Featured The Wall That Jesus Christ Broke Down; Rebuilt?

That's what he said, and it is his point -- that the proselyte was saved according to the administration of God's covenant with the Jews, not through the covenant of grace.

 

My point is that salvation included Gentiles prior to Pentecost (e.g. Abraham, Rahab, Ruth, etc.) and there was not one way to save Gentiles and another way to save Jews, but only one gospel (Heb. 4:2) one way (Mt. 7:13-14; Jn. 14:6) and one way to receive remission of sin (Acts 10:43). The "middle wall of partition" had NOTHING to do with the manner in how God saved gentiles versus Jews. The middle wall of partition had to do with UNEQUAL worship in God's house between Gentiles and Jews.

True, since the Pharisees and scribes had perverted the gospel, their gentile converts were a "two fold more child of hell" than previously, as they traded their pagan religion for another religion without any true repentance and faith in the one and only true gospel.

 

Well, then obviously the "middle wall" had nothing to do with salvation. The "middle wall of separation" was found in the public house of worship that prevented Gentiles from EQUAL SERIVCE in God's house and EQUAL WORSHIP ACTIVITIES.

 

You seem to be quoting a Mr. Cox with approval and he said:

Jesus taught, in John 10:16, that there was one fold and one shepherd. Paul, the great theologian, certainly knew nothing of God's having two bodies. Let Paul speak: "For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition, having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace; and might reconcile them both in one body unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby" (Eph. 22:14-16)

Paul says here that God took two men (peoples) and created one man (people) from these two. Nor does the apostle teach that God had two peoples even before this. Rather, he teaches that God took Israel (who were his people) and added the Gentiles to them -- grafted the Gentiles, who up to that time had not been God's people -- into the same olive tree. The prophet Hosea had predicted that those who were not God's people should be called his people. This prophecy was fulfilled when the Gentiles were grafted as a wild shoot into the original olive tree of God (Israel).

Just what difference does it make whether one believes God has two peoples rather than one? Many have asked if this is not a minute theological point. The importance of this premise grows in magnitude as one studies the dispensational ramifications growing out of it. The New Testament teaches us that the church is the very apex in Christ's redemptive work and that Calvary was its purchase price. An example of this teaching is Ephesians 1:22,23: "And he put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all." Whereas the Bible calls the church the very body of Christ and the very fullness of God, the dispensationalist teaches that the church is doomed to failure, that it is a temporary instrument, and that national Israel will have a far greater ministry, following the removal of the Holy Spirit, than the church will have under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Is this a minor point?

This quotation and every statement you and Mr. Cox have made about the "middle wall of partition" seems to apply that phrase to redemption alone.

The new public institution the church is not a universal invisible mystical body but a local visible body of water baptized believers. Indeed, the words "the house of God" is found only 88 times in Scripture and 1 Tim. 3:15 is the 86th time it occurs and in every single solitary previous instance it is descriptive of the institutional public house of worship where a qualified ministry administer qualified ordinances and that is precisely the context of 1 Tim. 3:1-3.

I believe that salvation, the gospel, the Savior have been the same since the Garden of Eden until Revelation 22. Prior to Isael God had an elect people. Israel as a nation was and still is God's elect nation, but not all ethnic Jews constitute that spiritual ethnic elect Israel. However, God as in all cases of election will save that nation at a point in time in the future (Rom. 11:25-28) completing His promise to Abraham of an elect nation from his own physical loins as he will also complete His promise to Abraham about an elect people from all nations. Romans 11:1-32 is designed to assure that God's election of Israel to Salvation is not God's election among the Gentiles. Church does not equal Israel any time in history, but rather the new institutional house of God built by Christ in his own earthly ministry provides EQUALITY of worship and status of Jews and Gentiles elect together, without minimizing or denying God's future election of ethnic Israel as a nation to salvation.

 

I understand your position on the church as that was my own position at one time. I no longer hold to that position. The church's foundation and builder are New Testament in origin not Old Testament in origin. The baptism in the Spirit is Pentecost in origin not pre-pentecost. The church that Jesus built administers the "keys of the kingdom" containing ordinances unknown prior to the first coming of Christ. In every aspect, its builder, its first officers, members are all missing prior to the ministry of Christ.

There has only been one covenant of salvation and it is between the Three Divine Persons of the Godhead and no other being has covenant obligations to fulfill but those Three. This covenant has been been representative by various PUBLIC administrative with various emphasis between the holiness of God and the grace of God between Genesis and Revelation with different emphases. The clearest administration is found in the case of Abraham in the Old Testament prior to the first coming.

The only two "house of God" administrations are the Mosaic and the church administrations, the former being called the "old" and the latter called the "new" covenant (Heb. 9:1 "also.....and..."). Both are strictly administrative and declarative in function, neither being legislative or sacramental in function. The former anticipated and was fulfilled in the first coming of Christ, whereas the latter anticipates and is fulfilled in the Second coming of Christ.

Neither is coextensive with either the family or kingdom of God but both equally are entrusted with the "keys of the kingdom" to administer God's ordinances within the kingdom of God on earth (God's professing people - Mt. 13 and parable of the tares).

 

You err again. It is not just Dispensationalists that see the gap. Many conservative interpreters of Scripture who reject Dispensationalism nonetheless see the Daniel prophecy in the same light.

Again, it is not only Dispensationalists who see the gap, and the reason no one "infers" a gap in the first 69 weeks is that is none to infer.

Yes it does, but we'll get that later. Your continuous fulfillment theory just doesn't work.

This is a very myopic view of the reason Christ died, and it is a very dangerous view because it could lead to the conclusion that somehow Israel/the Jews' sin was greater than our own. The truth is, Jesus took "the sins of the world" upon Himself at the Cross. Claiming that "only" the Jews or "only" Rome, or a combination of the two are responsible for Jesus' death is borderline heretical. My sin, your sin, the sin of the world put Jesus on the Cross. We all drove the nails into His hands and feet. If it was "only" the Jews or Rome, He would have died only for the Jews or Rome. That is ludicrous, nearly blasphemous.

As for the interval between the 69th and 70th week, it is plainly in the text in the original Hebrew, and the NASB does an excellent job of bringing it forward.

Daniel 9, NASB
26 "Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined." [Emphasis added]​

"Then after the sixty-two weeks... " indicates that "Messiah's cutoff" -- Jesus' crucifixion -- is after the sixty-two weeks. The word is 'achar in the Hebrew. It means "behind, or after." It is not part of the 62 weeks. It stands alone outside of it. Nor does it start the 70th week. Therefore this verse effectively declares ends the 69th week before beginning the last, 70th week. The gap or interval is obvious.

I'm going to skip to "the end" for a moment. The Hebrew qets (end) translates "the end of time." Obviously Jesus' crucifixion was not the end of time. The verse continues, though, to indicate the events of the destruction of the Temple and the the city. We all know these occurred in 70 A.D. That's 38 to 40 years after the crucifixion, which totally negates a consecutive 70th week of years. It further confirms the interval between weeks 69 and 70.

To summarize, the cutting off of Messiah, and of the people of the prince, are stated to occur after the sixty-nine weeks. If this was intended to occur in the seventieth week, the text would have read here "during" or "in the midst of" as Daniel refers to the mid-Tribulation by the use of the Hebrew hetzi -- "in the middle of" -- in verse 27. This language implies that these events precede the 70th week, but do not immediately follow the sixty-ninth. Therefore, a temporal interval separates the two.

Now, back to the other highlighted phrase, "have nothing." What does that mean, that Messiah "will have nothing"? It has to refer, I believe, to the six purpose clauses in v. 24, which is said to be the goal of the prophecy for Daniel's people and city.

Daniel 9
24 "Seventy 1weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to 2make atonement for iniquity, to bring in 3everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place. ​

If these items are to be fulfilled for Israel and Jerusalem in the same way the earlier parts of the passage where fulfilled, since they obviously did not occur in the past, they must take place at a time future even to our own day. This is where Covenantalists fail in their understanding. The passage proves that Israel/The Jews have a future, in Christ but differently than how the church has been dealt with by Christ.

Continuous fulfillment advocates must make the seven-year covenant mentioned in verse 27 between Christ and the church, while in reality it will be made between Antichrist and the nation of Israel. Since this covenant is broken in the middle of the week, that is, after three and a half years, their view means that Christ made a covenant that He then breaks. Not only is there no covenant mentioned that Christ made at His first coming; what biblically thinking Christian could conceive of a covenant that Jesus broke at any time? The language of verse 27 just does not fit what we know of Christ's Earthly ministry as clearly recorded in the Gospels.

And in Romans 9-11, he clearly details how that is not a permanent condemnation, but a merely a chastisement of the same type Christians receive on a nearly daily basis, if they are paying attention. Continuous fulfillment of the 70 weeks, the idea that Israel is permanently abandoned -- ridiculous! Covenantal theology is the errant teaching.

 

That's exactly what I said. But I also disproved this ...

If you want to challenge my proof, deal with my post. Making blanket unsupported statements doesn't accomplish that.

Impossible, if you do indeed accept that the "weeks" in questions are weeks of years. For your continuous fulfillment theory to be correct, the destruction would have had to occur 36-1/2 years earlier than it actually did.

A covenant that is broken, as I pointed out in my previous post. Surely you are not suggesting that Christ breaks a promise? Oh, wait ... of course you do, because you believe the Father has reneged on His promise to Abram. Never mind.

The truth is, Christ doesn't break covenants. You know this, yet you persist in an unholy belief that He did just that. You have twisted not only Scripture, but impugned the character of God with this nonsense. You're going to excessive lengths, dangerous lengths, to prove your view correct. As I said yesterday, it is disagreement over nonessential doctrine. See to it that you do not negate the essential ones in trying to stand on your head to believe nonsense. I'm done here.

 

Think about this. Do you define spiritual death as spiritual "separation" due to sin (Isa. 59:2)? Do you believe God IS life and light? Thus spiritual "separation" from the Spirit of life IS spiritual death. Hence, what is the opposite of spiritual "separation" from the Spirit of life/light, if it is not spiritual "union"? How can spiritual union exist if it is not internal to man and with the human "spirit"?? How can it be off and on without being off and on spiritually dead and alive? Hence, if any man have not the Spirit indwelling them they are "none of his" (Rom. 8:8-9).

The prepositions "upon" in both the Old and New Testament refers to empowering for office, equipping for special service; gifting a person by the Spirit (Acts 8:14; etc.).

Given your response who then are the "saved" nations living outside of the New Jerusalem AFTER the Great White judgement seat and creation of the new heaven and earth (Rev. 21:1-2) in Revelation 21:24? Why is the leaves on the tree of life for these "nations" (Rev. 22:3) and the fruit for overcomers (Rev. 2:7)? Who are the friends of the bride (Rev. 19:8-9)?