophecies of Christ's second coming being fulfilled yet. Well...I suppose that depends. I have heard some differences within the Amil camp itself on what is required before Christ's second coming, and I can see some biblical support for both camps, so I sway a bit. But I guess I would say; definitely, that most 'prophecies' would be fulfilled by his actual return!
Breaking it down further, however; like I said above...I do give credence to biblical support to a large wave of Jewish conversion to Christ before the end (Rom 11:25). I even see biblical support for a final Antichrist (1 John 1:18; 2 Thess 2:3). I expect things will get progressively harder for Christians as things go along (Luke 21:12; Jn 15:20; 2 Tim 3:12).

That's all I've got time for at present, sorry.

Yes, I agree we the Church are a temple of God. I would say remember this millennium is not heaven. In the dispensational view those who have entered the millennium from the tribulation are still made up of the body they got from the first Adam. The Jews who enter and make up the saved nation of Israel still are sinners. And as time goes on they have children that may or may not be believers. As will those who make up the saved nations. And I don't believe this temple is for the Church. This is for Israel on earth. That may not help but is something to keep in mind in the dispensational view.

As far as 'why should we understand'? All I can say is that I believe that is what Scripture teaches. As to why I believe it is important to God, I can only say that if He did plan on a millennial temple, which I believe he did in (Ez.40-48), then He knows the necessity of it. Perhaps because Israel has existed for a couple of thousand years without a daily sacrifice being in disobedience to God. And an earthly temple is necessary for a priestly people to function over the earth. I don't know exactly, I can only suppose.

Yes, I do believe things are going to get very bad. Christians will become less in the western world as God moves the births of the children of promise over to Israel. We can see it in the U.S. as the atheistic left now outnumbers the Christian right and are making their anger towards us known and impacting how we live.

That was plenty. Long posts wear me out.

Stranger

 

[101G]

GINOLJC, to Stranger. thanks for the response. you said, "But I would say or ask, why take the Lords Supper? It looks back to something already done", yes it looks backs, (do this in remembrance of me). it make me look back at what he did, afore, (died for us), which made a way for us to also looks forward to eternity, (Luke 22:20 "Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you"). this new covenant, this 8th. day covenant, this everlasting covenant, this eternal covenant. for in this new covenant there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:29). so then if it's neither Jewish, (It's not Israel), NOT IN CHRIST JESUS. nor it is Gentile, (the world, other nations) NOT IN CHRIST JESUS. well that just ended any Syncretism IN HIS CHURCH.

see Stranger it come right back to HIS Righteousness, in what he did for us. not our own Righteousness but his. there is no Jewish Righteousness, no Gentile Righteousness, no female Righteousness, or male Righteousness, or any other kind of Righteousness one's mind can come up with. no black Righteousness, no white/pale Righteousness, brown or yellow Righteousness.

now a side note on Righteousness in the NEW COVENANT, 1 Timothy 1:9 "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers". see the Law is for those listed here, not for us the righteous of God in Christ Jesus. so that should end the Law for any Christians because we're righteous because of HIM (Christ Jesus). his Righteousness is our Righteousness because we're a part of him, his body the church. 1 Corinthians 12:13 "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit".

this is why I take the Lord's supper, not only to look back/remember where I can from, but to look forward to where I'm at now and will be in eternity.

PS the future looks good, and bright, amen. thanks Lord Jesus