Hi Larry,
Israel is broken because of their rejection.
Israel broke the Sinai Covenant from the start. The Golden Calf episode in Exodus 32 resulted in the defrocking (and decapitating, no less) of all the tribes except for that of Levi. The second generation of Israelites fell just as far as their parents at Beth-Peor in Numbers 25, and the result of that failing was the Second Law (Deuteros + Nomos = Deuteronomy).
In Deuteronomy, Moses foretold the rest of Salvation History up until Jesus Christ (i.e.,
Damnation History). Not only did Moses list the curses but he also prophesied that Israel would entail the curses and be brought into exile.
The New Covenant was entirely preprogrammed into the Old Covenant. The Old prepares for and awaits the New as its fulfillment, and in the New Covenant, Israel is delivered out from under the curse of the Old and into the Blessings of the New.
Zechariah sides with Jeremiah and Ezekiel (and Paul and myself) that ethnic Israel will be restored to the land (cf. Zech 12).
I take it that you advocate the schizophrenic view of Zechariah.
Here, let me explain.
According to Fundamentalist Dispensationalism, this is how Zechariah is fulfilled (various rapturists may tweak the details a bit):
8:20 - 9:8 = 21st c. or later
9:9 = 1st c.
9:10-10:12 = 21st c. or later
11:1-11:17 = 1st c.
12:1-13:6 = 21st c. or later
13:7 = 1st c.
13:8-14:21 = 21st c. or later
This sort of a reading of Zechariah introduces mass confusion and makes Zechariah out to be one very confused prophet!
Jesus quotes Zech 13:7 in Mark 1:27, and so we know that this prophecy was undeniably fulfilled in the first advent. Yet, rapturists place at least a chapter on both sides of this one verse at least two thousand centuries later.
Notice here how Israel is distinct from the church.
Like I said, I'm not advocating replacement theology. The New Covenant incorporates Israel, delivers Israel from the curse of the Old, and unites Israel to the Gentiles. The Old Covenant is still in full force, and it is
deadly; that is why Israelites have to get out of the Old and into the New! Acceptance of the Mosaic Law actually puts you under a curse.
"12 tribes" is a figure of speech for the nation of Israel.
That's
exactly my point. The Nation of Israel no longer existed at the point when James/Jacob wrote this epistle. The Nation of Israel became a Kingdom ca. 1,000 B.C. and this Kingdom was divided in 930 B.C. In 721/722 B.C., the Assyrians obliterated the Northern Kingdom (also called Ephraem or Israel), deporting the 10 Northern tribes and scattering them to the four winds!
Those Jews in Jesus' day constituted only that remnant that returned from Babylonian captivity
from only the Southern Kingdom of Judah.
In other words, Judaism is not Israel. It is only 1/12 to 1/4 of Israel because Judah was constituted only of Judah-ites, Benjamin-ites, and Levi-ites.
Only when Jew and Gentile come together can Israel be
restored because
the rest of Israel is scattered among the Gentiles!
My haste was due to what I perceive to be a misuse of Scripture on many parts, something I am sure you believe about me.
That's okay.
But the testimony of history is mixed and is not authoritative.
The testimony of history is unanimous and clear with regard to Apostolic succession. Stating "history is mixed and is not authoritative" is a way of looking past the fact that the bishops throughout Christianity from the beginning held apostolic lineage by right of succession because if any such authority did exist and still exists, you would have need of acknowledging that authority, and such an authority would (and does) cause great problems for the autonomous Baptist (e.g. a need to take Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy seriously and possibly even a change of confession, God forbid).
Dispensationalism goes back much further than that. It is a completely biblical approach.
Everyone will claim that their approach is "Biblical" and that it was espoused by the Apostles. That's not what I'm pointing at. I'm discussing the history of Christianity
after the New Testament. Dispensationalism is novel in the life of the Church.
The problem created by the [2,000 year] gap [in Daniel's vision, which he didn't see] is far less of a problem that the problem created without it.
You openly acknowledge that this gap is a problem, and it is. This gap is actually a gaping hole that must be inserted within Daniel 2, Daniel 7, and Daniel 9 - where it is nowhere indicated in each of these places. Dispensationalism necessitates this gap, which is nowhere indicated in the Biblical text. Because it sees a "problem created without it" (in your words), dispensationalism would rather not deal with this supposed problem and instead, inserts this gap into the text.
In Daniel 2, the 2,000 year gap is set between verses 41 and 42. In Daniel 7, the gap is set between verses 7 and 8 (that's one disjointed beast!). In Daniel 9, the gap is set right in the middle of verse 26.
As a Catholic, I do not need to insert this parenthetical parenthesis into the Biblical text because I believe - as did John in his
Apocalypsis (i.e. the Book of Revelation) - that these visions and prophesies were fulfilled as they were given to Daniel as he saw it.
Catholics take the Bible at face value without need of requring this supposed "gap" in the fluid narrative.
Trust me, I have seen probably all the explanations of it
I encourage you to read David B. Currie's explanation in
Rapture (Manchester, NH: Sophia 2003).
NE else. What may be good for one couple, may not work for others. Not to mention their reasons that they may have for using it in the first place, many of which may be personal.