The True Israel of God by L. R. Shelton Jr.

Since I have noticed certain threads and/or posts that are in favor of the views of Dispensationalism and oppose what is known as Covenant Theology, I thought it would be ok to share a series of articles (in this same thread, maybe one per week), showing the scriptural basis for the other side of this discussion. So here's the first of an 8-part series on this topic. Civil discussion is encouraged.

1. Abraham's Spiritual Seed

Based upon the clear teachings of God's holy, inerrant, unbroken, verbally inspired Word, our purpose in this study on THE TRUE ISRAEL OF GOD is to show that the Scriptures teach in clear, bold, unmistakable truths, that all believers, God's children by the new birth, are the true Israel of God; and that they, and they alone, are God's chosen people upon the earth today and are the present heirs of the promises made to Abraham and his seed in Christ.

We will also be setting forth that the physical nation of Israel in the land of Palestine in the Near East today, is not God's chosen people or nation after the flesh, and neither will they ever again be dealt with as a nation in a socalled 1000-years of earthly prosperity, with Christ sitting upon an earthly throne in Jerusalem. No, the Scriptures plainly teach that the nation of Israel was set aside at Calvary and that God's dealing with them now is the same as His dealings with the Gentiles: "For there is no respect of persons with God [there is no difference between Jew and Gentile]...for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" (Rom 2:11; 3:22, 23).

This precious truth of true believers being the true Israel of God has been lost among the false teaching of the past 150 years. This false teaching says that God will yet deal with Israel as a nation, His chosen nation, and that most all of the promises of the Old Testament given to Israel are physical promises and not spiritual, and that the Jew will again arise as the chosen people of God in a so-called 1000-year reign of Christ upon this earth.

As I have studied this subject in the past years, I have been greatly blessed to see my spiritual position in Christ, based upon His election of grace, and how that I, as a child of God, am an heir of Abraham and the promises made to him in Christ as his seed. My one desire therefore in setting forth these truths is to magnify my risen, exalted Lord Jesus Christ who sits upon His throne in heaven now, ruling over His people and over all of the inhabitants of this earth. "All power [all authority] is given unto me [Christ] in heaven and in earth" (Mat 28:18). "Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him" (1Pe 3:22). For God has set Christ "at his own right hand in the heavenly places, 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: and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all" (Eph 1:20-23). We will seek to show from God's Word that our Lord Jesus Christ is now King of kings and Lord of lords and that He already sits upon David's throne in the heavenlies.

Another desire in this present study is that the Holy Spirit will be pleased to open the eyes of His people to let them see the vast array of precious promises which are theirs as the spiritual seed of Abraham; and that they will feed and live upon these promises as they wait for the Lord from heaven. Also, my prayer is that when we have seen this gracious truth, we will no longer hold out any false hope to the Jews that they are the chosen nation of God, but that through repentance and faith they must have a present hope in Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ of God--a hope, I say, in His shed blood and righteousness as their only means of approach unto God and entrance into heaven: "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God" (Rom 2:28, 29). These Scriptures teach that only a work of grace wrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit will prepare a man for heaven, Jew or Gentile; and that the true Jew is one who has been born again.

Now with your Bible in hand, let us see what the Word of God teaches upon this subject. "To the law and to the testimony" (Isa 8:20)--What saith the Scripture? First, there is one Scriptural truth that must be kept in mind and it is this: the Scriptures teach that in all of God's dealings with mankind from the time of Adam we may discern the same principle at work: namely, "First the natural, then the spiritual" (1Co 15:45, 46). God had progressively revealed His purpose through, first, His dealings with the natural Israel; second and finally, His dealings with spiritual Israel. There is no Scriptural basis for the regressive idea that God's dealings will again be centered exclusively on natural Israel at some future date, this would be going from natural to spiritual and back to natural again. If you will check your Bible you will find that the writers of the New Testament did not violate this principle of God, for in relating over 100 Scriptures from the Old Testament they always gave them a Spiritual meaning and applied them to spiritual Israel, the Church, the bornagain believers of all ages.

Now let us proceed. In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul said that the revelation God gave him about the church unlocked a mystery which had been hidden in God since the beginning of the world, namely, that all of God's people, whether Jews or Gentiles by natural descent, were to be members of the same body (Eph 3:5, 6, 9).

To Paul it was revealed that it was God's eternal plan to have, not a small nation of His own, but a worldwide body of His people drawn from all "nations, and kindred, and people, and tongues" (Rev 7:9). This was the great and wonderful "mystery of Christ" (Eph 3:4) that Paul and the other New Testament writers came to understand and to preach.

The apostle said that in time past the Gentiles were "without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world" (Eph 2:12). But now God was freely offering His unsearchable riches (Eph 3:8) to people of all nations without requiring a change in their natural citizenship. Gentiles who had been aliens from the commonwealth of Israel were now, in Christ, "no more foreigners, but fellowcitizens" with the new and spiritual Israel. Those who had been strangers were now, in Christ, "no more strangers...but members of the household of God" (Eph 2:19).

So the commonwealth of Israel, the family and household of God, now containes both Jew and Gentile. Paul argued that this family and household was made up of only those who believed in Christ as their Lord and Savior. Those who were citizens of the Israel of Old, but who had not received Christ, were simply unsaved members of one of the many nations of the world. Thus, he said: "They are not all Israel, which are of Israel" (Rom 9:6) and those who were not, he termed "Israel after the flesh" (1Co 10:18). Also, when we look into Galatians, we find the apostle Paul again dealing with this great subject of Abraham's seed, the true Israel of God. There had come among the believers at Galatia the Judaizers, who were teaching that a man could not be saved except he became a Jew outwardly, by circumcision of the flesh. Therefore, the grace of God had been perverted by these Jews who would not bow to the authority of God's Word, that is, the truth that He was through with physical Israel as a nation. They took pride in the fact that they were the physical descendants of Abraham, and because of this, they were more favored than the Christians. So Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote this letter to refute this false teaching.

In chapter one he calls it "another gospel," which teaches that a man has certain advantages in the flesh because he was born a physical descendant of Abraham. In chapter two he states emphatically that a man is not justified before God on the basis of law-works (anything after the flesh), but justification comes only by the faith of Christ as he looks away from all merit and trusts his never-dying soul into the hands of the Lord Jesus, on the basis of His cross-work and His resurrection.

In chapter three Paul said that Abraham's standing with God came by grace, through faith, and that Abraham was saved by the same gospel that is preached today (verse 8). He states that Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness" (vs. 6 & Rom 4:3). Also, he said that Abraham's children are only those people who are saved by the gospel: "They which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham" (vs. 7). Therefore believers alone are the true descendants and offspring of Abraham. Natural descent is meaningless. To be a child of Abraham and the true Israel of God, we must "walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham" (Rom 4:12). Abraham and his God-fearing descendants in those years before Christ, looked forward by faith to the coming of Christ; and all of those who today would be God's children must look back by faith to that same event and to that same person of Christ.

So it matters not from which nation we came, for God "preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed" (Gal 3:8). Therefore those of every nation who avail themselves of the truth of the gospel become the children of Abraham, the children of God. There is no other way, "for ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:26).

Also in this third chapter, we note that the promises were made to Abraham and his seed. And who is the seed? "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ" (vs. 16). So if Christ is the Seed, then all who are in Him are included: "If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (vs. 29).

Dear friend, I ask you this, are you Christ's? Have you been born again from above? Have you committed your life to Him? If you have, then you are the seed of Abraham, a Jew, which is one inwardly (Rom 2:29), and an heir with your fellow believers of all the Old Testament promises.

Further proof of this great truth is found in Romans 4:13-17. "For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith...it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham who is the father of us all, (as it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations)."

Nothing could be plainer than this truth--that only they who are in Christ are in Abraham, and therefore are partakers of the Old Testament promises. "They are not all Israel, which are of Israel: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children: but in Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed" (Rom 9:6-8). "The flesh profiteth nothing, it is the Spirit that quickeneth" (John 6:63). "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1Co 2:14).

The plain Word of God is not to be argued with. These verses tell us that the natural descendants of Abraham after the flesh are not the children of God. Therefore twentieth century Israel is not the chosen nation of God; they cannot be, for they have rejected Christ as their Messiah, just like the 1st century did. They abide under the curse of God as unbelievers. The only chosen nation today are both Jews and Gentiles who have been born again by the Spirit of God and have availed themselves of the blessings of the gospel of the grace of God in Christ. These only "are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people" (1Pe 2:9).

Source: http://tcc.customer.sentex.ca/Shelton/LRS-index.php?page=Israel1

I certainly agree with Mr. Shelton.

Shelton also denies the second coming of Jesus,He states....

"..... It is equally wrong to believe that He will come a second time to rule with a "literal" rod of iron and to reform society by enforcing high moral and ethical standards that the world otherwise was, and is, unwilling to obey."

Absolutely wrong. . As Jesus stated plainly in the scriptures he will return again a second time literally and bodily and will rule forever and ever.

With respect to Israel's present relationship with God, they are lost and bound for hell if they continue to reject Jesus. They are not different from Gentiles except that they, more than anyone, should have believed on Him from the beginning. But, they, as much as anyone, if they believe on Jesus and obey the gospel, are objects of the same mercies that God showers on all who believe.

Nope

Jesus will rule and reign for 1000 years on this earth and then afterwords
the everlasting kingtom will be established.

Rev 20: 4
And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a[a] thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

In order to interpret that passage in Revelation (a book filled with symbolism throughout) in a strictly wooden, literal fashion, one cannot interpret the following passages in a literal way:

"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. 11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? 13Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. 14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless”-2 Pet. 3:10-14

Peter says we look forward to new heavens and a new earth at Christ's second coming, the eternal state, not a temporary earthly kingdom. Jesus said, ""My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world,My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here."-John 18:36

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.”1 Cor.15:22-24

Notice the progression there. Paul says that Christ was the first to be raised from the dead, then those who are Christ’s at His Coming will also be raised, then comes the end, not a temporary earthly kingdom; and especially not an earthly kingdom in which Old Testament priests, laws, and sacrifices will be reinstated. No, Christ fulfilled all those types and shadows. Those are weaker elements and Christ is the substance. He is our our Great Prophet, our Great High Priest, our Great King of kings and Lord of lords; He's our true Temple, our Passover Lamb, the true Seed of Abraham and true Israel. It’s all about Him! We are not to look to going back to types and shadows, but rather we are to look forward to the everlasting kingdom of God in the new heavens and new earth.

Those are just a few of many passages that teach that Christ is coming back to establish His eternal kingdom that will never pass away, not a temporary earthly kingdom. Considering the fact that the book of Revelation is filled with symbolic language throughout, I believe it's more correct to take Peter and Paul more literally as opposed to contradicting their clear teaching on Christ’s Second Coming.

Also, if one is to be consistent with a strictly literal interpretation of the 1000 years mentioned in Rev 20, one would have to also believe that there are 7 literal Spirits of God according to Rev 1:4, 3:1, 4:5, and 5:6, making the Godhead more than three Persons. One would also have to believe that our Lord has 7 literal horns and 7 eyes according to Rev. 5:6. You’d also have to believe there are 7 literal thunders uttering their voices according to Rev. 10:3. Also, you’d have to believe that the "hour of trial” mentioned in Rev. 3:10 is to be understood as 60 literal minutes. Also, you’d have to believe that the woman in Rev. 12 is given 2 literal wings to fly into the wilderness according to Rev. 12:6. And there is so much more symbolism you’d have to interpret literally to be consistent with your method of interpreting that passage in Rev. 20.

I find it very interesting to note that from that one passage in Rev 20 has come this teaching of a literal 1000 year earthly rule of Christ, when the rest of the Word of God contradicts that teaching.

This doctrine will never line up with Romans 11 and many other scriptures,
God has not cast away His people (Israel), and affirms the continuing distinct role that Israel plays in God’s plan for the present and future.

I've heard testimonies of Jews being converted to Christ after being provoked to such holy jealousy by Gentile believers. That was God's plan for His remnant among national Israel. Remember, not all Israel is Israel but God has always had and will always have His remnant. That's one of the main points of Romans 9-11, that God has not completely cast away national Israel because there is still a remnant being saved from among them. That's Paul's answer to the question, "Has God cast away His people?" Paul points to himself as a prime example of the fact that God has not cast away His people-Romans 11:1-2. Paul then mentions the example of Elijah and the 7,000 who did not bow the knee to Baal as another example of God's remnant-Romans 11:3-5.

God's Word makes it clear in Ephesians 2 and 3 and elsewhere that God has broken down the wall of separation between Jew and Gentile and has made both one in Christ. God only has one people, not two. Gentiles are now included as the true Israel of God. We are grafted into the Olive Tree and are part of that Tree, not separate from it. We are partakers together of the commonwealth of Israel-Eph 2:11-22. Why should Christians try to separate what God has joined together? Makes no sense imho.

There are so many more scriptures that can be sited.

It was said,

"God's Word makes it clear in Ephesians 2 and 3 and elsewhere that God has broken down the wall of separation between Jew and Gentile and has made both one in Christ. God only has one people, not two. Gentiles are now included as the true Israel of God. We are grafted into the Olive Tree and are part of that Tree, not separate from it. We are partakers together of the commonwealth of Israel-Eph 2:11-22. Why should Christians try to separate what God has joined together? Makes no sense imho."

Thank you Oracio for your thoughts. I'm not dispensational nor do I believe in a pre-tribulation rapture. Yet I do believe Israel has a future as a redeemed nation - "ALL shall know me from the least to the greatest" (Jer 31:34). This promise from Jeremiah also extended to their offspring (Isa 59:21). God has never been interested in them just as a nation containing a righteous remnant. God's intent all along has been to have a entirely redeemed nation in Christ. I believe also that God has broken down the wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles and Gentiles have been made partakers of the promises and covenants made to the commonwealth if Israel. Yet how does that cancel the still outstanding promises made to the Jewish nation? If Gentiles can now fully particIpate what is the offense of future prophecies regarding Israel as a nation being fulfilled? Part of what was revealed by the gospel was the fact that Christ's coming would be twofold. He would come then leave them then come again to Israel after a final time of tribulation (Deut 4:30, Jer 30:7, Dan 12:1, Matt 24:21, Rev 7:14) If He returns to Israel again and that nation becomes a nation of renown and praise how is that shortchanging other peoples and nations since blessings of never seen magnitude will pour forth from that nation to all the nations? This will be in agreement with the universal scope the prophets always included. Ultimately it's not about just one nation. The Lord won't be establishing a wall of partition again. The Gentiles have had access for almost two thousand years now so how will Gentiles be shortchanged if God saves a Jewish remnant and they are established as a nation under the rule of their returned Messiah? Meanwhile, the church has even been so bold as to propose that when Jewish people come to Christ they are called to give up their Jewishness.

"It is said, 'All are one in Christ Jesus [Gal 3;28], therefore there can be no national distinction of the Jews, no national restoration, no national preeminence"...Some have surely a strange notion of what is meant by being "one in Christ," when they make thier spiritual oneness depend upon the uniformity of external circumstances. What a low idea of Christian oneness! They charge us with carnal views because we insist upon the future distinctivenss of the Jewish nation; but it appears that the charge of carnaltiy belongs to them, not to us! We believe in the literal accomplishment of the prophecies regarding the Jews, in which there appear to be many promises of temporal blessings as well as spiritual; but we lay no further stress upon these than the Word of God lays; we admit spiritual blessings to be the highest and noblest. Our opponents, however, lay such stress upon external circumstances, as to insist, that if these exist the oneness in Christ is gone. We had always understood Scripture as telling us, not that there were no national distinctions, but that, in spite of these, there was a oneness that bound together all believers; a oneness so spiritual, so divine, so unearthly, so unapproachable, as not to be in the very least affected by temporal distinctions of time, place, or rank."

(H. Bonar, "Propohetical Landmarks" (London: James Nisbet, 1876), 231-32.

Quoting,

"Also, if one is to be consistent with a strictly literal interpretation of the 1000 years mentioned in Rev 20, one would have to also believe that there are 7 literal Spirits of God according to Rev 1:4, 3:1, 4:5, and 5:6, making the Godhead more than three Persons. One would also have to believe that our Lord has 7 literal horns and 7 eyes according to Rev. 5:6. You’d also have to believe there are 7 literal thunders uttering their voices according to Rev. 10:3. Also, you’d have to believe that the "hour of trial” mentioned in Rev. 3:10 is to be understood as 60 literal minutes. Also, you’d have to believe that the woman in Rev. 12 is given 2 literal wings to fly into the wilderness according to Rev. 12:6. And there is so much more symbolism you’d have to interpret literally to be consistent with your method of interpreting that passage in Rev. 20."

"I find it very interesting to note that from that one passage in Rev 20 has come this teaching of a literal 1000 year earthly rule of Christ, when the rest of the Word of God contradicts that teaching." (END)

This is not true and is a common caricature often used against those of a pre-millennial view. Pre-millennialiosm alsways has acknowledged the use of symbols and allegories in scripture. What examples can be given of literalists also teaching the Lord has 7 literal horns and 7 eyes? Where has one of a pre-millennial view ever taught that there are 7 Spirits of God? They haven't taught that because thay have always given room for things to be expressed symbolically at certain points in the scripture. They have always believed though that the symbols have concrete and literal meanings. This common caricature is misinformed and therefore doesn't pass the test of being correctly used.

Quoting,

Objection: Premillennialists are not Consistent It is objected that even the premill view takes some prophetic passages symbolically and figuratively, such as the seven "stars” (angels),"lamp stands” (churches), and "beasts” (world powers) in the book of Revelation. If so, why should not "a thousand years” be symbolic of a long period of time and "144,000” from the "twelve tribes of Israel” (Rev. 7, 14) be symbolic of the Church, and so on.

Response: First, figures of speech are not contrary to a literal interpretation since even they are based in a literal meaning. For example, just because there is a "key” (a symbol of secure containment) to the bottomless pit where the Devil is consigned for a thousand years does not mean there is no real Devil. Second, the Book of Revelation identifies many things as symbols, but it gives their literal meaning (cf. Rev. 1:20). Third, all these symbols represent literal people, things, and events. Fourth, the worlds "tribe” and "resurrection are never used figuratively in the Bible. Even symbols have a literal meaning (Rev. 1:20). Fifth, the rule of thumb still stands: "If the literal sense makes good sense, then seek no other sense lest it result in nonsense.” Finally, amillennial interpretations are inconsistent for in the same passage (Rev. 20) they take one "resurrection” literally and the other one spiritually. "They came to life [at first resurrection] and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life [at the second resurrection] until the thousand years were ended.” John goes on to say, "Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power...and they will reign with him for a thousand years.” (Rev. 20:4-7). But if the second resurrection is literal (as amills admit), then so is the first resurrection literal since it is described by the same phrase in the same passage and it is called "the first resurrection” (Rev. 20:5-6).

(Norman Geisler - "The Importance of Premillenialism")

When the disciples asked Jesus how to pray, He gave an answer with which we are almost too familiar. In this prayer, we by extension are commanded to pray that His will be done on earth as it is in Heaven. My perspective on this is that Jesus is actually making a prophetic declaration that will by virtue of its being God's will, the will of God actually will be done in the earth at some future point. Quite obviously we are not yet there.

In Romans 8 Paul gives a vivid description of this, with the incomprehensible notion that the creation will be delivered from its bondage to futility and decay into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

There seems in this to be in all this a single thrust- the whole world subject to the power of God, one salvation message, one savior, one division between men- those of Christ and those not.

I cannot see room for sub-plots and special accommodations for physical jews, but that does not preclude God doing things with nations to illustrate His plans, does it? There just seems to be some mysterious significance to the modern nation of Israel. In light of this discussion, I wonder where this might be going!

The Bible is always symbolic when it does not suit some peoples theological bent. That way you can make up most any doctrine you like using the word of the Lord and twisting it to suit your viewpoint. (Works well for most TV preachers)

docs, I'll try to make time to answer your replies soon.

Docs: "yet I do believe Israel has a future as a redeemed nation."

What do you mean by this statement? More particularly the phrase "redeemed nation?"

Thank you Oracio for your thoughts. I'm not dispensational nor do I believe in a pre-tribulation rapture. Yet I do believe Israel has a future as a redeemed nation - "ALL shall know me from the least to the greatest" (Jer 31:34). This promise from Jeremiah also extended to their offspring (Isa 21). God has never been interested in them just as a nation containing a righteous remnant. God's intent all along has been to have a entirely redeemed nation in Christ. I believe also that God has broken down the wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles and Gentiles have been made partakers of the promises and covenants made to the commonwealth if Israel. Yet how does that cancel the still outstanding promises made to the Jewish nation? If Gentiles can now fully particIpate what is the offense of future prophecies regarding Israel as a nation being fulfilled? Part of what was revealed by the gospel was the fact that Christ's coming would be twofold. He would come then leave them then come again to Israel after a final time of tribulation (Deut 4:30, Jer 30:7, Dan 12:1, Matt 24:21, Rev 7:14) If He returns to Israel again and that nation becomes a nation of renown and praise how is that shortchanging other peoples and nations since blessings of never seen magnitude will pour forth from that nation to all the nations? This will be in agreement with the universal scope the prophets always included. Ultimately it's not about just one nation. The Lord won't be establishing a wall of partition again. The Gentiles have had access for almost two thousand years now so how will Gentiles be shortchanged if God saves a Jewish remnant and they are established as a nation under the rule of their returned Messiah? Meanwhile, the church has even been so bold as to propose that when Jewish people come to Christ they are called to give up their Jewishness.

"It is said, 'All are one in Christ Jesus [Gal 3;28], therefore there can be no national distinction of the Jews, no national restoration, no national preeminence"...Some have surely a strange notion of what is meant by being "one in Christ," when they make thier spiritual oneness depend upon the uniformity of external circumstances. What a low idea of Christian oneness! They charge us with carnal views because we insist upon the future distinctivenss of the Jewish nation; but it appears that the charge of carnaltiy belongs to them, not to us! We believe in the literal accomplishment of the prophecies regarding the Jews, in which there appear to be many promises of temporal blessings as well as spiritual; but we lay no further stress upon these than the Word of God lays; we admit spiritual blessings to be the highest and noblest. Our opponents, however, lay such stress upon external circumstances, as to insist, that if these exist the oneness in Christ is gone. We had always understood Scripture as telling us, not that there were no national distinctions, but that, in spite of these, there was a oneness that bound together all believers; a oneness so spiritual, so divine, so unearthly, so unapproachable, as not to be in the very least affected by temporal distinctions of time, place, or rank."

Ok docs, here's my first reply and it has to be brief unfortunately due to time constraints at the moment (more coming soon hopefully :).

Thank you docs for your thoughts as well. Regarding the prophecy in Jeremiah 31 which you pointed out, the New Testament makes it abundantly clear that that promise has already been fulfilled in Jesus Christ and the New Covenant He established through His blood. This is stated twice in Hebrews, first in Heb. 8:7-13 and then in Heb. 10:16-17. All the promises made to Israel in the Old Covenant are fulfilled in Jesus Christ and His New Covenant. The New Testament makes so many references to that extent. Just the book of Hebrews alone should be sufficient to prove this, with its numerous references to old covenant promises finding their fulfillment in Christ and His New Covenant (yet this is not limited to the book of Hebrews but is seen throughout the New Testament).

The offense is simply that I don't see this distinction between Jew and Gentile holding any water according to the New Testament. It's simply not there. The clear and plain, literal reading of those passages in the NT that teach a unity between Jew and Gentile does not allow that kind of view. So in this case my question is, who really are the ones not taking the Word literally?

Pre-millennialiosm alsways has acknowledged the use of symbols and allegories in scripture. What examples can be given of literalists also teaching the Lord has 7 literal horns and 7 eyes? Where has one of a pre-millennial view ever taught that there are 7 Spirits of God? They haven't taught that because thay have always given room for things to be expressed symbolically at certain points in the scripture.

Just as all those other numbers are clearly symbolic, isn’t there at least a chance that the 1000 yrs are also symbolic of something? Our contention is that the evidence points in that direction as we compare scripture with scripture as opposed to taking a small section out of context with no consideration for the whole counsel of God’s Word. The method of the analogy of faith in biblical interpretation says that it is safer to interpret unclear passages in light of clearer ones, not vice versa. Yet in the Premill view that principle is completely disregarded and this spin is placed on the 1000 yrs that is unwarranted when compared to other clearer portions of Scripture.

It seems Premills allow symbolic meaning in Revelation only when convenient for their views.

They have always believed though that the symbols have concrete and literal meanings. This common caricature is misinformed and therefore doesn't pass the test of being correctly used.

I will post here a portion from the OP article which shows the scriptural basis for the current rule of Christ from heaven, as a reminder:

"My one desire therefore in setting forth these truths is to magnify my risen, exalted Lord Jesus Christ who sits upon His throne in heaven now, ruling over His people and over all of the inhabitants of this earth. "All power [all authority] is given unto me [Christ] in heaven and in earth" (Mat 28:18). "Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him" (1Pe 3:22). For God has set Christ "at his own right hand in the heavenly places, 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: and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all" (Eph 1:20-23). We will seek to show from God's Word that our Lord Jesus Christ is now King of kings and Lord of lords and that He already sits upon David's throne in the heavenlies."

To some degree, Replacement theology is so deceptive because it rests on half-truths. For instance, the Church is the "Israel of God” but not in a replacement sense (Galatians 6:14-16).

That statement doesn’t make sense to me. If the Church is the Israel of God, that’s it, done deal, period! There’s no, "Not in a replacement sense.”

In essence, Replacement theology removes from Israel a national destiny in the land of Canaan because of her rejection of Jesus’ Messianic credentials. All the biblical statements of Israel enjoying future blessings in the land of Canaan are said to be descriptions of the spiritual blessings that now accrue to the Church. The expectation of a physical kingdom has been spiritualized and taken from Israel and given to the Gentiles (Matthew 21:43), even though Jesus never denied that the physical kingdom would be restored to Israel (Acts 1:6-7).

Our contention is that the promises of the land of Canaan are ultimately fulfilled in Christ and finally in the new heavens and new earth, not in a carnal temporary earthly kingdom. That’s the land of Canaan we are to look forward to ultimately. Right now we enjoy the spiritual rest that comes with being in Christ; after death we enjoy the rest of the intermediate state in the presence of God; then finally we will enjoy the eternal rest promised to God's people in the new heavens and new earth, and what a glorious rest it will be!

Again, we do not look forward to an earthly temporary kingdom where there will still be sin and death, and where there will be resurrected saints with glorified bodies living on the same planet with people in earthly bodies. No, when Jesus comes back it’s a wrap. That's what we understand to be the New Testament teaching on Christ's second coming.

I'm busy as of now and might be a bit getting back to you. It might even be tomorrow. That also gives me time to think upon things without offering up hasty replies. Please bear in mind I am not dispensational nor do I believe in a pre-tribulation rapture. Nor do I believe there are two separate peoples of God, one the church and one Israel. The two peoples is as serious a error to me as any error ever proposed. I pledge my civility for whatever amount I am involved.

Thank you.

I'm busy as of now and might be a bit getting back to you. It might even be tomorrow. That also gives me time to think upon things without offering up hasty replies. If you post something once a week that sounds like a good idea. Please bear in minmd I am not dispensational nor do I believe in a pre-tribulation rapture. Nor do I believe there are two separate peoples of God, one the church and one Israel. The two peoples is as serious a error to me as any error ever proposed. I pledge my ciivlity for whatever amount I am involved.

Thank you.

There are others posting here and I may be interacting with them in the meantime accordingly whether civilly or not that civilly, lol jk. I'll try my best to keep my composure even if I'm vilified here in this thread, as I feel outnumbered here even though I have TMK in agreement :)

Quoting,

I will post here a portion from the OP article which shows the scriptural basis for the current rule of Christ from heaven, as a reminder:

"My one desire therefore in setting forth these truths is to magnify my risen, exalted Lord Jesus Christ who sits upon His throne in heaven now, ruling over His people and over all of the inhabitants of this earth. "All power [all authority] is given unto me [Christ] in heaven and in earth" (Mat 28:18). "Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him" (1Pe 3:22). For God has set Christ "at his own right hand in the heavenly places, 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: and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all" (Eph 1:20-23). We will seek to show from God's Word that our Lord Jesus Christ is now King of kings and Lord of lords and that He already sits upon David's throne in the heavenlies."

docs: The fact that Christ rules presently in heaven is not even a issue. I don't remotely disute that. The question is was Christ's appearance to Israel going to be once or twofold? Why believe the propehcies regarding His first appearance to Israel were fulfilled literally while the prophecies regarding His second appearance are to be spiritually and non literally interpreted? Meanwhile, the seat of David's throne was never spoke of as being heavenly only.

In like manner, Jesus left the physical earth, and will return to the physical earth.

Romans 8:18-25 makes a clear connection between the final redemption of our bodies (our resurrection and glorification) and the redemption of the creation. We are clearly told there that when our bodies receive their redemption/resurrection, the creation will also receive it's redemption and glorification. There is no indication there of a temporary fix for the creation or a temporary redemption. It's speaking of an eternal redemption and glorification in a new heaven and new earth. Here's that passage:

"For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. 24 For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance."

docs: The fact that Christ rules presently in heaven is not even a issue. I don't remotely disute that. The question is was Christ's appearance to Israel going to be once or twofold? Why believe the propehcies regarding His first appearance to Israel were fulfilled literally while the prophecies regarding His second appearance are to be spiritually and non literally interpreted? Meanwhile, the seat of David's throne was never spoke of as being heavenly only.

Again, those of us who hold to the Amillennial view do indeed hold to a literal second coming of Christ where Christ will establish a literal kingdom on earth. But we are saying that God's Word teaches an eternal literal kingdom will be established when Christ comes back, not a temporary one. Our conviction is that that is the clear teaching shown in the Gospels and throughout the NT.

The prophecies concerning David's throne were indeed literally fulfilled by Christ Jesus. He is the literal King of kings and Lord of lords both now and forever. And again, He will establish His literal eternal kingdom when He comes back.

Since the topic of David's throne is covered in Part 3 of the 8-part series I'm sharing here little by little, I was not really planning on getting much into that topic just yet. But I may post that part ahead of time out of respect for your reply regarding that topic.

Since the topic of David's throne is covered in Part 3 of the 8-part series I'm sharing here little by little, I was not really planning on getting much into that topic just yet. But I may post that part ahead of time out of respect for your reply regarding that topic.

docs: I would do things the way originally planned. Nothing wrong with keeping to your original plan in my opinion.

It's all good docs, all the articles are readily accessible through the link I provided in the OP. I'll post the link here again:

http://tcc.customer.sentex.ca/Shelton/LRS-index.php?page=Israel1

Don't have time to post much right now, gotta run.

honestly the articles by this Shelton guy are vomit inducing in their vitriol
and hatred of the people of Israel.

I'll tell ya what makes me and many other believers want to puke; the idea that we are to look forward to a third temple being built in Jerusalem where there will once again be animal sacrifices re-instituted during a supposed millennial reign of Christ. That would mean Hebrews 10:5-13 is not to be taken literally as it declares emphatically that Christ is the once for all sacrifice for the sins of the world. Here's that passage:

"Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; 6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. 7 Then I said, 'Here I am--it is written about me in the scroll-- I have come to do your will, O God.' " 8 First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). 9 Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13 Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool"

No dear friend, my Jesus spilled His precious blood to once and for all atone for our sins and there is no more need for any more blood to be spilled of any more animals. My Jesus has totally done away with that through the shedding of His precious blood once for all! Is not His blood sufficient!

I mean think about it folks. What kind of rule and reign is that where animal sacrifices have to still be continually offered up to God reminding one of the curse of sin and death. No, the rule and reign Jesus will come to establish will be a perfect reign over sin and death forever.

Another thing is the idea that Jewish feasts and festivals and rules and rituals will once again be re-instituted. Many passages in the New Testament clearly reject that notion. Colossians 2:16-18 is a clear example:

"So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ."

Paul goes on to exhort them there not to let anyone cheat them of their reward. Jesus Christ is our chief reward and one of the many blessings He has provided us with through His death and resurrection is freedom from Old Covenant rules and rituals. Yet some expect us to believe that we are to look forward to people being once again under that type Old Covenant bondage when Christ comes back? I don't think so.

Oracio- I couldn't agree more. It is amazing to me how some Christians look forward to a future day of animal sacrifices. They say it is just a "memorial." But God has already said He does not delight in sacrifices. So if slaughtering animals has no purpose other than a "memorial," why would God take delight in that?

I agree that it would essentially be a slap in the face to what Jesus accomplished on the cross. In a way it would be like a child paying his parents back for all his Christmas presents.

I think this further underlines the import of my question to Docs, "What do you mean by a redeemed Israel?" If he means an entire nation of born again believers, like everyone else must be, then why would they want to offer animal sacrifices? And if he means they are redeemed some other way (just because they are Jewish) that flies against everything in scripture.

Quoting,

My point was that there are symbolic numbers clearly referenced throughout Revelation and that if one is to be consistent with a literalistic interpretation of the 1000 years in Rev. 20 one should also take all those other numbers literally as opposed to symbolically.

Just as all those other numbers are clearly symbolic, isn’t there at least a chance that the 1000 yrs are also symbolic of something? Our contention is that the evidence points in that direction as we compare scripture with scripture as opposed to taking a small section out of context with no consideration for the whole counsel of God’s Word. The method of the analogy of faith in biblical interpretation says that it is safer to interpret unclear passages in light of clearer ones, not vice versa. Yet in the Premill view that principle is completely disregarded and this spin is placed on the 1000 yrs that is unwarranted when compared to other clearer portions of Scripture.

It seems Premills allow symbolic meaning in Revelation only when convenient for their views. (END)

But yet your view takes one resurrection to be spiritual and the other to be literal (Rev 20:5-6). How is this consistent? If the second resurrection is literal and involves bodies being resurrected and coming out of graves shouldn't the first resurrection involve the same (John 5:25-29)?

It is advocated that the first resurrection is the reign of martyrs in heaven or the new birth. The context clearly mitigates against this view.

"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand; and they came to life with Christ and reigned with Christ for a thousand years" (Rev 20:4).

Those who come to life here are martyrs who had not worshped the beast or his image or taken his mark. These are events that occur at the end of the age in the final time frame before Christ comes again. This is the fourth and final persecuting beast at the end of the age. It is these martyrs ("they") who are raised. So if is at the end of the age it couldn't possibly be referring to reigning from heaven or the new birth. It involves a specific group of martyrs at the end of the age who don't worship the final beast or take his mark. And most noteworthy, if they are resurrected at Christ's return then Christ's return is the same time when the Christian church will be raised and glorified. This is the "last day" of this age Christ spoke of in John 5:44 - "No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." Therefore, it is a TRUE BODILY RESURRECTION being spoken of. To leave out the end of the age context I think is is to be pushing a presupposition that the text does not support. Meanwhile, if the first resurrection is real and takes place in concrete reality time and space might the thousand years (mentioned six times) also be literal and real? Of course it can!

Thanks Oracio and blessings to you.

As always with this issue, there have been some valid points made on both sides.

Oracio, The questions you raised regarding the sacrifices and temple, etc are valid questions that are not easily answered satisfactorily with simple conclusions such as they are looking back to the sacrifice of Christ.

However, that being said, I also don't think it is satisfactory to conclude that the promises of the future temple, sacrifices and Israel being established as head of the nations cannot happen because it does not make sense to our understanding of other truths. Thereby coming to the view that God's word cannot mean what it plainly seems to say in regard to these things, but must be allegorical.

Rather we should take God's word as it has been given (unless it is very obviously meant as allegory), even if that means that makes it hard for us to fully understand how and why it will happen that way. So for me it is very clear as I read through Old Testament promises and New Testament teaching that God has made specific promises to the ethnic Israel which include the temple and sacrifices. Does that give a problem in understanding how that fits with the New Covenant? Yes, it does, but it does not give me the right to decide to re-interpret what God said because I don't fully understand it (and it certainly does not make me puke). I am only a man and do not have all understanding, so I'll let God's word stand even if he never reveals it to me this side of heaven. Rev 20 (as Docs brought out) is very clear about a 1000 year reign of Christ on earth before the final judgement. Do we fully understand why? Probably not, but it says what it says and I cannot see how anyone could just dismiss it as Jesus not really meaning what he revealed to John.

So what do you do with such OT scriptures as Ezekiel's temple vision. Do you just decide to say it will not happen? Or do you take it out of the context to whom it was given and talking about and re-interpret it as not be literal (despite all the explicit details and measurements taken) and apply it to the church in some way.
On this basis what descriptions of heaven and the New Jerusalem can you take as literal or do you just think they are all allegorical, so we can make heaven be whatever we want it to be?

I think these are genuinely problematic issues that need to be faced.

Like most 'isms', the problem comes when finite man thinks he can explain all the mysteries of God in a neat little doctrine.

Dear brother,

Such language on the forums and tone is simple not allowed. Please respect the forums as a place where many different view points are expressed and if someone gives a less charitable answer then the Christ-like thing to do is to be like Christ and respond with love and not accusation or with the same tone. Thank you for understanding.

Towards covenant theology and calvinism, we do not promote either on this website readily. We see truths in alot of the "isms" and we want to focus on our walk with the Lord, prayer, revival, and obedience to the Lord, something we can all agree on. It is true we can take some good from many different systems of theology from different parts of church history.

Towards Israel and the Jewish people, SermonIndex does support the view that they are a distinct people and God has an end-time purpose for them. Listening to Art Katz's sermons gives a very unique prophetic view of this. We do not endorse replacement theology as illustrated by shelton. One reason for us encouraging saints to mostly discuss the sermons already on the website is that they "in most part" do not discuss very heated subjects that are extremes that have been held in christian circles.

So perhaps it is better to focus on things where we can call fellowship around, we do not encourage a thread to be brought up weekly that is of a controverted point and brings debating or contention.

Thank you for understanding brother.

Thank you brother for your patient and gracious reply. I did reply in that manner out of reaction to Rev_Enue's uncharitable post toward brother Shelton's articles. And for my reaction there I apologize.

I did not know that you felt that strongly against Covenant Theology and in favor of Dispensationalism. I thought a civil discussion would be allowed on that topic as on many other topics discussed under the scriptures and doctrine forums. I guess I was wrong.

Thank you also for not locking this thread as of yet despite your strong feelings toward this subject. I was not planning on posting a thread per week on this subject. I was planning on sharing the articles in this same thread little by little, so I'm not sure if you misunderstood that point.

I think I will probably stand down after this last reply to doc's last question, unless I feel a strong sense that it's okay to keep posting on this thread. Thanks again brother Greg. God bless.

But yet your view takes one resurrection to be spiritual and the other to be literal (Rev 20:5-6). How is this consistent? If the second resurrection is literal and involves bodies being resurrected and coming out of graves shouldn't the first resurrection involve the same (John 5:25-29)?

It is advocated that the first resurrection is the reign of martyrs in heaven or the new birth. The context clearly mitigates against this view.

"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand; and they came to life with Christ and reigned with Christ for a thousand years" (Rev 20:4).

Those who come to life here are martyrs who had not worshped the beast or his image or taken his mark. These are events that occur at the end of the age in the final time frame before Christ comes again. This is the fourth and final persecuting beast at the end of the age. It is these martyrs ("they") who are raised. So if is at the end of the age it couldn't possibly be referring to reigning from heaven or the new birth. It involves a specific group of martyrs at the end of the age who don't worship the final beast or take his mark. And most noteworthy, if they are resurrected at Christ's return then Christ's return is the same time when the Christian church will be raised and glorified. This is the "last day" of this age Christ spoke of in John 5:44 - "No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." Therefore, it is a TRUE BODILY RESURRECTION being spoken of. To leave out the end of the age context I think is is to be pushing a presupposition that the text does not support. Meanwhile, if the first resurrection is real and takes place in concrete reality time and space might the thousand years (mentioned six times) also be literal and real? Of course it can!

Thanks Oracio and blessings to you.

Brother, your question as to how there can be two types of resurrections referred to within the same passage is answered in considering the passage you pointed out in John 5.

Here’s that full passage in context,

24 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. 25 Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, 27 and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth--those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation."

So notice that Jesus clearly speaks of two types of "coming to life” within that same passage. Even within the same verse, verse 25, Jesus says a time is both coming (referring to future bodily resurrection) and now is (referring to present spiritual resurrection).
I’d say more on the Rev. 20 passage but unfortunately I don’t have time at the moment. God bless.

Rev enue:

Lighten up. No one here had said anything whatsoever that denigrates Israel, at all.

Quote: "they do and they did tmk"

With the charge you have made I believe it is incumbent upon you to specify exactly where anyone here on this thread has denigrated the Jewish people.

I decided to tentatively reply to Hey Dave’s last post.

As always with this issue, there have been some valid points made on both sides.

Oracio, The questions you raised regarding the sacrifices and temple, etc are valid questions that are not easily answered satisfactorily with simple conclusions such as they are looking back to the sacrifice of Christ.

However, that being said, I also don't think it is satisfactory to conclude that the promises of the future temple, sacrifices and Israel being established as head of the nations cannot happen because it does not make sense to our understanding of other truths. Thereby coming to the view that God's word cannot mean what it plainly seems to say in regard to these things, but must be allegorical.

Rather we should take God's word as it has been given (unless it is very obviously meant as allegory), even if that means that makes it hard for us to fully understand how and why it will happen that way. So for me it is very clear as I read through Old Testament promises and New Testament teaching that God has made specific promises to the ethnic Israel which include the temple and sacrifices. Does that give a problem in understanding how that fits with the New Covenant? Yes, it does, but it does not give me the right to decide to re-interpret what God said because I don't fully understand it (and it certainly does not make me puke). I am only a man and do not have all understanding, so I'll let God's word stand even if he never reveals it to me this side of heaven. Rev 20 (as Docs brought out) is very clear about a 1000 year reign of Christ on earth before the final judgement. Do we fully understand why? Probably not, but it says what it says and I cannot see how anyone could just dismiss it as Jesus not really meaning what he revealed to John.

So what do you do with such OT scriptures as Ezekiel's temple vision. Do you just decide to say it will not happen? Or do you take it out of the context to whom it was given and talking about and re-interpret it as not be literal (despite all the explicit details and measurements taken) and apply it to the church in some way.
On this basis what descriptions of heaven and the New Jerusalem can you take as literal or do you just think they are all allegorical, so we can make heaven be whatever we want it to be?

I think these are genuinely problematic issues that need to be faced.

Like most 'isms', the problem comes when finite man thinks he can explain all the mysteries of God in a neat little doctrine.

HeyDave, first please allow me to explain as respectfully as I can why I expressed such strong language on the view of future animal sacrifices. Simply put, I don’t believe it’s taught in God’s Word and I believe it takes much away from the once for all, ultimate sacrifice of our Lord.

Regarding Ezekiel’s temple vision, I’m glad you brought that up as I believe it provides for a good example of why we cannot interpret every single portion of apocalyptic literature in Scripture in a strictly wooden literal fashion.

It is said that the animal sacrifices described in Ezekiel’s temple vision are to be understood as memorial and not as atoning sacrifices. But it says clearly several times throughout that portion of Scripture that the sacrifices are indeed atoning sacrifices. Here is one example:

Ezekiel 45:15-25
"And one lamb shall be given from a flock of two hundred, from the rich pastures of Israel. These shall be for grain offerings, burnt offerings, and peace offerings, to make atonement for them," says the Lord God. 16 "All the people of the land shall give this offering for the prince in Israel. 17 Then it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings, at the feasts, the New Moons, the Sabbaths, and at all the appointed seasons of the house of Israel. He shall prepare the sin offering, the grain offering, the burnt offering, and the peace offerings to make atonement for the house of Israel." 18 'Thus says the Lord God: "In the first month, on the first day of the month, you shall take a young bull without blemish and cleanse the sanctuary. 19 The priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering and put it on the doorposts of the temple, on the four corners of the ledge of the altar, and on the gateposts of the gate of the inner court. 20 And so you shall do on the seventh day of the month for everyone who has sinned unintentionally or in ignorance. Thus you shall make atonement for the temple. 21 "In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, you shall observe the Passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten. 22 And on that day the prince shall prepare for himself and for all the people of the land a bull for a sin offering. 23 On the seven days of the feast he shall prepare a burnt offering to the Lord, seven bulls and seven rams without blemish, daily for seven days, and a kid of the goats daily for a sin offering. 24 And he shall prepare a grain offering of one ephah for each bull and one ephah for each ram, together with a hin of oil for each ephah. 25 In the seventh month, on the fifteenth day of the month, at the feast, he shall do likewise for seven days, according to the sin offering, the burnt offering, the grain offering, and the oil."

So again, to interpret that vision literally would contradict the clearer passage of Hebrews 10:5-13 which clearly declares that Christ offered up His own body as the once for all atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world. This is a case in point where the analogy of faith must be used to avoid falling into serious error in our interpretation of God's Word. Again, the analogy of faith says that you should interpret the not so clear passages in light of the clearer passages as opposed to vice versa. Considering the fact that the New Testament clearly applies numerous OT prophecies to Christ and His Church it is not a far stretch to assume Ezekiel’s Temple vision is a symbolic reference of Christ and His Church. Otherwise you have serious problems, as you yourself have conceded.

Regarding the thousand years mentioned in Rev. 20, here’s why it’s not necessary to interpret them as one thousand literal years of a future temporary earthly kingdom. There are many examples throughout the Word of God of numbers being used symbolically. I’ll give some examples.

In Psalm 50:10 God says, "For every beast of the forest is Mine, And the cattle on a thousand hills.”

Does that mean that there are only one thousand hills of cattle or that God owns only the cattle on a thousand hills and no more cattle? Of course not! That’s symbolic language meaning that God owns all the cattle or wealth in all the world. In Scripture the number one thousand is symbolic of completion or fullnuess. It’s 10x10x10 or 10 to the third power.

Here are a few more examples:

"17 The chariots of God are twenty thousand, Even thousands of thousands; The Lord is among them as in Sinai, in the Holy Place.”-Psalm 68:17

"10 For a day in Your courts is better than a thousand. I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God Than dwell in the tents of wickedness.”-Psalm 84:10

"4 For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it is past, And like a watch in the night.”-Psalm 90:4

"7 A thousand may fall at your side, And ten thousand at your right hand; But it shall not come near you.”-Psalm 90:7

"10 The Shulamite My beloved is white and ruddy, Chief among ten thousand.”-Song 5:10

"23 It shall happen in that day, That wherever there could be a thousand vines Worth a thousand shekels of silver, It will be for briers and thorns.”-Isaiah 7:23

"17 One thousand shall flee at the threat of one, At the threat of five you shall flee, Till you are left as a pole on top of a mountain And as a banner on a hill.”-Isa.30:17

"22 A little one shall become a thousand, And a small one a strong nation. I, the Lord, will hasten it in its time."-Isaiah 60:22

"7 Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, Ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?”-Micah 6:7

Oracio, Thanks for replying. Let's hope we an continue to discuss in a charitable spirit.

Regarding Ezekiel's account of the temple and sacrifices, I agree that it is not an easy thing to understand and does present some problems. However as I said before, to say that the descriptions given to Ezekiel were not to be taken as literal in meaning also presents great problems. To dismiss such is just as simplistic as saying it is for rememberance. To suggest that there is a precedent in OT prophecies being applied to the New Covenant is to miss the point that those OT prophecies also had a literal fulfilment as well as having a future spritual fulfilment. Ezekiel would have been taken as literal to all those who heard his mesage. Are you suggesting that God did not mean any of it to be literally fulfilled to Israel? I find that hard to believe. Or do you think they 'blew it' and so God changed his mind and decided to replace Israel with the Church? I find
that hard to accept as it goes against the very character of God. "The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable". Romans 11:29.

Regarding the 100 years, the examples you gave don't prove any number given in the bible can be taken them as symbolic. The examples
you gave are quite clear to understand that in themselves are not
important. For example the number could be higher or lower than 1000
that could be put to flight. However often precise numbers are given and there is no reason to take them symbolically. However even if you do take
them 1000 years in Rev 20 as symbolic you would still (on the basis of the examples you gave) have to accept that they are symbolic of a large span of time.
Otherwise what is the 1000 years symbolic of? It cannot just be perfection as yousuggested, because there are specific events that take place during this time.

BTW, How do you take that scripture I quoted in Romans 11:25-29. These verses can only be taken as being literal ethnic Israel because otherwise it would not make sense to say they (Israel) are enemies for our sake, but concerning election beloved. Then it says the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable! That is unchanging, without repentance, fixed. God does not change His mind about ethnic Israel. They are elected. This is a word you understand, but why do those who teach God's election the most think the only people it does not apply to is Israel??

Heydave-

Do you believe that the individual members of "ethnic Israel" will have to be born again (i.e. Repent, place their faith in Jesus as Messiah) to have a future? Or do you believe they will be redeemed based on their Jewishness alone?

And who, exactly, comprises "ethnic Israel?"

This doctrine has been at the forefront of anti-Semitism, and has fully provided fuel for catastrophic historical events such as the Spanish Inquisition, the Catholic Crusades, and the holocaust.

The fruit of the doctrine that the Church has replaced Israel has been centuries of horrible persecution of the natural branches.

Even though it's true that certain wicked men have used God's Word and misapplied it for their own wicked schemes it still does not negate any truths taught of God's Word.

Simply because one believes that God's Word teaches that Christ and His Church are the final and ultimate fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies concerning Israel it does not mean that there is any type of support for anti-Semitism in the least bit. If one tries to apply that view (or truth in my estimation) in a wicked manner that is on them and God will deal with them.

Many have misapplied certain truths of the Bible and twisted them and used them for their own gain.

I do not like the term Replacement Theology. I’d prefer Fulfillment Theology because we are saying that Christ is the fulfillment of Israel. It all pointed to Him and is all about Him. He is the ultimate True Israel and Temple and we by extension (both Jews and Gentiles in Christ, including OT saints) are the true Israel and Temple and people and household of God as the New Testament makes abundantly clear. We are one big happy family in Christ! This is what Christ came to accomplish in His first coming and through His death and resurrection.

Also, many of us do not like the term Amillennialism because it can be misunderstood to mean we don't believe in a millennial reign of Christ. Many of us would prefer Realized Millennialism. We believe the Millennium is the present Messianic age, the "full" or "complete" time between Christ's first and Second Coming.

TMK, Yes, absolutely they need to individually repent and call on the Lord to be saved, but God will bring this about for the whole remnant of Israel in the last days. See Zechariah12:10 thro' 13:1. God will pour out on them a spirit of grace,supplication and repentance and so they will call on the name of the LORD. "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD" they will cry, as Jesus himself said they would in Matt 23:39.

Edited to make for clarity.

TMK, I think you highlighted an important misconception. The Jewish nation is not saved just because they are Jewish, but God is commited to fulfill His promise to Israel in bring them into his promises. This He does by drawing them to saving faith in Him. Clearly multititides of Jewish people over the last two millenia have not found salvation, so this is not about being saved individually because of your race, but about God keeping a promise to Jacob that eventually his seed would inherit the promises. It is a national thing, not an individual thing, athough it is accomplished through individuals.

I have enjoyed reading the different views on this topic especially what has been done in a "civil" matter.
I have been raised in strong dispensational setting and attend a very strong dispensational church. I have rejected this system of theology in recent years for many reasons, but mainly for its' inconsistency on the people of God, namely His church, made up of all the saints of God since Adam.
I believe it is extremely dangerous to assure the Jewish people that they are special because of their physical seed.
This is not consistent with the clear teaching of scripture.
This was not the message of Christ or His disciples. In fact, He told them the very opposite.
I often wonder how national Israel would receive the western church if we continued the message that Jesus had to the people of Israel. "you say that Abraham is your father, I say you are of your father the devil". What if the church lovengly emphasized that without Christ they are condemned and hell bound just like the gentile that does the same?
I believe we would be rejected like Christ. We would become a stumbling block.
I am not sure what the future of the nation of Israel will be. I hope that they will accept the Messiah, but the mission of the church is not to make them comfortable in their denial of the Christ of God. It is not to get excited about the building of a third temple in which they continue to blaspheme God by spitting at the perfect lamb that He provided.
If we truly love the Jewish people we will not give them any hope outside of Christ.

Timg,
what you have written is the misconception that I wrote about above. I don't know what your church teaches and I know there are some who give the Jewish people false hope in a salvation apart from Christ, but this is not the norm of pre- millennial teaching. Lets me make it very clear. Everyone, Jew and gentile, can only be saved through faith in Christ. Believing that God will bring an end time remnant of the nation of Israel to salvation by calling on Jesus as their Messiah is not the same as saying they are saved just because they are Jewish!

I would agree with your points about the need to evangelise the Jewish people in Israel and outside with the gospel of repentance and faith in Christ and I know many, many pre- millennial believers who are doing just that. In fact there are many Jewish congregations in the land of Israel that evangelising their Jewish brethren. They do stir up controversy and even hatred because of this. Yes the scripture says they ARE enemies on account of the gospel (like any unbeliever), But Israel are beloved and elected because of their fathers ( read Romans 11:28).

Heydave,
I am glad that we are on the same page. In my circle and listening to some prominent preachers though, the clear message is clouded by focusing on the future of the land. If I was a Jew I would most certainly be confused. I would be resting in the fact that there is nothing to fear about the enemies around me because I am chosen of God. American Christians are sending mixed messages I believe. It is the emphasis on the earthly blessing and promises that bothers me. For the life of me I can make no sense of it.

Oracio said: " We believe the Millennium is the present Messianic age, the "full" or "complete" time between Christ's first and Second Coming."

I find that postion biblicslly implausible. All the accounts we have of the Millennium age present an age of total peace and harmony between nations, people, animals , etc. How on earth ( excuse the pun) can the last two thousand years be considered to anywhere near approaching that. It is the complete opposite of everything described in Issiah, Ezekiel.
You would be better to say you are an non-millenialist. :-) There is no way you can even spirituallise the millenial Kingdom because it involves the whole earth.......this creation, not heaven.

Rev Enue
I find your comments totally unbeneficial to this conversation. Please reconsider your approach.

I have enjoyed reading the different views on this topic especially what has been done in a "civil" matter.
I have been raised in strong dispensational setting and attend a very strong dispensational church. I have rejected this system of theology in recent years for many reasons, but mainly for its' inconsistency on the people of God, namely His church, made up of all the saints of God since Adam.
I believe it is extremely dangerous to assure the Jewish people that they are special because of their physical seed.
This is not consistent with the clear teaching of scripture.
This was not the message of Christ or His disciples. In fact, He told them the very opposite.
I often wonder how national Israel would receive the western church if we continued the message that Jesus had to the people of Israel. "you say that Abraham is your father, I say you are of your father the devil". What if the church lovengly emphasized that without Christ they are condemned and hell bound just like the gentile that does the same?
I believe we would be rejected like Christ. We would become a stumbling block.
I am not sure what the future of the nation of Israel will be. I hope that they will accept the Messiah, but the mission of the church is not to make them comfortable in their denial of the Christ of God. It is not to get excited about the building of a third temple in which they continue to blaspheme God by spitting at the perfect lamb that He provided.
If we truly love the Jewish people we will not give them any hope outside of Christ.

Amen. Our Lord and his apostles and disciples did indeed have very strong things to say to Jews who rejected the gospel. That's not to say they promoted the killing of Jews in the least bit. The first martyr Stephen comes to mind as a prime example. I'll share that example here:

Stephen told the Jews,
"But Solomon built Him a house. 48 However, the Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands, as the prophet says: 49 'Heaven is My throne, And earth is My footstool. What house will you build for Me? says the Lord, Or what is the place of My rest? 50 Has My hand not made all these things?' 51 You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you. 52 Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers, 53 who have received the law by the direction of angels and have not kept it." 54 When they heard these things they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him with their teeth. 55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, 56 and said, "Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!" 57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and ran at him with one accord; 58 and they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. 59 And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." 60 Then he knelt down and cried out with a loud voice, "Lord, do not charge them with this sin." And when he had said this, he fell asleep."-Acts 7:47-60

Sadly, when believers point out such scriptures to make this point it is misinterpreted by some as promoting anti-Semitism.

Like Paul said in Galatians 4:16 as he sought to expose and cry out against the error of the Judaizers who sought to bring God's people into old covenant bondage, "Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?"

Oracio said: " We believe the Millennium is the present Messianic age, the "full" or "complete" time between Christ's first and Second Coming."

I find that postion biblicslly implausible. All the accounts we have of the Millennium age present an age of total peace and harmony between nations, people, animals , etc. How on earth ( excuse the pun) can the last two thousand years be considered to anywhere near approaching that. It is the complete opposite of everything described in Issiah, Ezekiel.
You would be better to say you are an non-millenialist. :-) There is no way you can even spirituallise the millenial Kingdom because it involves the whole earth.......this creation, not heaven.

The passage in Rev. 20 does not speak of the new creation but simply of a millennial reign of Christ with His saints. The context shows that that scene takes place in heaven. Again, Jesus Christ is ruling and reigning from heaven with His saints. The Bible makes this clear.

Heydave-

Thank you for your clarification. I feel exceedingly better :)

BTW- I have listened to many of Art Katz's sermons over the years (as pointed out by Greg) and I appreciated his approach as a radically saved atheistic Jew and his mission to the Jewish people.

He definitely believed that individual Jews need to be saved but it might take great persecution (which he believed would make the Holocaust pale in comparison) in order to bring this about. He further stressed that the Church's "rising to the occasion" in this time of trouble, by sheltering and hiding fleeing Jews during this time would be a trigger to bring them into the Kingdom.

In other words, he believed that extreme anti-Semitism will be **necessary** to bring Jewish people to redemption.

I am not sure how I feel about that and I used to think this would be impossible (i.e. that level of persecution in today's world) but seeing what is going on in Europe etc I am now thinking it might be possible.

But the Church definitely has to be ready.

I also want to point out that one of the main reasons why national Israel eventually completely rejected our Lord in His first coming is because our Lord did not meet their expectation of giving them what they wanted. They wanted an earthly kingdom with an earthly king who would rule over the earthly nations. Again, Jesus told Pilate He did not come to establish such an earthly kingdom at all.

That was never in God's plan. Dispensationilism on the other hand says it was God's plan and that the Church became a minor parenthesis because national Israel rejected the kingdom Christ came to offer them. That is clearly unbiblical though, and is not supported anywhere in the New Testament but quite the opposite is taught.

This account in acts 7 is purely symbolic and never really occurred
the way it is written. Something did happen but we do not know what it was. We must be careful to not read it according to clear and concise language being used, No that is just to throw us off.

As a matter of fact we must read the whole Bible as being symbolic and we should always create our own interpretation of what is meant by what is written. That way we can be sure .

The Word of God is composed of different types of literature genre and we must interpret it accordingly. Otherwise one can end up with weird doctrines which is what has happened in many cases due to not heeding this simple fact. Here is a list of the different types of literature found in God's Word:

1.Law
2.History
3.Wisdom Literature
4.Poetry
5.Gospel
6.Epistles
7.Prophecy
8.Apocolyptic Writing

that a falsehood.
The Jewish people did not completely reject Jesus as you stated. The early church was almost entirely composed of Jews.

Quoting,

Brother, your question as to how there can be two types of resurrections referred to within the same passage is answered in considering the passage you pointed out in John 5.

Here’s that full passage in context,

24 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. 25 Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, 27 and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth--those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation."

So notice that Jesus clearly speaks of two types of "coming to life” within that same passage. Even within the same verse, verse 25, Jesus says a time is both coming (referring to future bodily resurrection) and now is (referring to present spiritual resurrection).
I’d say more on the Rev. 20 passage but unfortunately I don’t have time at the moment. God bless. (END)

"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand; and they came to life with Christ and reigned with Christ for a thousand years" (Rev 20:4).

How can it be denied that "the souls of those who had been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand" is not speaking of martyrs and events at the end of the age? In the overall scheme of things it can't represent the new birth because it's speaking of the souls of those who undergo persecution and martyrdom by the fourth and final beast who is exceedingly dreadful(Dan 7:19-21) above the rest at the end of the age. It is those who come to life at the end of the age after the final persecution. Rev 20:4-5 has to be kept in its proper context and not allegorized.

The Fifth Seal””Martyrs

9 - When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained;

10 - and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?”

11 - And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, would be completed also (Rev 6:9-11).

Among "their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been" are those of Rev 20:4. When this is completed also then those martyred souls crying out for vengance under the altar and those of Rev 20;4 will be resurrected. Considering the context it's IMPOSSIBLE for this top be represenative of the new birth during all of the church's history.

How can it be denied that "the souls of those who had been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand" is not speaking of martyrs and events at the end of the age?

I mean think about it. Applying your type of interpretation to Revelation would mean the vast majority of what is written in it had no application whatsoever to the first century churches to whom it was directly written. Respectfully, that does not make any sense to me.

In the overall scheme of things it can't represent the new birth because it's speaking of the souls of those who undergo persecution and martyrdom by the fourth and final beast who is exceedingly dreadful(Dan 7:19-21) above the rest at the end of the age. It is those who come to life at the end of the age after the final persecution. Rev 20:4-5 has to be kept in its proper context and not allegorized.

If it suits your doctrinal position its all 8 points and if it does not it is allegorical. Makes sense,

I'll give an example of how some have come up with weird doctrines by literalizing certain parts of the Bible that were not meant to be literalized. Kenneth Copeland has taught that God is a being who "stands somewhere around 6'-2'', 6'-3", that weighs somewhere in the neighborhood of a couple hundred pounds, or little better, [and] has a [hand] span of nine inches across." He bases this nonsense on Isaiah 40:12, which says the following,

"Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand, Measured heaven with a span And calculated the dust of the earth in a measure? Weighed the mountains in scales And the hills in a balance?"

"I'll ask this question in reply. How can it be said it is not also referring to first century martyrs who did not worship Ceasar as lord and all of God's people who refuse to worship and partake with the Babylonian system throughout this age?" (END)

It can refer to them to a degree in a template and a type of events that would find a more exhaustive fulfillment late in history. All the former Rome and Babylonish type of systems find another embodiment at the end of the age in the man of sin and his sytem. Except his system will be more dreadful than all that came before. Revelation can't be seen as entirely past because it portrays the second coming of Christ and the resurrection of the dead.

I'm pretty sure that in many quarters the first resurrection in Rev 20:4 is presented as the new birth. I concede your point of the John 5 passage but what of Christ raising people at the "last day" as He referred to in John 6:44? Wouldn't the last day of this age be when Christ comes again which is simultaneous with all believers being raised including the final martyrs?

But Heydave said,

"what you have written is the misconception that I wrote about above. I don't know what your church teaches and I know there are some who give the Jewish people false hope in a salvation apart from Christ, but this is not the norm of pre- millennial teaching. Lets me make it very clear. Everyone, Jew and gentile, can only be saved through faith in Christ. Believing that God will bring an end time remnant of the nation of Israel to salvation by calling on Jesus as their Messiah is not the same as saying they are saved just because they are Jewish!" (END)

I apologize if using his quote is wrong but this what I basically believe. I believe this end time remnant saved in the land will also be joined by other Jews as they return from the four corners of the earth after the final time of Jacob's trouble (Isaiah 11:11, Isaiah 60:4,9). Thus Israel will be a nation entirely comprised of believers - a entirely redeemed geographical nation noteworthy first and foremost because everyone in it is part of God's holy nation the church. ALL shall know the Lord from the least of them to the greatest of them and "My Spirit which is upon you and, and My words which I have put in your mouth shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your offspring, nor from the mouth of your offspring's offspring," says the Lord. (Isaiah 59:21). A nation with only a righteous remant in it is not the goal because the unrighteous always bring a nation to backsliding. An all righteous nation is the goal and that righteousness will be none other than the everlasting righteousness of Christ Himself resident within each of them.

Maybe that helps answer your question to me TMK. I hope so anyway in spite of the way I have went about it here using another's words.

Thank you.

quote: "He has not forsaken them nor replaced them with the church"

Indeed Carmine but when Israel accepts Christ as Saviour they ARE the Church. There will not be Israel AND the Church-- there will just be THE CHURCH.

Is this not so?

Jeremiah 31:35-37 English Standard Version (ESV)

35 Thus says the Lord,
who gives the sun for light by day
and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night,
who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar””
the Lord of hosts is his name:

36 "If this fixed order departs
from before me, declares the Lord,
then shall the offspring of Israel cease
from being a nation before me forever.”

37 Thus says the Lord:
"If the heavens above can be measured,
and the foundations of the earth below can be explored,
then I will cast off all the offspring of Israel
for all that they have done,
declares the Lord.”

You cannot allegorize this passage. Read it carefully.

Hebrews 8:1-13 New King James version (NKJV)
"1 Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this One also have something to offer. 4 For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law; 5 who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, "See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain." 6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more." 13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."

I won't post the whole of Hebrews 10 here since it's long but will simply encourage the reading of it carefully. And as you read it carefully consider sincerely and seriously if there is any room for future animal sacrifices by earthly priests in an earthly temple.

37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!

38 See, your house is left to you desolate.

39 For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”

Jesus talking to the Jews of Jerusalem.

Verses 37 and 38 have come to pass literally and in recorded history.
Now notice verse 39
Jesus tells the Jews that they will not see him again until they
say ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’

Until they say, say, say, They will say because Jesus said they will say
what they need to say to him.

This is future tense and has not occurred yet .
Jesus says it will. The Jewish nation will turn to him. He has not forsaken them nor replaced them with the church,

At the risk of no one being interested I will share Matthew Henry's take on that verse as well as on parts of Jeremiah 31:

On Matthew 23:39
"2. Their continued blindness and obstinacy; Ye shall not see me, that is, not see me to be the Messiah (for otherwise they did see him upon the cross), not see the light of the truth concerning me, nor the things that belong to your peace, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh. They will never be convinced, till Christ's second coming convince them, when it will be too late to make an interest in him, and nothing will remain but a fearful looking for of judgment. Note, (1.) Wilful blindness is often punished with judicial blindness. If they will not see, they shall not see. With this word he concludes his public preaching. After his resurrection, which was the sign of the prophet Jonas, they should have no other sign given them, till they should see the sign of the Son of man, ch. 24:30. (2.) When the Lord comes with ten thousand of his saints, he will convince all, and will force acknowledgments from the proudest of his enemies, of his being the Messiah, and even they shall be found liars to him. They that would not now come at his call, shall then be forced to depart with his curse. The chief priests and scribes were displeased with the children for crying hosanna to Christ; but the day is coming, when proud persecutors would gladly be found in the condition of the meanest and poorest they now trample upon. They who now reproach and ridicule the hosannas of the saints will be of another mind shortly; it were therefore better to be of that mind now. Some make this to refer to the conversion of the Jews to the faith of Christ; then they shall see him, and own him, and say, Blessed is he that cometh; but it seems rather to look further, for the complete manifestation of Christ, and conviction of sinners, are reserved to be the glory of the last day."

On Jeremiah 31:31-40
"God will renew his covenant with them, so that all these blessings they shall have, not by providence only, but by promise, and thereby they shall be both sweetened and secured. But this covenant refers to gospel times, the latter days that shall come; for of gospel grace the apostle understands it (Heb. 8:8, 9, etc.), where this whole passage is quoted as a summary of the covenant of grace made with believers in Jesus Christ. Observe, 1. Who the persons are with whom this covenant is made””with the house of Israel and Judah, with the gospel church, the Israel of God on which peace shall be (Gal. 6:16), with the spiritual seed of believing Abraham and praying Jacob. Judah and Israel had been two separate kingdoms, but were united after their return, in the joint favours God bestowed upon them; so Jews and Gentiles were in the gospel church and covenant...What are the particular articles of his covenant. They all contain spiritual blessings; not, "I will give them the land of Canaan and a numerous issue," but, "I will give them pardon, and peace, and grace, good heads and good hearts." He promises, (1.) That he will incline them to their duty; I will put my law in their inward part and write it in their heart; not, I will give them a new law (as Mr. Gataker well observes), for Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it; but the law shall be written in their hearts by the finger of the Spirit as formerly it was written in the tables of stone. God writes his law in the hearts of all believers, makes it ready and familiar to them, at hand when they have occasion to use it, as that which is written in the heart, Prov. 3:3. He makes them in care to observe it, for that which we are solicitous about is said to lie near our hearts. He works in them a disposition to obedience, a conformity of thought and affection to the rules of the divine law, as that of the copy to the original. This is here promised, and ought to be prayed for, that our duty may be done conscientiously and with delight...In short, the things of God shall by the gospel of Christ be brought to a clearer light than ever (2 Tim. 1:10), and the people of God shall by the grace of Christ be brought to a clearer sight of those things than ever, Eph. 1:17, 18. (4.) That, in order to all these blessings, sin shall be pardoned. This is made the reason of all the rest: For I will forgive their iniquity, will not impute that to them, nor deal with them according to the desert of that, will forgive and forget: I will remember their sin no more. It is sin that keeps good things from us, that stops the current of God's favours; let sin betaken away by pardoning mercy, and the obstruction is removed, and divine grace runs down like a river, like a mighty stream.

Verses 35-40
"Glorious things have been spoken in the foregoing verses concerning the gospel church, which that epoch of the Jewish church that was to commence at the return from captivity would at length terminate in, and which all those promises were to have their full accomplishment in. But may we depend upon these promises? Yes, we have here a ratification of them, and the utmost assurance imaginable given of the perpetuity of the blessings contained in them. The great thing here secured to us is that while the world stands God will have a church in it, which, though sometimes it may be brought very low, shall yet be raised again, and its interests re-established; it is built upon a rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Now here are two things offered for the confirmation of our faith in this matter””the building of the world and the rebuilding of Jerusalem...

The securities of the kingdom of grace inferred hence: we may be confident of this very thing that the seed of Israel shall not cease from being a nation, for the spiritual Israel, the gospel church, shall be a holy nation, a peculiar people, 1 Pt. 2:9. When Israel according to the flesh is no longer a nation the children of the promise are counted for the seed (Rom. 9:8) and God will not cast off all the seed of Israel, no, not for all that they have done, though they have done very wickedly, v. 37. He justly might cast them off, but he will not. Though he cast them out from their land, and cast them down for a time, yet he will not cast them off. Some of them he casts off, but not all; to this the apostle seems to refer (Rom. 11:1), Hath God cast away his people? God forbid that we should think so! For (v. 5) at this time there is a remnant, enough to save the credit of the promise that God will not cast off all the seed of Israel, though many among them throw away themselves by unbelief. Now we may be assisted in the belief of this by considering, (1.) That the God that has undertaken the preservation of the church is a God of almighty power, who upholds all things by his almighty word. Our help stands in his name who made heaven and earth, and therefore can do any thing. (2.) That God would not take all this care of the world but that he designs to have some glory to himself out of it; and how shall he have it but by securing to himself a church in it, a people that shall be to him for a name and a praise? (3.) That if the order of the creation therefore continues firm because it was well-fixed at first, and is not altered because it needs no alteration, the method of grace shall for the same reason continue invariable, as it was a first well settled. (4.) That he who has promised to preserve a church for himself has approved himself faithful to the word which he has spoken concerning the stability of the world. He that is true to his covenant with Noah and his sons, because he established it for an everlasting covenant (Gen. 9:9, 16), will not, we may be sure, be false to his covenant with Abraham and his seed, his spiritual seed, for that also is an everlasting covenant. Even that which they have done amiss, though they have done much, shall not prevail to defeat the gracious intentions of the covenant. See Ps. 89:30, etc...

...The rebuilding of Jerusalem which was now in ruins, and the enlargement and establishment of that, shall be an earnest of these great things that God will do for the gospel church, the heavenly Jerusalem, v. 38-40. The days will come, though they may be long in coming, when, 1. Jerusalem shall be entirely built again, as large as ever it was; the dimensions are here exactly described by the places through which the circumference passed, and no doubt the wall which Nehemiah built, and which, the more punctually to fulfil the prophecy, began about the tower of Hananeel, here mentioned (Neh. 3:1), enclosed as much ground as is here intended, though we cannot certainly determine the places here called the gate of the corner, the hill Gareb, etc. 2. When built it shall be consecrated to God and to his service. It shall be built to the Lord (v. 38), and even the suburbs and fields adjacent shall be holy unto the Lord. It shall not be polluted with idols as formerly, but God shall be praised and honoured there; the whole city shall be as it were one temple, one holy place, as the new Jerusalem is, which therefore has no temple, because it is all temple. 3. Being thus built by virtue of the promise of God, it shall not be plucked up, nor thrown down, any more for ever; that is, it shall continue very long, the time of the new city from the return to its last destruction being fully as long as that of the old from David to the captivity. But this promise was to have its full accomplishment in the gospel church, which, as it is the spiritual Israel, and therefore God will not cast it off, so it is the holy city, and therefore all the powers of men shall not pluck it up, nor throw it down. It may lie waste for a time, as Jerusalem did, but shall recover itself, shall weather the storm and gain its point, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Dear Mr Oracio

Jesus does not believe this.

This false replacement doctrine regarding Jesus
and the Jewish people is satanic, They twist and pervert the clear meaning of the scriptures to suit their warped views. Please read the Bible with an unobstructed view as led by the Holy Spirit and not through the lens of these false teachers.

Regards
Carmine

It can refer to them to a degree in a template and a type of events that would find a more exhaustive fulfillment late in history. All the former Rome and Babylonish type of systems find another embodiment at the end of the age in the man of sin and his sytem. Except his system will be more dreadful than all that came before. Revelation can't be seen as entirely past because it portrays the second coming of Christ and the resurrection of the dead.

I am in agreement with you there.

I'm pretty sure that in many quarters the first resurrection in Rev 20:4 is presented as the new birth.

I concede your point of the John 5 passage but what of Christ raising people at the "last day" as He referred to in John 6:44? Wouldn't the last day of this age be when Christ comes again which is simultaneous with all believers being raised including the final martyrs?

Yes, I think I am also in agreement with you there if I understand you correctly. When Christ comes back at the end of this age He will raise the dead physically.

But our difference would be that I believe both the righteous and unrighteous will be raised in the same day as Daniel 12 and John 5 teach. First the dead in Christ will rise and then the rapture as 1 Thess 4 teaches, and then immediately afterward Christ will come back to the earth to punish and destroy the wicked and raise the wicked dead physically and cast them into the lake of fire.

Rev Enue:

You talk as if The Church is a dirty word.

Why is that?

See Eph 5:25.

"Not so. What he does deny is that Christ will come backestablish an earthly kingdom. What we are saying that God's Word clearly teaches in several places that when Christ comes back He will consummate and establish His everlasting kingdom in the new heavens and new earth. We do not deny the bodily return of Christ. That would be blatant and damnable heresy. It's the view of full Preterism." (END)

Christ won't etablish an earthly kingdom but He will come back to rule over a new heavens and a new EARTH which is part of the everlasting kingdom? How is a everlasting kingdom on a NEW EARTH not a earthly spiritual kingdom?

I know there's notable differences between the pre-millennial kingdom as presented and the kingdom which amillennialists portray as occring in the new heavens and new earth. Yet the train of thinking I have picked up is that the amill view many times presently associates anything at all to do with the earthly as anathema. It is often pointed out that Christ said, "My kingdom is not of this world." Therefore, anything remotely associated with the earthly is to be shunned it is said because God's kigdom is heavenly and spiritual only. Yet we see the new heavens and new EARTH coming into play so Christ's everlasting kingdom is set up in an entirely EARTHLY setting in this view. What baffles pre-mill believers is the contradictng notion presented that all of the earthly must be shunned because God's kingdom is spiritual and heavenly yet at the same time they are told Christ presently ruling in heaven will eventually reign forever over a rejuvenated earth.

The Hebrew world view didn't see the earthly as entirely inferior to the heavenly and the spiritual. Both could exist together and the earthly really had its origins in the spiritual inthier thinking. No where did Abraham or any of the patriarchs ever voice the notion that their final destination and destiny was a entirely other wordly place called heaven. They were told they would inherit the earth. So if the Hebrew world view included notions of a rejuvenated earth what does that say to the often repeated mantra that the Hebrews couldn't see beyond the LAND (earth) and their view of an earthly kingdom was just carnal Jewish dreams?

Good morning Oracio. That's just offered as food for thought. I hope you have a good day.

"For the EARTH will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. (Isaiah 11:9)

docs, Good point you make and I would like to add some thoughts to that by reminding us that Jesus said "The meek shall inherit the earth". Why did He not say the meek shall inherit heaven?

I think a reason may be is that God originally made the earth as a habitation for man (Adam) and He said it was good! As we know and experience, Sin destroyed that perfect habitation that God designed for us, so it is a big part of God's plan to restore the paradise lost. The bible from beginning to end presents this theme of God bringing about a restoration of His original creation. I think we can miss this major point. Yes there is also a spiritual reality, but that does not take away the physical. Both are important. I don't think that we will be disembodied spirits floating around for eternity.

It looks like I've been misunderstood in my references to a supposed "earthly, temporary kingdom".

docs, that's a misrepresentation and to use a term you used, a wrong caricature of our position. What you described there is Gnostism which we completely reject as heresy.

What I've meant is that Christ is not coming back to establish a geopolitical kingdom on earth in which He will have forced subjects under His rule until eventually they revolt against Him at the end of that supposed period.

I will post Heydave’s post to make an important point:

docs, Good point you make and I would like to add some thoughts to that by reminding us that Jesus said "The meek shall inherit the earth". Why did He not say the meek shall inherit heaven?

I think a reason may be is that God originally made the earth as a habitation for man (Adam) and He said it was good! As we know and experience, Sin destroyed that perfect habitation that God designed for us, so it is a big part of God's plan to restore the paradise lost. The bible from beginning to end presents this theme of God bringing about a restoration of His original creation. I think we can miss this major point. Yes there is also a spiritual reality, but that does not take away the physical. Both are important. I don't think that we will be disembodied spirits floating around for eternity.

What you have described there we are in total agreement with, except that we believe God's Word applies all of that to the new heavens and new earth in the new creation in the eternal state. Does not the Bible clearly teach that in the eternal state, in the consummation of all things, heaven and earth will come together as a new creation?

"Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. 14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,”-2 Peter 3:13-15

"Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. 2 Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. 4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away." 5 Then He who sat on the throne said, "Behold, I make all things new." And He said to me, "Write, for these words are true and faithful." 6 And He said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts. 7 He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son.”-Revelation 21:1-7

Another point that comes to mind is that the kingdom of God has already been inaugurated and established on this earth through Christ's first coming and through His Church. The kingdom of God is both now and future. Right now it is purely a spiritual kingdom. Christ rules in the hearts and lives of His people through the new birth. Luke 17:20-21 says,
"Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God does not come with observation; 21 nor will they say, 'See here!' or 'See there!' For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you."

Jesus also said in Matthew 12:28, "But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you."

At Christ's second coming the kingdom of God will be eternally consummated. This truth of the present spiritual kingdom of Christ on earth is something most Premillennarians don't readily acknowledge or accept yet the New Testament also makes this truth abundantly clear. But again, we're not speaking of an earthly, geopolitical kingdom or rule but rather a spiritual rule of Christ right now from heaven and in His Church.