.
Two things wrong with this very first assertion.
1. We were never under the Old Covenant. That was only for the Jews up until the 1st century. Were you ever commanded to sacrifice? Or to go up three times to Jerusalem? This is all part of the Old Covenant. One cannot divide it up into two parts, one part ongoing and the other merely ceremonial.
Given your statement above, how do you reconcile Paul's statement to the Galatians (3)? Certainly, he included them when discussing the law becoming the tutor that leads men to Christ. Does he not plainly state that believers are Abraham descendants?
2. When the Old Covenant was done away it was done away with in entirety – at the very same time. Up until that time it was still in force. All of it. See Matthew 5:17 – 18:
Abrahamic Covenant is not the same as Mosaic "law." The Mosaic covenant dealing with the law is found in Ex. 19. There are some who would confuse the discussion by taking that which pertains to the law and mark them as having "vanished" which is correct (Galatians 3) , but then mark the unconditional covenant given to Abraham as the same.
HOWEVER, the Covenant with Abraham was NOT according to the law, but according to the promise (again, Galatians 3). As such, that promise was only partly fulfilled at the first advent, and will be completely fulfilled at the second. Again, the believers are not stand alone, but also the seed of Abraham, so the promise given Abraham remains.
There is no such animal as a political/social Israel. For the religious aspect see above. The two aspects cannot Scripturally be separated.
From the time of Abraham, there was and is a politcal / social Israel. That God promises that that group WILL remain, and one day have the blinders lifted and acknowledge the redeemer is part of the prophetic statements that the typical a-mil and preterist do not accept. Paul gives the same thinking when discussing the plight of the Jews as having a temporary veiling until the time of the gentiles is fulfilled (Romans 11). One should not read Romans 11 thinking that God will not awaken ALL Israel - and don't make the mistake of thinking that that group Paul is discussing in this chapter is not the social / political group for Paul starts that part out by clearly stating the group are NOT believers at this time.
But, I don't suppose that I will be able to convince you of the literalness of those prophetic statements.
It is troubling, though, that when it comes to the first advent, the typical a-mil and preterist folk will point out all manner of Scriptures that were literally fulfilled, yet will place the Scriptures dealing with the second advent in a completely different time frame and regard.
This is why you will state:
No. All of this is from your reading the Bible from futurist presuppositions. Some of the events you mentioned did happen; none of them as you seem to imagine, however.
Now, I agree, that some of the events of Matthews recording known as the "Olivet discourse" did happen, but not all, and definitely not to the extent that both Christ and Zacharia express will happen when He returns.
The problem is not that I read the Scriptures from a "futurist presupposition," but that some would take what is obviously not been fulfilled and attempt to smush it into a time frame that must oblige a great amount of prophetic statements to be taken non-literal. (again, I point back to Zachariah 14 as one).
"God came from Teman, and the Holy One from mount Paran." Hab. 3:3
"He looks on the earth, and it trembles; He touches the hills, and they smoke." Psalm 104:3
When did these events literally happen?
Why would you question me about Habakkuk and the Psalms when you can't effectively deal with Zachariah?
Do you think a prayer by Habakkuk or the care of God the Psalmist would sing about destroys the evidence of Zachariah?
When the children of Israel stood before God at the mountain, did He not display himself as fiery fierce?
When in the millennium, as Zachariah records, the people must attend to the King of Kings, do you not see that reflected in the Psalmist's words?
Deal with Zachariah. Look at the statements and see if the land, rivers and seas have changed so that Jerusalem becomes a seaport at any time in history. Then, ask, if it hasn't happened, when will it happen?
Such is not "futurist presuppositions" it is taking the Scriptures at face value, looking at the evidence of history, and placing the account in a time line were it actually fits.
Some are biased against any literal rendering time line, because it would cause them to have to come to terms with their own presuppositions that must the prophets and cause them to be manipulated into non-literal interpretation to fit.
