The Son of Man returns with and for his people

[covenantee]

Bear in mind that the discussion centers on prophecy. In my estimation, the closer we get to the prophetic event, the clearer the prophecy is. In fact, we won't know when a prophecy is being fulfilled until it is actually happening. For this reason, those living in our time have an advantage over Christians living 17 centuries ago.

So no, I have no problem with my conclusions about a prophetic event being new or unheard of for 17 centuries.

Prophetic events fulfilled in and by Christ, His First Coming, His Gospel, and His Church are the clearest of all.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I'm just shaking my head over here. We might as well be speaking in different languages.

Lots of the problem comes from speaking different languages, so to speak. You have *2 Israels,* which logically means in some places "Israel" is referring to "Natural Israel," and in other places "Israel" is referring to "Spiritual Israel." It is because you apply "Spiritual Israel" to "Israel" in *some* places that others, like myself, view your belief system as a "replacement of Israel."

You said my claim was that you replaced "Israel" with "Spiritual Israel" everywhere. I did not. Sometimes you use Natural Israel, and sometimes you use Spiritual Israel. It seems arbitrary to me. Israel means Israel. It is not to be used metaphorically unless the context demands it.

Since you can't understand, I'll try not to belabor the fact and put you to sleep.

I don't see one of the Israels as replacing the other. Why you can't understand that, I don't know.

If you have "2 Israels" you have to replace the word "Israel" with "Spiritual Israel" in some places. Can you explain to me how you have "2 Israels," but don't "replace" the word "Israel" with "Spiritual Israel" in your system?

You for some reason feel justified in reading "Spiritual Israel" into the word "Israel" in many places, right? So how do you justify that? You don't think you're "replacing" the word "Israel" with "Spiritual Israel," but to those who do not hold to your system, that's exactly what you're doing, which is why your system is referred to as "Replacement Theology" or "Supersessionism."

Did you tell this story with the intention of trying to convince me to be okay with the ridiculous "replacement theology" label?

No, the label isn't going away because I didn't create it. It's a convenience label that adequately shows how your belief system differs from those who view "Israel" as "Natural Israel," and not "Spiritual Israel." You might as well replace the word "Israel" with "Spiritual Israel" wherever you see fit to do that?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Supporting Scripture?

Oh my goodness, brother. This is purely based upon speculation and logic. Sorry!

 

[covenantee]

Oh my goodness, brother. This is purely based upon speculation and logic. Sorry!

And here I thought that the Bible was filled with it.

 

[Keraz]

The Old Testament prophets always carefully delineate between the House of Judah, the tribes of Judah and Benjamin and the House of Israel, the ten Northern tribes*.
They separated into these two nations, soon after Solomon’s reign ended. God said that this separation was part of His plan. 1 Kings 12:24

Although some from the Northern tribes did escape the Assyrian exile by coming down and joining with Judah, the main body of Israel were taken away to the Caucasus region. When the Assyrian Kingdom declined and fell, they decided to migrate and find better lands to live in. There is plenty of archaeological evidence of their travels; Jeremiah 31:21 speaks of the cairns or dolmens that they built to mark their way across Europe, many of which still exist.

Their descendants remain scattered around the world, now an uncountable number of peoples that have received the blessings promised to them by Jacob, Genesis 49 and by Moses; Deuteronomy 33. In particular, Ephraim, who became the leading tribe of the House of Israel, received the blessing of Jacob, Genesis 48:17-19, of his descendants becoming a group of nations, powerful and prosperous. Only the British Commonwealth fits this description. The United States of America represent Ephraim’s brother; Manasseh.


That Israel and Judah have not rejoined as yet, is proven by the great chapter of Ezekiel 37:

Firstly, the dry bones represent the whole Israelite people; verse 11 The Lord will put His Spirit into them and they will come alive spiritually, becoming Christians, later: those faithful will be settled into all of the holy Land. Ezekiel 20:32-38, Ezekiel 37:12-14, Ezekiel 34:11-31 and Isaiah 11:11-13 –the Second Exodus.

The two sticks, that clearly show how the two Houses are both Israelite, are rejoined as one in God’s hand, to become one nation in the Land; ALL of the holy Land, from the Nile to the Euphrates. This will be the new nation of Beulah, as Isaiah 62:1-5 prophesies.

God promises to make a Covenant with them; of peace and prosperity and His Sanctuary [Temple] will be in the midst of them. He says: then they will know that I am their God. This statement is in many of Ezekiel’s prophesies and is proof that they will all take place before Jesus visibly Returns for His Millennial reign.

This Covenant is the one prophesied by Jeremiah 31:31-34 and reiterated in Hebrews 8:10-11 and we await, with great anticipation the time of its implementation.

* Unfortunately, Paul in the New Testament is not so careful with ‘Israel’ and it requires discernment to be sure of when he is meaning Judah, the Jews or all Israel, by descent or by grafting in.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Because that is what is indicated in the New Testament. Have you heard of it?

Your sarcasm aside, The New Testament doesn't contradict the Old Testament in any way. With regard to prophecy, reading the New Testament alone is like walking up to a conversation already in progress -- without the background, the conversation is hard to understand. Both Testaments need to be understood together in order to arrive at the complete and full picture.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Prophetic events fulfilled in and by Christ, His First Coming, His Gospel, and His Church are the clearest of all.

As you know, the subject matter at hand is the second coming of Christ. And Jesus himself fills in some important details, but his teaching is given to those who know the OT. In order to understand the Olivet Discourse, for instance, one needs to have a firm grasp of what the prophets say about the fulfillment of God's word concerning the disposition of Jacob and his family line. Only then can we understand what Jesus means to say.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Because that is what is indicated in the New Testament. Have you heard of it?

I wanted to drop you a note here and commend you for your thread concerning "sudden destruction." I missed it and wished I had seen it. Your thread touched on a few things that you and I have discussed recently.

C'est la vie. I would like to answer your question here, if I may.

In my view, Peter's comments should be seen in the light of Joel chapter two. In that chapter, Joel speaks about an army of flaming fire that consumes everything in its path. This is the fire that comes like a thief in the night.

Zechariah 5:1-4 sounds very similar.

Peter speaks of destruction that takes place when the Day of the Lord is near, the scope of which is the land of Israel.

 

[ewq1938]

I wanted to drop you a note here and commend you for your thread concerning "sudden destruction." I missed it and wished I had seen it. Your thread touched on a few things that you and I have discussed recently.

C'est la vie. I would like to answer your question here, if I may.

In my view, Peter's comments should be seen in the light of Joel chapter two. In that chapter, Joel speaks about an army of flaming fire that consumes everything in its path. This is the fire that comes like a thief in the night.

The language is closer to the locust army of the 5th trump. The army Joel speaks about is the enemy. That is God's army that eventually is driven away etc. It's not the second coming, nor the army that comes with Christ.

Zechariah 5:1-4 doesn't sound familiar at all. The wording and language and flying roll is very different from Joel and is also not related to the second coming.

 

[CadyandZoe]

The language is closer to the locust army of the 5th trump. The army Joel speaks about is the enemy. That is God's army that eventually is driven away etc. It's not the second coming, nor the army that comes with Christ.

Joel doesn't say what the army is. The point here is to note the fires, which destroy the countryside. In my view, Peter has Joel 2 in mind when he talks about "all it's works burned up."

Zechariah 5:1-4 doesn't sound familiar at all. The wording and language and flying roll is very different from Joel and is also not related to the second coming.

I find a correlation between the role of the scroll in Zechariah 5, the role of the fires in Joel 2, and the role of the burning in Malachi 4.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Lots of the problem comes from speaking different languages, so to speak. You have *2 Israels,* which logically means in some places "Israel" is referring to "Natural Israel," and in other places "Israel" is referring to "Spiritual Israel." It is because you apply "Spiritual Israel" to "Israel" in *some* places that others, like myself, view your belief system as a "replacement of Israel."

You said my claim was that you replaced "Israel" with "Spiritual Israel" everywhere. I did not. Sometimes you use Natural Israel, and sometimes you use Spiritual Israel. It seems arbitrary to me.

Why does it seem arbitrary to you when I went above and beyond to show you how I interpret Romans 9:6-8. I broke the passage down in detail and showed which parts I believe are talking about national Israel and which are talking about spiritual Israel and I explained why. Yet, here you are saying that it seems arbitrary to you. I don't get that.

Israel means Israel. It is not to be used metaphorically unless the context demands it.

You say "Israel means Israel" and yet Paul said this in Romans 9:6: "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.". You think there is just the nation of Israel and that's it. If that was the case then that would mean Paul was saying not all who are descended from the nation of Israel are the nation of Israel. Huh? That is complete nonsense.

Since you can't understand, I'll try not to belabor the fact and put you to sleep.

If you have "2 Israels" you have to replace the word "Israel" with "Spiritual Israel" in some places. Can you explain to me how you have "2 Israels," but don't "replace" the word "Israel" with "Spiritual Israel" in your system?

This is just silly. The 2 Israels in my view are national Israel and spiritual Israel. So, when I interpret a verse to be talking about the nation of Israel when it refers to "Israel" am I replacing "Israel" with "national Israel"? According to the way you look at this, that is what I'm doing. And to that I say...who cares?

You for some reason feel justified in reading "Spiritual Israel" into the word "Israel" in many places, right?

For some reason? LOL. I have already explained why in detail. Why are you pretending as if I haven't?

So how do you justify that?

Because there are 2 Israels. Again, when I see "Israel" as referring to the nation of Israel, am I replacing "Israel" with "National Israel"? I don't believe so. I'm just discerning which Israel is being referenced.

You understand that there is earthly Jerusalem but also the new heavenly Jerusalem (Gal 4:26, Heb 12:22, Rev 21-22), don't you? Similarly, there is earthly Israel and spiritual Israel.

You don't think you're "replacing" the word "Israel" with "Spiritual Israel," but to those who do not hold to your system, that's exactly what you're doing,

I could not care less what you think I'm doing. I know that I'm not doing that.

which is why your system is referred to as "Replacement Theology" or "Supersessionism."

Whatever. I can think of a million things I'd rather talk about than this at this point. You call it what you want, but I will continue to not like that term since I know that it does not properly represent what I believe since I don't have anyone being replaced.

 

[covenantee]

As you know, the subject matter at hand is the second coming of Christ. And Jesus himself fills in some important details, but his teaching is given to those who know the OT. In order to understand the Olivet Discourse, for instance, one needs to have a firm grasp of what the prophets say about the fulfillment of God's word concerning the disposition of Jacob and his family line. Only then can we understand what Jesus means to say.

The NT is clear that the OT fulfillments are realized in Christ and in those who are in Christ (Galatians 3:16; 2 Corinthians 1:20; Romans 9:6-8; Hebrews 1:1-2; et al). In particular, the disposition of Jacob and his family line is entirely dependent upon whether or not they are in Christ i.e. whether or not they are the children of promise (Galatians 4:28) and thus of God; or children of the flesh and thus not of promise and of God. Romans 9:6-8.

These were the understandings of a wide majority of historical orthodox Christianity.

Two Israels.

Romans 9
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

1. Of Israel:
Not all Israel
The children of the flesh
Not the children of God
Not the children of the promise
Not counted for the seed

2. All Israel:
Not of Israel
Not the children of the flesh
The children of God
The children of the promise
Counted for the seed

Only one of these two Israels shall be saved.

Romans 11
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Only the faithful obedient spiritual "all Israel", comprised of the believing elect beloved remnant from Israel (Romans 9:27; Romans 11:1-5,26,28), and believers from among the Gentiles (Romans 11:11), shall be saved.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Your sarcasm aside, The New Testament doesn't contradict the Old Testament in any way. With regard to prophecy, reading the New Testament alone is like walking up to a conversation already in progress -- without the background, the conversation is hard to understand. Both Testaments need to be understood together in order to arrive at the complete and full picture.

I actually agree with this and, yet, your doctrine blatantly contradicts what is written about the day of the Lord in the New Testament. Which you don't seem to care about at all. You should reconsider whether the OT passages you think are about the day of the Lord are actually about that because it has resulted in you believing things that are not taught in the NT at all. The NT sheds light on the OT, not the other way around. If your doctrine can't be supported by the NT, which it can't, then that raises a red flag. A red flag that you ignore.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I wanted to drop you a note here and commend you for your thread concerning "sudden destruction." I missed it and wished I had seen it. Your thread touched on a few things that you and I have discussed recently.

Thanks. Honestly, I think I'm glad you didn't see it.

C'est la vie. I would like to answer your question here, if I may.

In my view, Peter's comments should be seen in the light of Joel chapter two. In that chapter, Joel speaks about an army of flaming fire that consumes everything in its path. This is the fire that comes like a thief in the night.

Zechariah 5:1-4 sounds very similar.

Peter speaks of destruction that takes place when the Day of the Lord is near, the scope of which is the land of Israel.

Thanks for your response, but you already know that I completely disagree with this and you know why. So, I'm not going to say any more about it here.

 

[CadyandZoe]

The NT is clear that the OT fulfillments are realized in Christ and in those who are in Christ (Galatians 3:16; 2 Corinthians 1:20; Romans 9:6-8; Hebrews 1:1-2; et al). In particular, the disposition of Jacob and his family line is entirely dependent upon whether or not they are in Christ i.e. whether or not they are the children of promise (Galatians 4:28) and thus of God; or children of the flesh and thus not of promise and of God. Romans 9:6-8.

These were the understandings of a wide majority of historical orthodox Christianity.

Two Israels.

Romans 9
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

1. Of Israel:
Not all Israel
The children of the flesh
Not the children of God
Not the children of the promise
Not counted for the seed

2. All Israel:
Not of Israel
Not the children of the flesh
The children of God
The children of the promise
Counted for the seed

Only one of these two Israels shall be saved.

Romans 11
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Only the faithful obedient spiritual "all Israel", comprised of the believing elect beloved remnant from Israel (Romans 9:27; Romans 11:1-5,26,28), and believers from among the Gentiles (Romans 11:11), shall be saved.

A wide majority of historical orthodox Christianity might believe the above. If so, they would all be wrong. Truth is not a matter of majority opinion.

If one were to draw a Venn diagram of the above interpretation we would see the intersection of two sets: 1) Jews and 2) Gentiles. In the middle would be the intersection of the two groups composed of all believers whether Jew or Gentile. While this is a proper Venn diagram for the body of Christ, it is not a proper Venn diagram for Paul's point.

In Romans 9, the talk is about Paul's kinsmen of the flesh. And Paul's point is not the intersection of two groups, i.e. Jews and Gentiles; His point is a subjection of his kinsmen. This Venn Diagram would be a circle within a circle. The outer circle represents the sum of all of Jacob's descendants. The inner circle represents only those descendants of Jacob who are also chosen by to serve him during the millennial kingdom.

In color this would look like the following:

For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel

Or to put it another way:

The Israel of the promise is a subset of the descendants of Israel (Jacob.)

Remember, Paul is talking about his kinsmen here. Gentiles are not in view.

 

[Timtofly]

Paul never referred to the nation itself as being grafted back in.

"And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins."

Does all not mean all?

There will not be a 98% redemption, where 2% live on in their sins.

Sounds like they are grafted back in as the favorite nation status.

If you claim that means the church, then you have replaced Israel with any and all other nations, per your individual conditional status.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Joel doesn't say what the army is. The point here is to note the fires, which destroy the countryside. In my view, Peter has Joel 2 in mind when he talks about "all it's works burned up."

How is that possible when Peter related something that happens after that to what was happening on the day of Pentecost?

Joel 2:28 “And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. 29 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days.

Acts 2:16 Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. 15 These people are not drunk, as you suppose. It’s only nine in the morning! 16 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 17 “‘In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. 18 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I actually agree with this and, yet, your doctrine blatantly contradicts what is written about the day of the Lord in the New Testament. Which you don't seem to care about at all. You should reconsider whether the OT passages you think are about the day of the Lord are actually about that because it has resulted in you believing things that are not taught in the NT at all. The NT sheds light on the OT, not the other way around. If your doctrine can't be supported by the NT, which it can't, then that raises a red flag. A red flag that you ignore.

Well, I'll admit that my posts contradict YOUR interpretation of the New Testament. And while I agree that the NT sheds light on the OT, I don't believe they contradict each other. Thus, If my interpretation of the NT contradicts my interpretation of the OT, then I am seeking a resolution. I haven't understood one, or the other, or both. Right?

I'm not ignoring red flags. I am ignoring flags that YOU call red.

But in my view, you aren't attempting to square the OT with the NT, you are ignoring the OT altogether. (if I am calling balls and strikes.)

 

[CadyandZoe]

How is that possible when Peter related something that happens after that to what was happening on the day of Pentecost?

Joel 2:28 “And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. 29 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days.

Acts 2:16 Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. 15 These people are not drunk, as you suppose. It’s only nine in the morning! 16 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 17 “‘In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. 18 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.

They are related, yes. But they aren't the same. God poured out his spirit on some flesh, but not on ALL flesh. Right?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Well, I'll admit that my posts contradict YOUR interpretation of the New Testament. And while I agree that the NT sheds light on the OT, I don't believe they contradict each other. Thus, If my interpretation of the NT contradicts my interpretation of the OT, then I am seeking a resolution. I haven't understood one, or the other, or both. Right?

I'm not ignoring red flags. I am ignoring flags that YOU call red.

LOL. Whatever you say. If you don't want to accept a clear reference to the heavens and the earth in 2 Peter 3 as being a reference to the actual, literal heavens and earth, that's your choice.

But in my view, you aren't attempting to square the OT with the NT, you are ignoring the OT altogether. (if I am calling balls and strikes.)

That is a lie. I have shown how the NT interprets the OT, which you do not do at all. For example, I just showed in my previous post how Peter understood Joel 2, as shown in Acts 2, which does not line up with your understanding of it. I get my understanding of the OT primarily from the NT. That is not a case of ignoring the OT, that is a case of allowing the NT to interpret it for me.