Dispensationalists: Why is This Version of Israel THE One of Prophecy?

[InTheLight]

Four pages and only one attempt to answer the OP. Thanks to Webdog. Now can a dispy please explain why today's Israel is the Israel prophesied in the last days before Christ's return?

Our pastor is going through the traditional Dispy theology of the Rapture, Trib, antichrist, etc. and last week's message was on the rebuilding of the Jewish temple. I find that as I sat there and listened I wasn't buying into it. I could ask him about it, I suppose, but was seeking input here.

 

[webdog]

Four pages and only one attempt to answer the OP. Thanks to Webdog. Now can a dispy please explain why today's Israel is the Israel prophesied in the last days before Christ's return?

Our pastor is going through the traditional Dispy theology of the Rapture, Trib, antichrist, etc. and last week's message was on the rebuilding of the Jewish temple. I find that as I sat there and listened I wasn't buying into it. I could ask him about it, I suppose, but was seeking input here.

http://www.templeinstitute.org/about.htm

They are preparing as we speak. What aren't you buying?

 

[webdog]

I don't recollect anyone saying Israel after the flesh is insignificant, they're saying:

....it is not the children of the flesh that are children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for a seed. Ro 9:8

Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. Gal 4:28

And if ye are Christ`s, then are ye Abraham`s seed, heirs according to promise. Gal 3:29

for we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh: Phil 3:3

As far as the 'pink sky' goes, it was 'that generation' of apostate Judaism that failed to discern what was about to come upon them.

Why is Israel "after the flesh" significant, then? What do they have that the world wants, or why the world wants them removed from the Earth? That makes no sense. Since the world system is under the domain of satan currently, and Jesus said a house divided cannot stand, what gives?

 

[Iconoclast]

Four pages and only one attempt to answer the OP. Thanks to Webdog. Now can a dispy please explain why today's Israel is the Israel prophesied in the last days before Christ's return?

Our pastor is going through the traditional Dispy theology of the Rapture, Trib, antichrist, etc. and last week's message was on the rebuilding of the Jewish temple. I find that as I sat there and listened I wasn't buying into it. I could ask him about it, I suppose, but was seeking input here.

Okay.....well lets see..
Did you know......

A company in Miami is making little chips that can implanted in peoples right hand...

and a company is already cutting the large limestone blocks for the rebuilding of the temple

and a company in france has been created to rebuild the Guillotine so that saints can be beheaded...

the europeon common market seems to be the vehicle for the 10 nation confedercy.....we should be looking for the little horn daniel spoke of , who rises up....

I keep checking the newspapers to see if there are even more earthquakes, like a woman in travail...more frequent and more severe pains....

Daniel said..knowledge would be increased.....

jeremiah said....it will be the time of Jacobs trouble.....

The signs are everywhere:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Yeshua1]

All of this I know including your attempt (my friend) to use reverse psy-ops. The reformed camp reads the OT based on their NT understanding (continuity). The dispy camp read the entire Bible as the Word of God (discontinuity). I'm in the discontinuity camp, I do not believe we are in the same camp (my friend) on this issue.

Think best to view especially the OT prophetic elements as being seen thru a telescope!

When you look thru th lense atsay a prophesy, the immediate sorrounding is in view only, and there is many times a partial fulfillment of the prophesy at that time...
Stepping farther back/away from the scene though, and you get more of the entire picture, as there is a future full fillment literally of the prophesy!

case in point...

One can view the prophesies of daniel thru immediate klense, and see Cyrus and high priest fullfilling that, but step back and look thru the lense, and see it being fulfilled in fullest sense atend of the Age!

 

[Amy.G]

Four pages and only one attempt to answer the OP. Thanks to Webdog. Now can a dispy please explain why today's Israel is the Israel prophesied in the last days before Christ's return?

Our pastor is going through the traditional Dispy theology of the Rapture, Trib, antichrist, etc. and last week's message was on the rebuilding of the Jewish temple. I find that as I sat there and listened I wasn't buying into it. I could ask him about it, I suppose, but was seeking input here.

The Jews are planning on rebuilding the Temple and have been for many years.

Check THIS out.

Oops. I just saw that WD posted the same site.

 

[Amy.G]

Has anybody answered my question yet: What do these verses mean to the Amil or the Preterist?


Romans 11:25-26 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come 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:

 

[Iconoclast]

Has anybody answered my question yet: What do these verses mean to the Amil or the Preterist?


Romans 11:25-26 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come 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:

Some see a partial restoration of a large number of physical Israel before the last day.


and so...all Israel shall be saved......is not that every Israelite is saved...they take it as........AFTER THIS MANNER.... [jew and gentile] one new man

all Israel shall be saved.

Paul quotes from Isa 59 about the remnant ...then in Isa 60...gentiles are also coming to the light....
Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee.

2 For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.

3 And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.

4 Lift up thine eyes round about, and see: all they gather themselves together, they come to thee: thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side.

5 Then thou shalt see, and flow together, and thine heart shall fear, and be enlarged; because the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee.

 

[A Faithful Sidekick]

The reformed camp reads the OT based on their NT understanding (continuity). The dispy camp read the entire Bible as the Word of God (discontinuity).

Methinks this is a simplistic and unfair summary. Both Testaments are one great Book, of course, but the Old Testament is to be interpreted in light of the New, because:

The ordinances of the Old Testaments were "type and shadow of heavenly things (Hebrews 8:5)," but the substance is Christ (see also Hebrews 9:24- 10:10).

Christ is the Author of both Testaments, and Jesus' interpretation of the Old Testament is most authoritative. The Apostles were inspired interpreters of the Old Testament, so their explanations of the Old Testament scriptures are foremost for us when we try to interpret them.

Jesus Himself said that the Old Testament scriptures were about Him :

Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, He explained the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures (Luke 24:27, describing the disciples' conversation with Jesus on the road to Emmaus, emphasis mine)

Since the Old Testament is about Jesus, it is only reasonable for His followers to interpret the Old Testament in the light of the New. This isn't necessarily a "Covenant theology-verus-Dispy theology" hermeneutic. It's simply the way Jesus and His Apostles interpreted the Old Testament: Shadows and types interpreted according to the Substance and Source of those shadows, Christ the Lord.

 

[Iconoclast]

Methinks this is a simplistic and unfair summary. Both Testaments are one great Book, of course, but the Old Testament is to be interpreted in light of the New, because:

The ordinances of the Old Testaments were "type and shadow of heavenly things (Hebrews 8:5)," but the substance is Christ (see also Hebrews 9:24- 10:10).

Christ is the Author of both Testaments, and Jesus' interpretation of the Old Testament is most authoritative. The Apostles were inspired interpreters of the Old Testament, so their explanations of the Old Testament scriptures are foremost for us when we try to interpret them.

Jesus Himself said that the Old Testament scriptures were about Him :



Since the Old Testament is about Jesus, it is only reasonable for His followers to interpret the Old Testament in the light of the New. This isn't necessarily a "Covenant theology-verus-Dispy theology" hermeneutic. It's simply the way Jesus and His Apostles interpreted the Old Testament: Shadows and types interpreted according to the Substance and Source of those shadows, Christ the Lord.

Exactly ....thanks for this solid post.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

Romans 11:25-26 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come 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:

The church has never been referred to as "Jacob".

This passage is key to dispy theology. I have yet to hear a dispy give an explanation of the promise that "all Israel shall be saved" which is consistent with their interpretation of the passage. If it is referring to the physical descendants of Abraham, then there will not be a single Jew in hell & they don't need to have faith in Christ for salvation. Their's would be a national salvation.

Besides, the dispy interpretation is in direct contradiction to everything the Word says concerning the Abrahamic promises & the New Covenant. Could some dispy please explain how you so completely dismiss the following passage in lieu of a genetic Israel? This is the passage which led me out of the foolishness of pre-trib dispensationalism.


And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 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. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Gal 3:17-29)

 

[A Faithful Sidekick]

The Jews are planning on rebuilding the Temple and have been for many years.

Perhaps one of you Dispy folks could set me straight on this. Why would God want the Jewish Temple to be rebuilt anyway? I have read some dispy literature that seems to celebrate this and gleefully anticipates the Lord Jesus presiding over animal sacrifices in a rebuilt temple.

I can think of nothing that would be more offensive to Him! The Lamb of God presiding over animal sacrifices?!? As if to say, "My sacrifice wasn't quite good enough, so we'll add the blood of these critters to My sacrifice to make up for the shortfall."

Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for all the sins of all the Elect. So I don't understand why the resumption of sacrifices in a rebuilt temple is anything to celebrate or look forward to. If I was the Lamb of God and saw that thing being rebuilt as though my sacrifice didn't suffice, I'd throw lightning bolts from Heaven to vaporize that abomination!

But if I have misinterpreted the dispy position, please set me straight! I'd hate to think that anyone who claims to be His could look approvingly on such a thing.

-Robin

 

[Amy.G]

Some see a partial restoration of a large number of physical Israel before the last day.


and so...all Israel shall be saved......is not that every Israelite is saved...they take it as........AFTER THIS MANNER.... [jew and gentile] one new man

all Israel shall be saved.

Paul quotes from Isa 59 about the remnant ...then in Isa 60...gentiles are also coming to the light....
Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee.

2 For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.

3 And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.

4 Lift up thine eyes round about, and see: all they gather themselves together, they come to thee: thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side.

5 Then thou shalt see, and flow together, and thine heart shall fear, and be enlarged; because the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee.

This doesn't answer my question at all. What do you think Paul means when he says that Israel will be blinded until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in?

You guys keep dancing around this verse and the reason is because it clearly shows that there are Gentiles and there is Israel. They are not one and the same. The Jews have been blinded. They will stay blind UNTIL the full number of elect Gentiles has come in. Then they will be un-blinded.

Israel is NOT the church. The church is NOT Jacob. It's no wonder there is so much confusion about end times because so many want to mix Jews, Gentiles, and the church into one big pot. I'm no scholar, but good hermeneutics demand that we ask WHO is speaking, WHO is being spoken to, and WHY. If God makes a promise to Israel, it is NOT a promise to the church or anyone else.
And all through the NT, the church is always referred to as the CHURCH. Israel is always referred to as ISRAEL.

 

[Amy.G]

Perhaps one of you Dispy folks could set me straight on this. Why would God want the Jewish Temple to be rebuilt anyway?

Because God PROMISED a kingdom to Israel. They have yet to receive it, but one day they will because God does NOT break His promises.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

This doesn't answer my question at all. What do you think Paul means when he says that Israel will be blinded until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in?

You guys keep dancing around this verse and the reason is because it clearly shows that there are Gentiles and there is Israel. They are not one and the same. The Jews have been blinded. They will stay blind UNTIL the full number of elect Gentiles has come in. Then they will be un-blinded.

Israel is NOT the church. The church is NOT Jacob. It's no wonder there is so much confusion about end times because so many want to mix Jews, Gentiles, and the church into one big pot. I'm no scholar, but good hermeneutics demand that we ask WHO is speaking, WHO is being spoken to, and WHY. If God makes a promise to Israel, it is NOT a promise to the church or anyone else.
And all through the NT, the church is always referred to as the CHURCH. Israel is always referred to as ISRAEL.

Have you never read Galatians 3? There is no Jew or Greek under the promise. You cannot given a timeline for when the time of the Gentiles was/will be fulfilled, but completely reject whole passages of Scripture in lieu of what you think Luke 21:24 might mean. Scripture clearly states what I have stated I believe. Good hermeneutics takes EVERY Scriptural reference to the topic discussed & forms a doctrine based upon EVERY reference. You must reject MULTIPLE passages in order to fit your "physical Israel" interpretation into Scripture.

Instead of ignoring Galatians 3, please explain how God stating "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. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" doesn't convict you that dispensationalism is wrong?

 

[Amy.G]

Have you never read Galatians 3? There is no Jew or Greek under the promise.

There is neither Jew nor Greek under the headship of Christ. All those who put their faith in Christ are one in Him.

But Israel still exists. Gentiles still exist.

Three groups of people on this earth today: Jews, Gentiles, and Christians.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

There is neither Jew nor Greek under the headship of Christ. All those who put their faith in Christ are one in Him.

But Israel still exists. Gentiles still exist.

Three groups of people on this earth today: Jews, Gentiles, and Christians.

Still not reading the entire passage? It is speaking about Abraham's heirs through Christ under the promise. How does your opinion overrule clear Scripture just because there is still a nation of Abraham's physical descendants? How does this undo the New Covenant in which there are no Jews or Gentiles & in which true Israel is only the heirs through faith in Christ? Would all Jews have to have been killed in the holocaust for you to believe God's Word concerning true Israel?

ALL of Hebrews describes the New Covenant which replaced/abolished the old covenant with Israel. The promises were made to the heirs through the seed of Christ, NOT the physical seed. How could God make these truths any clearer than the black & white text of Scripture?


Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. (Gal 3:16)

For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 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. (1Co 12:12-13)

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 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. (Rom 9:6-8)

And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. (Heb 11:39-40)

 

[thomas15]

Your understanding of Amillism is based on its 1950's form. It has changed much in the last 20 years. Due to intertextuality and canonical/synthetic hermeneutics, we can truly speak of seeing the NT being shaped by the OT. You can refer to G. K. Beale's new NT biblical theology book to see this.

Is there a movement in a-mil circles called "progressive a-milism"?

P.S. I don't need Beale's new book because I have dozens of covenant books including the one by Beale's bud Thomas R. Schreiner (NT Theology) which all basically say the say thing and fail to prove in 1000s of pages that the Bible teaches a covenant of works, redemption and or grace which is basically at the heart of the matter. Sorry if I offened you (my brother) but family can be annoying at times. And I freely admit that I'm a flawed individual and that if it were not for the grace of my Savior I would be lost even in the "realized millinnium" you all think we are in.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: (Hebrews 8:6-10)

 

[Greektim]

Is there a movement in a-mil circles called "progressive a-milism"?

P.S. I don't need Beale's new book because I have dozens of covenant books including the one by Beale's bud Thomas R. Schreiner (NT Theology) which all basically say the say thing and fail to prove in 1000s of pages that the Bible teaches a covenant of works, redemption and or grace which is basically at the heart of the matter. Sorry if I offened you (my brother) but family can be annoying at times. And I freely admit that I'm a flawed individual and that if it were not for the grace of my Savior I would be lost even in the "realized millinnium" you all think we are in.

There is a major difference in their approach, but to each his own. Plus, their goal is not to demonstrate covenant theology. Even further, not all amills believe in the theological covenants that you seem to hate so much. It is not so much progressive amillism so much as progressive covenantalism (new covenant theology). Theology is so fluid, that I wouldn't dare put the likes of Beale or Schreiner in any camp. I don't know them well enough. I just know I like what I read from them.