Prophecy concerning Israel

[percho]

There is a failure to understand God's ultimate purpose with the nation of Israel. The ultimate purpose was the seed to whom the promise had been made, that is Christ. Many of the so called restoration texts regard the seed, Jesus Christ. This theology of God re-establishing the nation of Israel directly fly in the face of NT teaching on Israel, Abraham, faith, and God's promise to Abraham.

Take Amos 9:14-15, which you pointed to as a prophecy of God restoring the natural Jews to their land. The previous verses (11 and 12) say, "In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they may possess the remnant of Edom and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the Lord that doeth this." That is quoted by James in Acts 15 and applied to the church and the bringing in of the Gentiles into it in his day. He says, "After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things." So James, under divine inspiration, tells me how to read those texts. He tells me they are about things in his day, namely the NT church (referred to by the tabernacle of David) and the bringing in of the Gentiles. The next verse in Amos says, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt." Then we get to the verses you quoted. We are still talking about the same thing, the NT times and the church. Only now he is using language of the restoration from captivity to describe redemption and the blessings of the gospel and church. God does this all over the OT prophecies. Isaiah is filled with this. That isn't allegorizing, that is using the NT to understand the Old, and the NT authors treat OT scripture in that manner. I'm one for literal understanding, but you have to realize that God uses a lot of figurative language when describing future events. Do you believe that the hills will literally melt? Of course not. It's figurative prophetic language.

Isaiah 66 is this way. The Jerusalem there spoken of is not the Jerusalem that now is that is in bondage with her children, but the Jerusalem above, which is free, which is the mother of us all.

RAdam what do you think of my post #30 relative to yours above? In Isaiah 66 are the children (some of them or all of them) still in the protective womb of the mother or have they already been born?

Also does not Joel 2:32 say the same thing as Acts 15:14-17?

 

[RAdam]

I think children are still being born to Zion.

 

[David357]

There is a failure to understand God's ultimate purpose with the nation of Israel. The ultimate purpose was the seed to whom the promise had been made, that is Christ.

But you are acting as if that is the only purpose God had for Israel.

Many of the so called restoration texts regard the seed, Jesus Christ.

This theology of God re-establishing the nation of Israel directly fly in the face of NT teaching on Israel, Abraham, faith, and God's promise to Abraham.

Actually, God made promises to Abraham and gave Him a Land by virture of an eternal covenant that is still in force today (Gen. 17:8,9).

Take Amos 9:14-15, which you pointed to as a prophecy of God restoring the natural Jews to their land. The previous verses (11 and 12) say, "In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they may possess the remnant of Edom and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the Lord that doeth this." That is quoted by James in Acts 15 and applied to the church and the bringing in of the Gentiles into it in his day. He says, "After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things." So James, under divine inspiration, tells me how to read those texts. He tells me they are about things in his day, namely the NT church (referred to by the tabernacle of David) and the bringing in of the Gentiles.

That is ONE application of it.

The next verse in Amos says, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt." Then we get to the verses you quoted. We are still talking about the same thing, the NT times and the church.

That is not sound hermeneutics.

Only now he is using language of the restoration from captivity to describe redemption and the blessings of the gospel and church.

Big mistake. The restoration of Israel is always a physical restoration followed by a spiritual one. When it comes to the Church salvation/redemption begins spiritually and culminates in a final physical restoration, the redemption of our bodies.

God does this all over the OT prophecies. Isaiah is filled with this. That isn't allegorizing, that is using the NT to understand the Old, and the NT authors treat OT scripture in that manner.

You have that backwards. The NT are writing out of OT knowledge. The NT is understood by virture of the revelation already received. The NT is written as if you already understand the OT and is written OT terminology.

I'm one for literal understanding, but you have to realize that God uses a lot of figurative language when describing future events.

The restoration of Israel is NEVER used figuratively and so far, you have failed to demonstrate such.

Isaiah 66 is this way. The Jerusalem there spoken of is not the Jerusalem that now is that is in bondage with her children, but the Jerusalem above, which is free, which is the mother of us all.

You seem to think it has to be either/or, when in fact, one does not cancel the other out.

God's hand is still on the nation of Israel and the ONLY explanation for their return to the Land is God. Anyone with any knowledge of the region realizes that Israel's existance cannot be explained naturally. Israel should have been choked out of existence within 24 hours by any rational estimation, but their ability to beat odds that would have destroyed other countries can only be explained by understanding that God is keeping his promises to their forefathers.

 

[percho]

I think children are still being born to Zion.

What is the travail of Zion? Is this the same birth as in Isaiah 26:17-19? Is it similar to this verse Acts 2:24? Where are they born from?

 

[RAdam]

Here is a huge passage in the bible and is necessary to understand the ultimate fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham "to thy seed will I give this land." It is Acts 13: 32 and 33. There Paul is preaching to Jews and says this: "And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also in the second psalm, Thou are my Son, this day have I begotten thee." God ultimately fulfilled that promise in the seed, that is Christ (Galatians 3:16), and He did this when He raised up Jesus from the dead. The ultimate promise had to do with eternal redemption and heavenly inheritance, not the physical Jews dwelling in a specific geographic region. The latter is a picture of the former and it was an earnest of it.

Let me make one last point. There were many OT passages that cannot be understood without the NT. There were many OT passages men didn't understand until God revealed them to the apostles. The OT must be viewed through the lens of the NT.

 

[Eagle]

This is a link to a 'related' post that I submitted in a different thread. Bit of a long read, but related.

http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1550446&postcount=12

The reason I included it is, so as to not have to retype or retread it in its entirety, and because it is more in view of eschatology. The gist of it, as it applies to this thread (along with the eschatological implications), is that Christ was (IS) the Messiah, the anointed One, the Son (King) of David. Peter's point in...

Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

...was that ALL these things associated with that concept, that fulfillment of prophesy - WAS (IS) - fulfilled in Jesus, period. He is Lord (God). He is the promised Christ, anointed Son of David, heir to the Kings throne.

The point is, Israel's 'King' is reigning over them, on David's throne, from Heaven - RIGHT NOW (Acts 2:29-35). Read the rest of the link to see when and how this reign ends.

There is also this, that the fullness of all of God's purposes is fulfilled in His Church, period. He is not waiting for a 'more full' expression of His 'House of God' (i.e., the Temple), nor anything else that Israel can add or accomplish ethnically. He may well have a purpose for them to be saved en masse, if you will, AND THEN JOIN HIS CHURCH!

Read the following in Ephesians from verse 10 to get more of the impact. But for brevity, I submit:

Eph 1:18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
Eph 1:19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
Eph 1:20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
Eph 1:21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
Eph 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
Eph 1:23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

The totality of God's purposes in Christ, REIGNING (His work FINISHED) from His throne, is to His CHURCH, period. Keeping our eyes on the prize, would be His Church - not Israel.

 

[RAdam]

Exactly. God's purpose in all of that was Jesus Christ and the promise He made to the fathers (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) is fulfilled in Christ. The covenant was confirmed of God in Christ. The law, which came 430 years after the initial promise to Abraham, can't disannul that promise. Instead, the law was given as our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ that we might be justified by faith. Everything was about Jesus Christ. Christ is sometimes in the OT called Israel. Ever wondered why? Because He is the fulfillment of Israel, the fullness of Israel, the ultimate purpose of God in choosing out and establishing Israel.

 

[Winman]

Well, you guys choose verses that support your presupposition and ignore those that contradict it.

Jesus's second coming will not be to destroy Israel, it is to save it. There are MANY scriptures showing this.

Zech 14:1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

Jesus did not fight against the nations that came against Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the Romans won. And it cannot be said that "all nations" came against Israel in 70 A.D..

The mount of Olives did not divide in two in 70 A.D.

When Jesus comes again, it is to save Israel, not destroy it.

 

[David357]

Exactly. God's purpose in all of that was Jesus Christ and the promise He made to the fathers (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) is fulfilled in Christ. The covenant was confirmed of God in Christ. The law, which came 430 years after the initial promise to Abraham, can't disannul that promise. Instead, the law was given as our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ that we might be justified by faith. Everything was about Jesus Christ. Christ is sometimes in the OT called Israel. Ever wondered why? Because He is the fulfillment of Israel, the fullness of Israel, the ultimate purpose of God in choosing out and establishing Israel.

The problem is that you cannot ascribe every OT reference to Israel as referencing Christ. Furthermore, the NT does not treat Israel as being "fulfilled" in Christ. You are overstating what the Bible says. The Bible has a lot to say about the sin and disobedience of Israel.

Jesus is referred to Israel in the OT in some places, but that is because Jesus represents Israel (and all mankind for that matter) before God. He was our federal head on the cross, just a Adam was our federal head in the Garden of Israel. Jesus stood for Israel and all of mankind as Messiah and Savior, but that does not mean you can simply relegate all of the blessings to Israel, particularly Israel's restoration to being a prophetic reference to Christ.

God's description of Israel in the restoration passages describe Israel as a sinful nation that God is restoring in order to sanctify His Name. God recounts Israel's desecrations and idolatry and whoredoms. God uses the most explicit terms to describe Israel as a nation undeserving the blessings and a nation that was in fact deserving of nothing but His contempt. That fact defies any notion that Israel can be identified consistently in the OT with Christ.

As far as those blessings being a reference to the church, that fact is torpedoed on the grounds that Israel is prophesied to be restored physically first and then spiritually. In dealing with the church, our regeneration begins on the inside first and ends with a physical restoration, completely opposite how Israel's restoration is depicted.

 

[Winman]

As I wrote in another thread, many believe the story of Joseph in the OT to be a picture of Christ. I agree with this.

First, Joseph was betrayed and rejected by his brothers. He was sold into Egypt. This symbolizes Jesus being rejected by the Jews and the gospel going to the Gentiles.

A great famine of 7 years came upon all the world, this represents the 7 year tribulation.

Joseph's brothers came down to Egypt for food. They did not recognize Joseph, because he spoke a language they could not understand. This represents the first coming of Jesus, the Jews did not understand the gospel.

Joseph's brothers came down a second time to Joseph. This time Joseph revealed himself to his brothers, this represents Jesus's second coming. Joseph saved all his family.

This was just a brief summary of Joseph, there is much more to the story. For instance, when Joseph was first sold in Egypt he prospered greatly. I personally believe this represents the early church. But then his master's evil wife wanted to commit adultery or harlotry with him. He was thrown into prison unjustly. I personally believe this might represent the RCC and the Dark Ages. Then there was the story of the butler and the baker. One was good and was saved, one was evil and executed. I am not sure exactly what this represents, but I believe it might represent the scriptures. We have basically two forms of scripture, that which came from the Alexandrian texts, and those from the Antioch texts.

The butler gave testimony that brought Joseph out of prison. I believe this could represent the Reformation and the Antioch based scriptures that led to a great resurgence of Christianity in the last several hundred years. This was when the 7 years of great plenty happened.

Now, much of this is speculation on my part. But the story of Joseph does fit the story of the Jews (and Christian history) very well and that Jesus will save them in the end when the 7 years of great famine come upon the world.

 

[RAdam]

The problem is you guys are reading verses you suppose are speaking of a future restoration of Israel in ways that the NT tells you that you cannot. For instance, Amos 9 is not about a future restoration of the Jewish nation, and James explicitly tells us that.

What are your views on Daniel 9? That would be very telling.

 

[Winman]

The problem is you guys are reading verses you suppose are speaking of a future restoration of Israel in ways that the NT tells you that you cannot. For instance, Amos 9 is not about a future restoration of the Jewish nation, and James explicitly tells us that.

What are your views on Daniel 9? That would be very telling.

The first 10 verses of Amos 9 do speak about the destruction of Israel, but the last 5 verses speak about it's restoration.

Amos 9:11 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:
12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.
13 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt.
14 And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.
15 And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.

Verses 1-10 are speaking of the past (to us), verses 11-15 are speaking of the future. No way the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and the dispersion of the Jews fits verse 15. God says he will plant the Jews in their land and they shall no more be pulled up. This is the exact opposite of what happened in 70 A.D..

As for Daniel 9, I believe 69 of the 70 weeks have taken place already, and the final week has yet to be fulfilled. This is the 7 year tribulation.

Oh, I know you believe 70 A.D. was the great tribulation, but most would strongly disagree. The great tribulation is a world-wide event, not a local event. And though 70 A.D. was surely a terrible time, there have been much worse times in history such as WWII where over 70 million people perished.

 

[RAdam]

Like I said, your view of Daniel 9 is really telling. I know you use the KJ, and I do too. Read the simple english. The "he" of verse 27 can only grammatically be Messiah. The only other personal noun used is "the people of the prince that shall come." The "he" can only be referring to Messiah.

Furthermore, if a timed prophecy can be interrupted and a part of it shifted thousands of years into the future, what was the purpose of the timed prophecy. The angel told Daniel, "70 weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city." He didn't say 69 plus 1, he said 70. He then, later, broke this period up into 7, 62, and 1 week. The 7 must logically be the period of rebuilding Jerusalem and the temple, referred to as "troublous times." The 62 are from the end of the 7 to Messiah the prince. The first 69 weeks all happen consecutively. That is because they are part of the entire 70 week prophecy. Furthermore, he said that after 62 weeks (which follow directly after the first 7) Messiah would be cut off. Not at the end of, but after. If you are correct, you have the 69th week ending, God suspending the clock on this prophecy, and then at some point between the end of the 69th week and beginning of the 70th week Messiah dies. That's a problem.

Verse 27 tells us of the 70th week. It is he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week. The he must be Messiah. Grammatically it cannot be the prince that shall come because that is not a personal noun used. In the midst of the week, 3 and a half years after the end of the 69th week, the Messiah causes the sacrifice and oblation to cease. Notice, it wasn't suspended. It was caused to cease. The bible tells us that Christ fulfilled the shadows in the law, including the sacrifices, and that now they are not validly offered because what they pictured has come and completed the work. He caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease.

So, consider this: Messiah dies after the 69th week ends. Verse 27 tells us that this happened 3 and a half years after the 69th week ended. The 69th week ends at "unto Messiah the prince." There is only one point in the NT that is dated in highly detailed terms, and that is the baptism of Jesus. This event also marks the manifestation of Jesus as Messiah, and the annointing of Jesus as Messiah. It is marked by declarations from John, the Spirit, the Father in heaven, and soon afterwards, by the Son Himself also. About 3 and a half years later, Jesus was crucified, cut off but not for Himself, cut out of the land of the living.

It all fits for the 70 weeks to be concerned with the second period of Jewish nationalism. The first period ended with 70 years captivity. The second period will soon begin with Cyrus' proclamation. It ends with God giving them over to judgement and eventually the Romans come and destroy the city, destroy the temple, and spread the Jews all over the world.

 

[Winman]

He didn't say 69 plus 1, he said 70.

But that is where you are wrong, it does say 69 plus 1.

Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

The 70 weeks is actually divided into three times #1 seven weeks, #2 threescore and two weeks, and #3 one week.

However, the seven weeks and threescore and two weeks are connected by the word "and" in verse 25 for a total of 69 weeks.

But the one week is never connected to the seven weeks and threescore and two weeks. It stands alone in verse 27.

So, the scriptures absolutely show this one week as separate from the first 69 weeks.

 

[RAdam]

It is connected, it is connected when he says 70 weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city. It is also connected when he says "and he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week."

Furthermore, the reason verse 25 references only the first 69 weeks is because it is telling the time "unto Messiah the Prince." It would make no sense for him to tack on the 70th week there, as it isn't discussed in that verse, and has already been mentioned as part of the whole.

Finally, you didn't deal at all with the "he" of verse 27. Tell me how that can grammitically be referring to anyone other than Messiah.

 

[Winman]

It is connected, it is connected when he says 70 weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city. It is also connected when he says "and he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week."

Furthermore, the reason verse 25 references only the first 69 weeks is because it is telling the time "unto Messiah the Prince." It would make no sense for him to tack on the 70th week there, as it isn't discussed in that verse, and has already been mentioned as part of the whole.

Finally, you didn't deal at all with the "he" of verse 27. Tell me how that can grammitically be referring to anyone other than Messiah.

The "he" in verse 27 is the king shown in chapter 11.

Daniel 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.
32 And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.
33 And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.
34 Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries.
35 And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.
36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

I hardly believe Jesus will speak marvellous things against the God of gods as shown in verse 36.

 

[RAdam]

First of all, that is chapter 11 and is a different context altogether. You still haven't handled the problem of who the "he" can be grammatically in that context. I would like to see you seriously take a look at that. Don't look anywhere else in the bible for a minute and take a look at the language of that context. Who is the "he" according to that context. The personal noun that goes with the personal pronoun "he" must be there in that context. Who is it?

By the way, the event spoken of in 11:31 is a historical event that has already transpired in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes.

 

[Winman]

First of all, that is chapter 11 and is a different context altogether. You still haven't handled the problem of who the "he" can be grammatically in that context. I would like to see you seriously take a look at that. Don't look anywhere else in the bible for a minute and take a look at the language of that context. Who is the "he" according to that context. The personal noun that goes with the personal pronoun "he" must be there in that context. Who is it?

By the way, the event spoken of in 11:31 is a historical event that has already transpired in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes.

The "he" in verse 27 applies to "the prince that shall come" in verse 26.

Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Now, you insist that the prince that shall come is Jesus, but I do not believe this is speaking of Jesus for many reasons. First of all, there are many verses that show Jesus will come to save Israel, not destroy it. I already showed you that in Amos 9 which you did not comment on. Why don't you answer the last 5 verses of Amos 9?

Amos 9:11 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:

Does this verse speak of Jesus destroying the city, or does it speak of Jesus repairing and building the city?

You simply chose to ignore this.

And Jesus is not the one who sets up the abomination of desolation, he told his disciples when they see that that they could expect his soon coming afterward.

Mark 13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

Mark 13:19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.

Mark 13:24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,
25 And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.
26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

So, it is not Jesus who destroys the city and sets up the abomination of desolation. Jesus said "after that tribulation" shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

You simply do not understand that when Jesus comes again, it is to save Israel, not destroy it.

Jer 24:6 For I will set mine eyes upon them for good, and I will bring them again to this land: and I will build them, and not pull them down; and I will plant them, and not pluck them up.

And whether you will accept it or not, Israel has been brought again to their land just as the Lord promised. And they will never be plucked up again.

 

[Logos1]

The first 10 verses of Amos 9 do speak about the destruction of Israel, but the last 5 verses speak about it's restoration.

Amos 9:11 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:
12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.
13 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt.
14 And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.
15 And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.

Verses 1-10 are speaking of the past (to us), verses 11-15 are speaking of the future. No way the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and the dispersion of the Jews fits verse 15. God says he will plant the Jews in their land and they shall no more be pulled up. This is the exact opposite of what happened in 70 A.D..

As for Daniel 9, I believe 69 of the 70 weeks have taken place already, and the final week has yet to be fulfilled. This is the 7 year tribulation.

Oh, I know you believe 70 A.D. was the great tribulation, but most would strongly disagree. The great tribulation is a world-wide event, not a local event. And though 70 A.D. was surely a terrible time, there have been much worse times in history such as WWII where over 70 million people perished.

To understand the end of Amos you need to think in terms of Old covenant and New Covenant. This is a beautiful, poetic description of the New Covenant rendered in agricultural terms.

There is no need for a physical tabernacle (Temple) in the New Covenant--after Christ arose, present day or future to us. The temple is now within us as the Holy Spirit indwells us. Raising up the tabernacle refers to the work of Christ--as in destroy this temple and he will raise it up on the 3rd day.

One of the most poetic and beautiful and reassuring verses in the bible has to be verse where the plowman overtakes the reaper. Here the New Covenant overtakes the Old Covenant. In the Old Covenant when you die you go to Sheol and wait for the redeeming work of Christ to reap (redeem) souls back into the presence of God. In the New Covenant when the Holy Spirit sows the seed and convicts an individual to accept the salvation of Christ they are then indwelt by the Holy Spirit and through Christ's redemption they go straight to heaven upon death. There is no waiting in Sheol for Christ's redemptive work. The plowman has overtaken the reaper hence we don't experience separation from God's presence upon death we can go into heaven and dwell with God through eternity.

When it says "planting them in their land" it refers to not physical land which the physical land of the Old covenant was merely a metaphor for the New Jerusalem that was the New Covenant. When Revelation talks about the New Jerusalem or the new heaven and new earth it refers to the New Covenant (not heaven). Once the New covenant arrived God's people--Christians are planted in it and can never be removed from the New Covenant. There is no going back to the Old Covenant because Christ's redemptive work can never be undone.

The Jewish people are not living under the Old Covenant any more. Christ fulfilled the law and prophets and the Old Covenant then gave way to the New Covenant. Ephesians tells us that the Gentiles stand equal before God with the Jews. You would have to bring back the Old Covenant and undo the work of Christ to suggest that God would be bringing the Jews back to their physical land and they would re-enter their covenant relationship with God and become his special people again and thereby make the gentiles unequal with the Jews before God. Obviously all this is now impossible to do given that we are now in the New Covenant and Christ's work won't be undone.

If the Old Covenant is gone then the Jewish claim to the land under the Old Covenant is gone. It did end in 70 AD when the temple was destroyed.

This prophecy was written so long before the redemptive work of Christ that it was too early to talk in the New Covenant terms that Christ used about the Old Covenant passing away. It was expressed in the prophetic style of poetry and in agricultural phraseology that was reassuring to its current audience. It gave them hope and reassurance for the future. To those of our generation who can't separate the differences between the Old Covenant and New Covenant it confuses them.

 

[Winman]

Well, that is a nice theory, but you cannot deny that Israel has been reestablished as a nation. There is no other nation that has come back into existence after 1878 years. It is there whether you like it or not. To deny it is to deny reality.

What you do not understand is that the majority of Jews still believe themselves under the Old Covenant. They are going to build the temple, they are going to reestablish the sacrifices. I showed links where the Jews have already made many of the vessels for the temple.

http://www.templeinstitute.org/vessels_gallery_a1.htm

The Jews do not really care what you believe, they are planning to rebuild the temple and institute the sacrifices again. Period.

But there is a small remnant of Jews who will be saved during the tribulation, 144,000. This small remnant will accept Christ, the rest will not.

Jesus did not return in 70 A.D., and a person truly makes a fool of themselves trying to tell the world he did. Trust me, if Jesus returned in 70 A.D., the whole wide world would know about it. He is GOD. It would be known in every nation, it would be in ten thousands of books. When Jesus returns it will not be a secret as you would have people believe.