Question for covenantalist regarding the new covenant.

[Iconoclast]

Hey Iconoclast. Here's what I found:



Chafer couldn't have said it better: "There was, however, a real sense in which the kingdom of God was to be, as it is now, in the hearts of individual believers; but the direct statement of Christ is to the effect that the kingdom was then, in the Person of the King, in their midst."

Paul said, that "the kingdom of God is [a matter] of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 14:17, ESV).

Chafer also says elsewhere in the same work of Systematic Theology:

If he was speaking of the kingdom in the postmill way...what he says will fit right in.

(And on that note, , when was Isaiah 54:4-10 ever fulfilled?):

ESV
4​​​​​​​​“Fear not, for you will not be ashamed; ​​​​​​​be not confounded, for you will not be disgraced; ​​​​​​​for you will forget the shame of your youth, ​​​​​​​and the reproach of your widowhood you will remember no more. ​​​ 5​​​​​​​​For your Maker is your husband, ​​​​​​​the LORD of hosts is his name; ​​​​​​​and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer, ​​​​​​​the God of the whole earth he is called. ​​​ 6​​​​​​​​For the LORD has called you ​​​​​​​like a wife deserted and grieved in spirit, ​​​​​​​like a wife of youth when she is cast off, ​​​​​​​says your God. ​​​ 7​​​​​​​​For a brief moment I deserted you, ​​​​​​​but with great compassion I will gather you. ​​​ 8​​​​​​​​In overflowing anger for a moment ​​​​​​​I hid my face from you, ​​​​​​​but with everlasting love I will have compassion on you,” ​​​​​​​says the LORD, your Redeemer. ​​​ 9​​​​​​​​“This is like the days of Noah to me: ​​​​​​​as I swore that the waters of Noah ​​​​​​​should no more go over the earth, ​​​​​​​so I have sworn that I will not be angry with you, ​​​​​​​and will not rebuke you. ​​​ 10​​​​​​​​For the mountains may depart ​​​​​​​and the hills be removed, ​​​​​​​but my steadfast love shall not depart from you, ​​​​​​​and my covenant of peace shall not be removed,” ​​​​​​​says the LORD, who has compassion on you. ​​

this is a great passage speaking of gentile inclusion along the lines of Romans 11......Let's start here in Isa 54;

54 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord.

2 Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations: spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes;

3 For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited.

Most all post and amill brothers believe another remnant of jews will be included toward the end of this age.

 

[Jope]

before the cross the Spirit worked upon those who were in Israel primarily. After the cross as Peter explains from Joel....this is that....The spirits work was going worldwide according to God's eternal purpose....ALL Flesh, not Israel only. That is what peter was talking about.

Why, if the reason Peter quoted Joel was because "The spirits work was going worldwide according to God's eternal purpose....ALL Flesh, not Israel only", was it Jewish people that the Spirit was poured out on at that time?

Why would Peter say that it was a later time that God showed him about the Gentiles receiving the Spirit?

"Peter was inwardly perplexed as to what the vision that he had seen might mean" (Acts 10:17, ESV).

"And [Peter] said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean" (Acts 10:28, ESV).​

Peter shouldn't have been perplexed about Gentile receipt of the Spirit if he quoted Joel's prophecy as being fulfilled because of it's statement of the Spirit being poured out on all flesh. He would've already known about the Gentiles receiving the Spirit. There shouldn't also have been so long a delay of the contention by those of the circumcision concerning Gentile receipt of the Spirit (Acts 11:2-3, 18), if Peter's intention of quoting Joel in Acts 2 was because of the Spirit being poured out on Gentiles (as you claim). This contention of Acts 11 should be placed at chapter 2, right after Peter quoted Joel, if your position is correct.

Jobe...why would the Apostles quote these passages to them , if they were not going to be fulfilled until after us????

Peter quoted Joel 2 because of verse 29: the Spirit had been poured out "​​​​​​​​[e]ven on the male and female servants​​​​​​" (ESV). To say any other reason is to claim that Peter thought that God wasn't immutable.

The first sermon to these who were filled with the Spirit ...was.....in the future what Joel said will take place? Or did he say....THIS IS THAT.

My argument is that the reason Peter quoted Joel 2 was because of verse 29 (not verse 28, which is a future millennial reality).

 

[AresMan]

Most all post and amill brothers believe another remnant of jews will be included toward the end of this age.

I don't necessarily believe this to be the case, but I don't rule it out either. I believe the "life from the dead" of Jews and "God is able to graft them in again" statements are hypothetical and a warning to the Gentiles (collectively) to stay faithful, or God could refocus back on Jews at large.

I believe that the "blindness in part...until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in" does not necessarily mean that there is guaranteed a time according to prophecy that this "fullness" will end before the kingdom age ends to bring in Jews. The "partial blindness" could primarily mean that national Israel is no longer under a special covenant of revelation ("the oracles of God"), and that this "partial blindness" could be in place until the return of Christ. However, for the individual Jew, the veil is removed when the heart turns to Christ.

 

[thomas15]

Popped out of your shell Thomas....and still no answers to what you were asked about.....you remind me of punxatauny phil.:wavey::laugh:

Hey Jope old chap,

Tell Icon that you will answer any theological question he can come up with right after he (icon) shows you where the Bible teaches that Jehovah cut the reformed covenants of works, grace and redemption.

Have a good day!

 

[Jope]

Have a good day!

You too bro

 

[Jope]

No.....there was a legitimate offer of the kingdom.If was offered and established...but rejected by the apostate jews....

22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.

23 This is the Lord's doing; it is marvellous in our eyes.

24 This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.


42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

The nation was not Sweden, or france in vs 43...it is the Christian Israel...the church. God named Israel and he defines who Israel is.

Is the Church ever found in scripture to be given the Kingdom? Where does Paul, Peter, John or etc. ever say such?

The Church has been translated into the kingdom of Christ (Col. 1:13). Why would she be given the kingdom if she is already translated into it? That is superfluous. I suppose, since the Church has now fellowship with Israel's partaking of the kingdom (Eph. 2:12), it might be said that the Church is given the kingdom in a secondary, distal application. The Kingdom is going to be given to earthly Jews (Jer. 3:18), while the Church is abiding in heaven (2 Cor. 5:1-2; 1 Pet. 1:3-4).

This passage (Mt. 21:43) is speaking of the kingdom being given to the nation Israel, with the law of God written on the earthly Jewish hearts (Jer. 31:33), so as to produce the fruit necessary for the kingdom. The Church also will not sin during the millennium (Jude 1:24), but since Jesus is speaking to the Jews in Matthew 21:43 (cf. verses 34-37), the intention of Matthew 21:43 is to Israel (though the Church is within Israel - Mt. 1:1, and partakes of the kingdom covenants - Eph. 2:12).

 

[Jope]

No

I hope not to sound rude in these posts (thought I should reiterate).

So do you think that the twelve did understand the doctrine of Christ's death and resurrection when He told it to them (Luke 18:34)?

.....there was a legitimate offer of the kingdom.If was offered and established...but rejected by the apostate jews....

When do you believe it was it established?

 

[Iconoclast]

Jope

Why, if the reason Peter quoted Joel was because "The spirits work was going worldwide according to God's eternal purpose....ALL Flesh, not Israel only", was it Jewish people that the Spirit was poured out on at that time?

Why would Peter say that it was a later time that God showed him about the Gentiles receiving the Spirit?

"Peter was inwardly perplexed as to what the vision that he had seen might mean" (Acts 10:17, ESV).

"And [Peter] said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean" (Acts 10:28, ESV).​

Peter shouldn't have been perplexed about Gentile receipt of the Spirit if he quoted Joel's prophecy as being fulfilled because of it's statement of the Spirit being poured out on all flesh. He would've already known about the Gentiles receiving the Spirit. There shouldn't also have been so long a delay of the contention by those of the circumcision concerning Gentile receipt of the Spirit (Acts 11:2-3, 18), if Peter's intention of quoting Joel in Acts 2 was because of the Spirit being poured out on Gentiles (as you claim). This contention of Acts 11 should be placed at chapter 2, right after Peter quoted Joel, if your position is correct.



Peter quoted Joel 2 because of verse 29: the Spirit had been poured out "​​​​​​​​[e]ven on the male and female servants​​​​​​" (ESV). To say any other reason is to claim that Peter thought that God wasn't immutable.



My argument is that the reason Peter quoted Joel 2 was because of verse 29 (not verse 28, which is a future millennial reality).

[/QUOTE]

Jope,
Even the premill teaching knows this answer...Jesus had taught it would go to the covenant people first, half covenant people 2nd[samaritans[ and then to the non covenant people 3rd....and it happened that way...

8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

all flesh...jews included.

 

[Jope]

Jope,
Even the premill teaching knows this answer...Jesus had taught it would go to the covenant people first, half covenant people 2nd[samaritans[ and then to the non covenant people 3rd....and it happened that way...

8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Maybe Peter didn't understand this, but was brought to remembrance of this piece of scripture at a later time. It is not uncommon in the NT that this happens (John 2:22; 12:16; Acts 11:16; 20:35).

Otherwise the contention of Acts 11:1-3 should've happened right after Peter quoted Joel in Acts 2. I don't think that the reason Peter quoted Joel was because the Spirit was poured out on all flesh, when it was poured out on Jewish flesh. It is much more plausible that the reason he quoted it was because the Spirit was poured out on the servants of God.

"​​​​​​​​even on my male servants and female servants ​​​​​​​in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy​" (Acts 2:18, ESV).​

 

[Iconoclast]

Jope

Is the Church ever found in scripture to be given the Kingdom? Where does Paul, Peter, John or etc. ever say such?

yes ...right here.....

28

Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved

, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:

They need grace to serve in the Kingdom. the kingdom has begun.
29 For our God is a consuming fire

The Church has been translated into the kingdom of Christ (Col. 1:13). Why would she be given the kingdom if she is already translated into it?

The church is given Kingdom authority from heaven,as in Church discipline..
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.


17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

That is superfluous. I suppose, since the Church has now fellowship with Israel's partaking of the kingdom (Eph. 2:12)

,

This dispensational idea is backwards.....The CHURCH[nt] is Now central ....not Israel[ot.] national israel was a type and shadow....of the reality.

OT Israel failed ,except for the elect remnant.Nt Israel will not fail....israel mostly did not enter into the NT....new covenant..

27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.

29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.

30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.

31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

t might be said that the Church is given the kingdom in a secondary, distal application. The Kingdom is going to be given to earthly Jews (Jer. 3:18), while the Church is abiding in heaven (2 Cor. 5:1-2; 1 Pet. 1:3-4).

The church has always been primary...always has been, and eternally will be.....Israelites were and are a part of the whole....
This idea and seperating of the people of God is exactly the opposite of eph 2.

This passage (Mt. 21:43) is speaking of the kingdom being given to the nation Israel, with the law of God written on the earthly Jewish hearts (Jer. 31:33), so as to produce the fruit necessary for the kingdom

.

That is DEAD wrong....The kingdom was being stripped from israel[ot} and given to the Christian Israel....Those Jews who heard Jesus we are told in the passage knew what he was speaking about...no need to spin it because of the dispy ideas....see here;
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

The Church also will not sin during the millennium (Jude 1:24),

This verse does not teach that at all....

but since Jesus is speaking to the Jews in Matthew 21:43 (cf. verses 34-37), the intention of Matthew 21:43 is to Israel (though the Church is within Israel - Mt. 1:1, and partakes of the kingdom covenants - Eph. 2:12).

nThis thought process will delay you seeing it...IMO.:thumbsup:

 

[Iconoclast]

I don't necessarily believe this to be the case, but I don't rule it out either. I believe the "life from the dead" of Jews and "God is able to graft them in again" statements are hypothetical and a warning to the Gentiles (collectively) to stay faithful, or God could refocus back on Jews at large.

I believe that the "blindness in part...until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in" does not necessarily mean that there is guaranteed a time according to prophecy that this "fullness" will end before the kingdom age ends to bring in Jews. The "partial blindness" could primarily mean that national Israel is no longer under a special covenant of revelation ("the oracles of God"), and that this "partial blindness" could be in place until the return of Christ. However, for the individual Jew, the veil is removed when the heart turns to Christ.

:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[DHK]

.

That is DEAD wrong....The kingdom was being stripped from israel[ot} and given to the Christian Israel....

There is no such thing as "Christian Israel."
You are either of Israel or of Christ (a Christian). You can't be both.
You can't be an Islamic Christian either; nor an Hindu Christian; nor a Jain Christian, nor a pagan Christian, etc. You must give up your former religion, repent, and by faith trust Christ. This was most evident in the life of Saul. He forsook the religion of Judaism, ceased persecuting Christians, and followed Christ.

Paul said:
1 Corinthians 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

There are three entities here: the Jews, the Gentiles, and the church of God.
You can only belong to one of them.
Which one do you belong to?

 

[Iconoclast]

There is no such thing as "Christian Israel."
You are either of Israel or of Christ (a Christian). You can't be both.
You can't be an Islamic Christian either; nor an Hindu Christian; nor a Jain Christian, nor a pagan Christian, etc. You must give up your former religion, repent, and by faith trust Christ. This was most evident in the life of Saul. He forsook the religion of Judaism, ceased persecuting Christians, and followed Christ.

Paul said:
1 Corinthians 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

There are three entities here: the Jews, the Gentiles, and the church of God.
You can only belong to one of them.
Which one do you belong to?

I am part of the body of Christ.....Christian Israel.

Jesus is the true Israel....He is the head...of the body.We are united by Spirit baptism.

believing ot israel was linked to moses ...as a type...Jesus is head over both Ot believing Israel,as well as Nt .christian Israel.

3 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

2 Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.

3 For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.

4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.

5 And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;

6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.

7 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice,


Christian Israel is :
2 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

Paul said:

1 Corinthians 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

Yes ...they were separate until the gospel breaks down the wall between them.They do not remain apart ...but one In Christ.

Paul spoke this way in speaking about the spread of the gospel.

 

[Iconoclast]

Maybe Peter didn't understand this, but was brought to remembrance of this piece of scripture at a later time. It is not uncommon in the NT that this happens (John 2:22; 12:16; Acts 11:16; 20:35).

Otherwise the contention of Acts 11:1-3 should've happened right after Peter quoted Joel in Acts 2. I don't think that the reason Peter quoted Joel was because the Spirit was poured out on all flesh, when it was poured out on Jewish flesh. It is much more plausible that the reason he quoted it was because the Spirit was poured out on the servants of God.

"​​​​​​​​even on my male servants and female servants ​​​​​​​in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy​" (Acts 2:18, ESV).​

No....it was not like the apostles stood there with a stopwatch..[or sundial] and said...opps...here come the samaritans and gentiles really quickly....it was repeated for years after Pentecost...here in Acts 13-

44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.

45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.

46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

 

[DHK]

I am part of the body of Christ.....Christian Israel.

The body of Christ is not "Christian Israel." You do err. The Bible nowhere teaches such a concept.

Jesus is the true Israel....He is the head...of the body.We are united by Spirit baptism.

Jesus is a person; not a nation. I trusted in HIM, not a nation, as my Savior. It is not a nation that saved; it is a person--the Christ who died on Calvary. This is the Christ that Israel rejected. Israel is now the enemy of Christ.

believing ot israel was linked to moses ...as a type...Jesus is head over both Ot believing Israel,as well as Nt .christian Israel.

There is no such thing as "believing Israel." All who believe on Christ are saved; they are Christians, and no more part of Israel.

3 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

2 Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.

3 For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.

4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.

5 And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;

6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.

7 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice,

This is a comparison. It is not saying that Christ is Moses. It is saying that Christ is better than Moses. The same is true all throughout the Book of Hebrews. The keyword is "better."
Christ is better than Moses, better than the OT priest; better than the High Priest; better than the angels; a better sacrifice, etc.

Christian Israel is :
2 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

For these things are allegory. Did you not read that?
It is an allegory not to be taken literally.

Yes ...they were separate until the gospel breaks down the wall between them.They do not remain apart ...but one In Christ.

Paul spoke this way in speaking about the spread of the gospel.

No, he wasn't. He prayed for the nation of Israel in Romans 9:1-3 and in 10:1-3. That was ca. 60 A.D. Israel still existed as a nation then. He prayed for Israel at that time, that they might be saved. Titus came and scattered the nation in 70 A.D. They were dispersed. However, in 1948 they were given back their land and once again are a nation. They exist today as a nation. As Paul says there is the Gentile, Israel and the church of God.
All the unsaved, those who Paul prayed for, are of Israel. If you are of Israel you are not saved. You are doomed and going to Hell. But if you are of Christ, then you are saved. You cannot be both. A saved person has trusted Christ, not Israel or Israel's religion.
Remember Paul prayed for the salvation of Israel.

Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
They were unsaved then; they are unsaved now.
Once saved, they are Christians and no more more a part of Israel.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

The body of Christ is not "Christian Israel." You do err. The Bible nowhere teaches such a concept.

It does indeed.

Jesus is a person; not a nation.

Your rigid yet natural method of interpretation betrays you,

How is a nation called a son?

22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

23 And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.

I trusted in HIM, not a nation, as my Savior.

3 And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.


All believers are found IN the TRUE Covenant Son


The nation was collectively Yahweh’s “son,” so that fidelity to the covenant implied solidarity and harmony among Israel’s tribes. Israel’s calling was to be a priestly kingdom (ref. Exodus 19:3-6), and a kingdom divided against itself can neither thrive nor endure. The nation’s increasing fragmentation finally culminated inintertribal warfare (19:1-20:48) – a phenomenon that would later be repeated in
national conflicts between the two Israelite sub-kingdoms of Judah and Israel.

Kit Culver....sacred space

It is not a nation that saved; it is a person--the Christ who died on Calvary. This is the Christ that Israel rejected. Israel is now the enemy of Christ.

Yes...unbelieving Hebrew Israel did reject Him.....The elect remnant is part of the New Exodus,,,Christian Israel.....a Kingdom of priests.

There is no such thing as "believing Israel." All who believe on Christ are saved; they are Christians, and no more part of Israel.

Yes they are now part of the Israel of God...christian Israel.

This is a comparison. It is not saying that Christ is Moses. It is saying that Christ is better than Moses

.
Correct...just as I posted,

The same is true all throughout the Book of Hebrews. The keyword is "better."
Christ is better than Moses, better than the OT priest; better than the High Priest; better than the angels; a better sacrifice, etc.

Yes...at least we agree here:thumbs:

The theme of Hebrews is the preeminence, superiority and finality of the Lord Jesus Christ in His Person and work as the fulfillment of the Old Testament “shadow” (10:1, Skia.n [“dim outline,” emph. pos.] ga.r e;cwn o` no,moj tw/n mello,ntwn avgaqw/n( ouvk auvth.n th.n eivko,na
2 The truth is that God in free and sovereign grace chose one man, Abraham, and in Abraham, a nation, and in that nation, his Elect, his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, the true and singular “Seed of Abraham,” and in him, all believers (Acts 7:2–3; Gen. 12:1–3; 17:1–7; Jn. 8:31–56; Rom. 2:28–29; 4:9–17; 9:6–30; Gal. 3:6–16; 4:4–5). The Scriptures further draw a distinction between national or physical Israel—the “seed of Abraham” (spe?rma 'Abraa?m), i.e., the Jews, and the “children of Abraham” (te?kna 'Abraa?m), i.e., believers from among both Jews and Gentiles.
Dr. W. R. Downing • Pacific Institute for Religious Studies
Sovereign Grace Baptist Church of Silicon Valley 8


• “Better.” (Gk: krei,sswn, from kra,toj, “strong,” hence: “better, more useful, serviceable, more advantageous, excellent”). This word is used to emphasize the superiority of the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ and the superiority of the Gospel Covenant over the Old Covenant. This term occurs 13 times:
(1) 1:4 “better than the angels.” This is descriptive of the glorified, exalted Son of God as the Mediator of the New Covenant compared with the angels, who are messengers and ministers for God.
(2) 6:9 “better things.” In view of possible apostasy from the Gospel, these “better things” are the realities associated with true faith.
(3) 7:7 “the less is blessed of the better.” An argument applied to the blessing from Melchizedek conferred upon Abraham, emphasizing the greatness of this King–Priest.
(4) 7:19 “a better hope.” The limitations or insufficiency of the Old Covenant are contrasted with the glorious sufficiency or hope of the Gospel Covenant.
(5) 7:22 “a better testament.” This is the New Testament or Gospel Covenant founded in the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ.
(6) 8:6 “a better covenant.” This is the New or Gospel Covenant, which is not characterized by the inadequacies of the Old Covenant (Cf. 8:7–12).
(7) 8:6 “better promises.” These are the promises of spiritual blessings as contrasted with the largely earthly blessings of the Old Covenant (8:10–13).
(8) 9:23 “better sacrifices.” These refer to the High Priestly ministry and intercession of our Lord (9:24).
(9) 10:34 “a better and an enduring substance.” The realities of the believer’s glorious inheritance as contrasted with earthly possessions.
Dr. W. R. Downing • Pacific Institute for Religious Studies
Sovereign Grace Baptist Church of Silicon Valley

For these things are allegory. Did you not read that?
It is an allegory not to be taken literally.

The is a literal meaning here.Just because it is allegorical does not mean a lieral truth is not taught.

No, he wasn't. He prayed for the nation of Israel in Romans 9:1-3 and in 10:1-3. That was ca. 60 A.D. Israel still existed as a nation then. He prayed for Israel at that time, that they might be saved. Titus came and scattered the nation in 70 A.D. They were dispersed. However, in 1948 they were given back their land and once again are a nation. They exist today as a nation. As Paul says there is the Gentile, Israel and the church of God.

There are unbelieving gentiles=heathen
there is believing gentiles = Christian israel, the church

There are unbelieving Jews today+ heathen
There are believing jews today= christian Israel

All the unsaved, those who Paul prayed for, are of Israel. If you are of Israel you are not saved. You are doomed and going to Hell. But if you are of Christ, then you are saved. You cannot be both. A saved person has trusted Christ, not Israel or Israel's religion.
Remember Paul prayed for the salvation of Israel.

Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
They were unsaved then; they are unsaved now.
Once saved, they are Christians and no more more a part of Israel.

You are once again mistaken, because of this fact:

6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 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.

 

[Jope]

Jope



yes ...right here.....

Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved

Hm. Never thought of that one. Still, I would say that everything I said stands. The Church receives the kingdom in a secondary distal aspect.

The Church depends on Israel to receive the kingdom. Without Israel receiving her kingdom, the Church also cannot receive it.

(Thought I would give you a gentle nudge about the covenants given to the Jews post I did).

28, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:

They need grace to serve in the Kingdom. the kingdom has begun.

If you claim that the kingdom had already began when Hebrews was written, which was before AD 70, then when would you claim that Luke 21:31 took place? Or do you believe that this (Luke 21:31) is speaking of a future event to us?

Luke 21 ESV, bold emphasis mine
21Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it, 22for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written. 23Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people. 24They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. 25“And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth distress of nations in perplexity because of the roaring of the sea and the waves, 26people fainting with fear and with foreboding of what is coming on the world. For the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27And then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28Now when these things begin to take place, straighten up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.” 29And he told them a parable: “Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. 30As soon as they come out in leaf, you see for yourselves and know that the summer is already near. 31So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near.​

 

[Jope]

No....it was not like the apostles stood there with a stopwatch..[or sundial] and said...opps...here come the samaritans and gentiles really quickly....it was repeated for years after Pentecost...here in Acts 13-

44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.

45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.

46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

Do you believe in a progressive revelation of scripture, so that, the chosen place for God's name (Deut. 26:2) wasn't revealed until David (2 Chron. 6:6), the OT saints didn't know the name of Christ (Pr. 30:4)? If so, it shouldn't be foreign to also believe that the Apostles didn't know of the gospel of the grace of God (Luke 18:34) and Peter didn't know of God's instruction of "calling [Gentiles]...[clean]" (Acts 10:28, KJV), until Acts 10.

 

[Jope]

Here is also something I wrote on the subject (of Luke 17:20-21):

The Jews were wanting the kingdom of God to come without their acknowledging the fact that the Messiah had to rule over it. For it had been said, by the Lord, that they wanted to take away His (Christ's) inheritance (of land, Gen. 13:15), and make it theirs (Lk 20:14; John 11:47-53). They had learned Moses so well. So well to know that if they were to be pious, the Kingdom would come (Deut 28:1; 15:5-6; Ex. 19:5-6). The Land that had been sworn of God to be given to them (Gen. 17:8; Ps 105:9-11) would only be given by observance (Deut 7:12-13; Jer 11:4-5). "He was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come" (Luke 17:20), but could not see that their Messiah whom He wrote about (John 5:46-47) governing the Kingdom of God would be needed for that Kingdom (Numbers 24:7b):

"​​​​​​​...[Christ] shall be higher than Agag, ​​​​​​​and his kingdom shall be exalted​​​" (ESV).​

I should also include that, the Messiah needs to write the law on their hearts (Jer. 31:33; Heb. 8:6), because the flesh cannot do the requirements of the law to enter into the kingdom.

Acts 15:10 ESV
Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

Romans 8 KJV
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit [which Spirit will be given the Jews in the millennium, Ezek. 36:27-28].​

Without their Messiah doing this for them, they cannot enter the Kingdom.

 

[percho]

But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. Gal 4:26 But ye are come unto mount Sion, (Zion?) and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect.

Isa 66:7 Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child. (the firstborn?)

Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children. Isa 66:8

But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 1 Cor 15:23,24

Does the church, heavenly Jerusalem, Mt. Zion, Jerusalem above the mother of all give birth to the kingdom of God from the earth?

“And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. Matt 16:18 NKJV

Will she be born again from Hades into the kingdom of God?