Former SBC President: Jews REMAIN God's Chosen People

Would it be better to run along lines that what it means to be a "Jew" has now changed in the NT?
Food for thought.

 

[]/qb]I don't disagree with that. But that is reference to the blessing in Christ, not the land promise, if you read the context of it.

I am not sure I would say that. But in any case, it doesn't mean that the promises got transferred away from Israel. You read too much into it.

The first two sentences are correct. The last sentence is where you read things into Scripture and into this verse that aren't there.

Land Promises?[/quote]Yep. And all those verses are true. I have no problem with that. But here is what you forget. 1) The word "olam" means for a very long time, or forever. So the land promise could be a promise for an extended period of time. The Jewish nation has been in shame for a very long time (as Jer 25:5indicates). 2) The land promise was a promise to leave in peace. That has not happened much. 3) The land promise was repeated in the prophets, long after all of these verses you cite here. What that shows us is that none of these verses are the fulfillment of that land promise to Abraham.

But the land promise to live long in the land in peace is repeated almost a thousand years after this.

And if you compare this to the land promise in Genesis, you note some distinctions. In Genesis, it is a promise that extends to the river of Egypt, not the border of Egypt. In Genesis, it is a promise to live in or to inhabit, not merely to rule over a foreign land. And additionally, you continue to have the problem that the land promise was reiterated 500-600 years after this "fulfillment," meaning that this was not the full fulfilmment of it.

Does not reference the land promise per se. It merely recounts the conquest of Canaan. But again, the land promise is reiterated around this time, during the post exilic era.

Again, as above, you fail to note that the land promise was repeated long after this.

What kind of argument is this?? Can you show me a verse that says I am not Paul???? That doesn't make sense.

In teh biblical teaching of the kingdo, you study what the kingdom is and then you study the church. You find that they are two different things. The kingdom is just that ... a political, earthly kingdom with social, ecclesiological, moral, and political programs. It is the reign of a king of people. The church is not. YOu really need to read McClain's book "The Greatness of the Kingdom." I know I have recommeded it before and I doubt you have read it. The kingdom described in the prophets is so totally dissimilar to the church that it is remarkable that anyone with a straight face can argue that they are the same.

In addition, you have Acts 1, where the disciples clearly expected a political earthly kingdom and Christ did not correct them. You have Acts 3 where Peter preaches that the kingdom (time of restoration of all things) will come when the Jews repent. There are other NT passagse as well.

Those prophecies weren't about the kingdom being established during the Roman empire.

No, Mark was right. But they didn't repent. Therefore, the kingdom did not get established. It was taken away from them to be given to a nation of manifests the fruit of it, a reference to Zechariah's prophecy of Zech 12 where he talks of the time when Israel will repent and accept the Messiah.

 

Yes, indeed ... you missed my point because you did not answer the quote that I quoted from you. You answered another one.

YOu said, And interestingly the word "chosen" under the conditions of the New Covenant refers to those who believe in Christ (Jew or Gentile). That is what I asked for Scripture to support. I don't doubt that the word "chosen" refers to those chosen by God to believe for salvation. But you associated it with the New Covenant. And the New Covenant in Scripture is made with Israel, not with "those who believe in Christ (Jew or Gentile)." They will believe in Christ to be sure. But the New Covenant will be made with the Jews. We as believers in teh church age (whether Jew or Gentile) participate in the blessings of the New Covenant. We are not technically parties to the New Covenant.

 

"This is the blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Mat. 26:28)

PL,

Jesus described the core of the N.C. above--He started it with a faithful remnant of the Jews indeed, but I'm also a part of it--(I hold to the faith of Abraham and am one of his heirs through, Christ, the son of David.) I'm a party to the covenant, for His blood was even shed for me, a gentile by natural birth. Though in "time past [we] were not a people, but now are the people of God." (1 Pet. 2:10)

Tim

 

Not according to the text that actually gives the New Covenant. You are not a member of the house of Judah or the house of Israel. God did not make the Mosaic covenant with your fathers.

You participate in the blessings of the NC for certain. We all do. But that does not make up parties to it. Your attempt at a verse does not say what you need for it to. This is yet again a place where rigorous exegesis needs to rule the day. Talk about what the text says ...

 

I participate in the NC without being a party to it?

Participate-"To take part, join or share with others; to share in, partake of" (American Heritage Dictionary)

Tim

 

Tim,

I don't mean to rude or condescending, but please read what I write rather than what you think it should say. You have now done it twice in this thread.

Look again at what I said and look at what you said and you will see they are two very different things. It is very hard to have a conversation when you keep changing the topic.

 

If you have those verses I would like to study those further.

So the time wasn't fulfilled. That would make it a false statement. When was the Kingdom ever conditional? Can you provide scripture for a conditional Kingdom? Or would that be like asking to prove you are not Paul?

Lets take a look at Zech 12.

Zech 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look unto me whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born.

Now lets see when it was fulfilled:

John 19:36 For these things came to pass , that the scripture might be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

You preach "clear scripture" how can this be any more clear?
Was it not fulfilled in the 1st century? Too put that into the future you must believe that modern day Jews pierced Jesus.. .. And preterist are called anti-semetic.

You should read some Preterist books

I do not see the word earthly in the text, so it is not so clear. Stop reading into the text.

However He does clearly correct the false assumption of an earthly Kingdom.

Jesus told Pilate in John 18:36-37, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." Pilate asked, "Art thou a king then?" Jesus replied, "Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness of the truth." It is quite obvious that Jesus was indicating that his kingdom was spiritual and not physical.

Is Jesus a King? If so He is a King with no Kingdom.

In Luke 17:20-21, when asked when the kingdom would come, Jesus replied that, "the kingdom of God cometh not with observation: neither shall they say, Lo here! or Lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you "

Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:50 that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

Sure sounds spiritual to me, but of course I guess I'm just reading that into the text.

Yes, anytime a Jew repents he enters into the Kingdom. Same for a Gentile.

Care to expound on what it refers too?

I leave you with this:

Part of an article by Marvin Jacobs:
. As long as man thinks only in physical terms he cannot grasp the nature of the eternal kingdom, and therefore will draw many wrong conclusions regarding the fulfillment of the prophecies regarding that kingdom. It has caused many either to ignore or try to explain away many very clear and unavoidable time statements . If Christ's kingdom is a spiritual one, then one's first thought should be spiritual. Some make physical applications to everything until forced to look to the spiritual. It really should be the other way around. If one finds apparent conflict in his understanding, it is probably because he is failing to see the spiritual and needs to spend some more time studying.

 

Tim,

I don't mean to rude or condescending, but please read what I write rather than what you think it should say. You have now done it twice in this thread.

Look again at what I said and look at what you said and you will see they are two very different things. It is very hard to have a conversation when you keep changing the topic. </font>[/QUOTE]PL,

Don't worry about being rude. Though we bumped heads often, I don't think you've ever called me antisemetic, so I appreciate that.

I don't see how I changed the subject though. My last point was that we (all believers) are indeed a part of the New Covenant. You said we weren't, but that we participated in it's blessings. So what blessings of the NC can we participate in without being a part of it? And what part of the NC are we left out of?

In Christ,

Tim

 

They are all over. I can't even begin to list them here. Start with the NC passage in Jer 31:31-40. There are a ton of these passages.

No it wouldn't. It was a true statement. The kingdom was "at hand" meaning it was ready to be taken. But the condition of the kingdom was always repentance and the acceptance of the Messiah. We learn from the OT. I don't have the passages right at hand, but they are numerous.

Where is the "mourning for him in repentance"??? I think it is clear. It is not there. You see there are two parts to this prophecy: the piercing and looking so that they mourn. He had to be pierced so that they could look on him whom they pierced Rev 1:7 tells us that this looking will take place when he comes in the clouds.

John is pointing out that the piercing by the Jews had taken place.

It was not fully fulfilled. As I said above, the piercing and the looking are two different issues. One took place in the first century; Rev 1:7 says that the other will take place at his coming. Additionally, the prophecy of Zech in the subsequent verses reveals what will happen when they look on him whom they pierced. They will be restored to the land. That has not yet happened.

As I say often, the text is clear when you read it without presuppositions. You do have to study it however.

I have read some of them. I find them unconvincing for numerous reasons, all centered on the text.

They asked about "restoring the kingdom to Israel." Where do you think Israel's kingdom was the first time?

No he doesn't. Read Acts 1, again.

[qutoe]Jesus told Pilate in John 18:36-37, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." Pilate asked, "Art thou a king then?" Jesus replied, "Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness of the truth." It is quite obvious that Jesus was indicating that his kingdom was spiritual and not physical.[/quote]Not quite obvious, not in light of all the other clear passages. This has a better explanation.

Precisely ... He is a king awaiting his kingdom. It will come when the Jews repent.

Actually, "wihtin you" should be "in your midst." Look at the context and see who he was talking to. HE was talking to rebellious Pharisees. You are kidding yourself if you think the Christ was telling them that the Kingdom was in them. McClain addresses all these issues in his book. o some studying; it is not that unclear.

Try actually reading ACts 3 this time. It was a promise that involved the restoration of all things and explicit appeal is made to OT texts for it.

Biblical thought is not only physical. But it does not ignore the plain meaning of the text. When the text is physical, we should not make it spiritual and that is your basic problem. You are so "spiritual" that you are "ignoring or trying to explain away many very clear and unavoidable time statements."

And you make spiritual applications of everything and in so doing violate the plain meaning of the text.

[qutoe]If one finds apparent conflict in his understanding, it is probably because he is failing to see the spiritual and needs to spend some more time studying. [/QUOTE]Completely off base. What this person needs to do is use the words of the text as the authority rather than his theological system. You are too tied to a system. YOu need to put your system aside and look at what the text actually says.

I don't have time to answer all these passages. There are many who have accurately explained these texts who will be able to give you insight.

 

PL,

Responding to a statement from GH's post above. You apparently believe that Jesus is not yet king, but waiting to become king? (see my King Jesus? thread). One cannot be a king with no kingdom.

In Christ,

Tim

 

If this is the best you got, don't bother. I addressed this in a different thread. fulfilled at the time of Christ.

Is this how you define "at hand"? Are you consistent with this interpretation?

The promises dealing with the Old Covenant(see Duet.) were conditional. The time of establishing the Kingdom was NOT

No matter how you word it, you must believe that the Jews of the future pierced Jesus. (they pierced)

The ones who pierced Him in John are the same who saw Him in Revelation.

Beautiful, lets just slice and dice the scripture and put some here and some there.

Good advice. Use it.

Just so we get this straight, you believe Jesus offered a physical not a spiritual Kingdom?

I was not reffering to Acts 1. I was reffering to the verses I posted below that.

Not quite obvious, not in light of all the other clear passages. This has a better explanation.[/QUOTE]

It's very clear.Was the Kingdom Christ offered of this world or not. You keep telling me it is. If it has a better explanation why don't you give it?

A King with no Kingdom.

Which Jews will repent? Ethnic Jews, religious Jews, athiestic and agnostic Jews, Israeli Jews, NYC Jews? What if they are only part ethnic Jews?

"All of Israel will be saved". What is Israel? The nation, all Jews everywhere, only those in Israel, are gentiles living in Israel to be saved at that time as well? Or only religious Jews living in Israel? All religious Jews everywhere?

First, since when is a futurist concerned with audience relevance? Jesus told Caiaphus he would see Him coming in the clouds. But Bro. Ed said Jesus was reffering to a future people not Caiaphus yet Jesus was answering Caiaphus.

Secondly, Jesus said it comes without observation. That doesn't sound like your typical earthly Kingdom. Then He re-enforces the thought by saying don't look for it.

God addresses them in His book as well. I'll stick with His.

Typical condescending attitude. Someone who doesn't agree with you just needs to read the Bible right?

When the text means spiritual, don't try to make it physical.

You've got to be kidding on this right? You want to talk clear time-statements I can do that all night long. Want to talk time-statements concerning the second coming, resurrection, judgement? Start with Revelation 1:1,3. But you have already told me those don't mean what we think they mean. So you just reinvent terms like shortly, at-hand, near, soon, etc...

More good advice. Use it. By the way, I use to be where you are, so I have an open mind and am not tied to anything. Thus I am now a Preterist.

I assume you are reffering to this:

Seems strange that a man who has over 7000 posts doesn't have time for this key prophecy. If you don't know just say so. Let me help you out, even Pre-Mill Dispy John MacArthur in his study bible acknowledges that the 4th Kingdom is the Roman empire. Now take it from there.