| Author |
Message |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 11140
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2010 - 8:43 am: |     |
Ramone, there is disagreement, even among Jewish Christians, about the Prince in Ezekiel. It doesn't necessarily represent Christthe underlying word is closer to "president" than "Prince". Moreover, while I agree that Jesus has fulfilled all the shadows of the Mosaic ceremonies, nevertheless these prophecies are being given to people who still live and understand via "shadows".
That temple does not contain an ark of the covenant. That temple could be a literal place where Christ could reign. If you dismiss Revelation 20, then Ezekiel is greatly problematic. But if Revelation 20 is real, there are ways to understand Ezekiel.
The fulfillments of prophecy have always made sense in the details only in retrospect, never in advance. Prior to the incarnation, Isaiah's 9:6 prophecy would have been completely baffling. In fact, Israel WAS baffled when He came as the complete fulfillment of that...and most of them failed to understand. For sure even believers didn't fully understand until AFTER the resurrection and ascension and Pentecost.
All I'm saying is, we can't dismiss these things because we don't understand. We can't dismiss the physical as well as spiritual redemption and promises God declares. God's will is God's will, and His prophecies are more for our recognition and understanding as things begin to happen than they are for the purpose of giving us details.
Prophecy is for our alertness in advance, not for our documentation of HOW.
Colleen |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 11141
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2010 - 10:09 am: | |
One more thing; I was walking with Richard this morning, talking about this conversation, and he articulated so well what the bottom-line is: we have to be willing to submit ourselves to every word Scripture says.
To say that something is disturbing or "can't mean the obvious" because of whatever reason is to say God's word is conditional, not unconditional. This is the single biggest difference in worldview between Adventism and coming into the life of Christ. We don't have to explain everything; we must believe.
The NT clearly articulates that Jesus is the fulfillment of all the OT shadows. We have to believe that. The OT prophecies, however, were not limited to time before the incarnation. They dealt with time clear up to the Day of the Lord and the New Earth. We can't dismiss them, especially when God explicitly gave the prophets the words.
The most we can do is to hold our analyses lightly. We have to go on submitting to Scripture and learning from it for the rest of our lives. This is why we can't become committed to a theology or a system; those explain in detail what God has not defined in detail. We have to submit to every word of Scripture, whether we understand it or not. If things seem contradictory, we don't dismiss the details; we hold them and ask God to show us how to understand.
The New Covenant is real; it is God's administration for us. The future is yet unseen; we can't be dogmatic about how it will look.
We have to embrace Scripture at face value, even if we don't understand. Where the Bible explains the transfer from old to new covenant, we must go with it. But we must read contextually, and we can't explain away what doesn't make sense. We have to assume God hasn't revealed everything yet and ask Him to keep us alert and submitted to His mind in us (1 Cor 2:16).
Colleen |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 1993
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 16, 2010 - 1:14 am: | |
Okay, let's see if I can't get to some of these things now...
About your last post (11141) --because really this is the meat of the matter-- I am really curious how what you & Richard were talking about does not apply to the Levites, priests, sacrifices, shadows, and so on in Ezekiel, Isaiah, Zechariah, and every other place where you've dispensationally talked about God "fulfilling His promises to Israel".
I.e., if you're going to make the "temple" and "Jerusalem" literal, then you need to submit to your own hermeneutic and admit that God is going to reign from Jerusalem and make the nations keep the Feast of Tabernacles, Sabbaths, New Moons, and present sacrifices. And that God is going to have literal priests and Levites serving there again.
If these things don't mean what they clearly say, then God's word is conditional, not unconditional, as you and Richard said. We can't dismiss these prophecies. We have to embrace these Scriptures at face value, even if we don't understand. We can't explain away what doesn't make sense. Etc.
Yes, the New Testament says that shadows are fulfilled in Christ. But it doesn't say that Levites were shadows. And as I've noted here several times, the New Testament talks clearly about a "new Jerusalem" and "Mount Zion" being above. But as you've learned from Gary and agreed with, the prophecies in the Old Testament clearly refer to the literal, earthly Jerusalem and literal, earthly Zion. The Old Testament prophecies must refer to earthly Jerusalem, Zion and "Israel" or else God is not being faithful to His promises, because God's faithfulness depends on literal Israel and Jerusalem. And though Revelation says that the city will have no temple (because the Lamb is its temple), as Gary said the temple of Ezekiel will be built. Sure, we could try to worm out of it by saying they're two different temples, but the descriptions of the river coming out and the Lord being there are pretty obviously talking about the same thing. But the bottom line is that no matter what the New Testament says about these things, the very letter of the Old Testament prophecies must be fulfilled, or else God is not faithful. The nations can all look forward to keeping the Feast of Tabernacles or else they will literally have no rain (Zech.14), etc.
On the same note, though, since the New Testament says that believers in Christ worshiping by Spirit and truth are the circumcision, that we who were baptized into Him are Abraham's heirs, and we are citizens with God's people, then we could say that God has not fulfilled His promises because we--the circumcised heirs of Abraham--have not been restored to the land of Israel as per the interpretation of the "dry bones" that you learned from Gary. Since we are offspring & heirs of Abraham and we are fellow citizens with God's people, then Ezekiel's promise to bring Israel back to the land and have them live there must also include us. If we say that the "dry bones" were fulfilled with 1948 newspaper exegesis, then it doesn't make sense to put our inheritance of the land of Israel into the future millennium or whatever. If it was fulfilled when "Israel" went back there, and we are Abraham's heirs today (not merely in the future), then God has not been faithful to His word to include us in Christ on the fulfillment of His promises to Israel.
(Oops, kids woke up... back to the home!)
(Message edited by agapetos on April 16, 2010) |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 1994
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 16, 2010 - 2:14 am: | |
Hmm... as I'm doing things around the house here, there is a song that comes into my heart through the Spirit: Come, we that love the Lord,
And let our joys be known;
Join in a song with sweet accord,
Join in a song with sweet accord
And thus surround the throne,
And thus surround the throne.
Wefre marching to Zion,
Beautiful, beautiful Zion;
Wefre marching upward to Zion,
The beautiful city of God.
The hill of Zion yields
A thousand sacred sweets
Before we reach the heavfnly fields,
Before we reach the heavfnly fields,
Or walk the golden streets,
Or walk the golden streets.
Then let our songs abound,
And every tear be dry;
Wefre marching through Immanuelfs ground,
Wefre marching through Immanuelfs ground,
To fairer worlds on high,
To fairer worlds on high.
- Isaac Watts Really, the conversation here is going in circles and highly resembles Adventist-to-Former-Adventist conversation. I want to try and reply to the replies you'd shared to my questions, Colleen, but I know that you've chosen to accept what Gary's taught even though it requires the same kind of one-eye-closed reading that we had practiced in Adventism. Like you, I write this here not to convince you but for the sake of others here. My spirit grieves to see people come out of Adventism and turn to Catholicism, letting the Vatican's interpretations take the place of EGW. In the same way my spirit grieves when people who had once learned the New Covenant are taught that the NC must submit to the literal reading of the Old Testament letter in the prophets.
Especially when the New Testament is so clear on the matter. It is truly only a spiritaul veil which can make these things unclear. The promises you've talked about that were "for Israel" were all given to Abraham first, and the New Testament declares that his inheritance is heavenly. The book of Hebrews writes to Jews that "here we do not have an enduring city" and calls them "to Zion" in the New Jerusalem. What is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal. The promises given to Abraham and his descendants (including us) are to give us an enduring inheritance. The restoration of the inheritance to Israel is blatantly spoken of as being a heavenly inheritance in the New Testament. For the heavenly is eternal and is the real of the real; the earthly was but a shadow of what is to come.
This might seem like minor things, but it is not safe to practice such an inconsistent hermeneutic as dispensationalism which literalizes so arbitrarily and is founded on the separation of Israel and the church (not Israel and Gentiles culturally, but Israel and the church -- contradicting Scripture which says there is one body). Dispensationalism is simply the result of seeing through an Old Testament veil, and some of its fruits are things like Christian Zionism and the pre-trib rapture idea (which ignores the three clear scriptures at the beginning of this thread). The fruits are sadly very visible to unbelievers in the world with the way Christians unconditionally support Israel and even issue condemnation on people who suggest letting Palestinians have their own state in the land. Unbelievers can see the bad fruit (and Palestinian Christians can see it, too). Even the mildest dispensationalists check their tongue before they speak about Israel and hesitate to question the absoluteness of 1948 being a "fulfillment of God's promises". There is a subtle fear behind these things, a fear of "speaking against God's people", or at the very least a fear of disagreeing with the mainstream teaching (even though it's only 200 years old and arose in an era with heresies like Adventism -- similar hermeneutics are probably not conicidental).
There is simply an easier way. Let the New Testament have the final word. Let Zion be Zion, and look toward the New Jerusalem instead of forcing things to fit the Old. The shadows are fulfilled, and it is only a spiritual veil that keeps us from realizing that the city & land in the Old Testament were also shadows of the eternal, heavenly reality. Once you see this, the fear melts away. The fear of saying the wrong thing about "God's people" melts away. Instead you can consistently preach that we must all love our neighbors, and no one is favorites with God. And once you see this, you find that your "home" is in Christ all the more.
Blessings to you & all here in Jesus,
Ramone |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 3218
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 16, 2010 - 12:20 pm: | |
quote:Yes, the New Testament says that shadows are fulfilled in Christ. But it doesn't say that Levites were shadows.
Hebrews 10:1 says that the entire Law was a shadow of Christ.
Jeremy |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 1949
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Friday, April 16, 2010 - 2:37 pm: | |
Dispensationalism, endorsed by a Scottish teenage visionary and thereby further emboldening a confused John Darby, is akin to the nineteenth century Millerism/Adventism with its own teenage visionary. They are collectively trying to tell us that all the theologians, reformers, and Bible students were totally wrong for eighteen long centuries. Apparently, with such young girls (Margaret MacDonald, Ellen White, and many others) visioning, biblical truth finally arrived in the nineteenth century.
If the sign gifts did not end in the first century to authenticate the Church, then we would see instant healings from serious disease and many resurrected from the dead on an ongoing basis in every community today. Not even the most charismatic preacher has the courage to pray for a coffin resurrection at a funeral. Since the biblical canon is now closed, we no longer need the sign gifts that unbelievers frequented requested. The Bible is now the voice of authority for Christ-followers.
From the infallibility of the Pope and Darwinian theory to Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormonism, the nineteenth century was a serious assault upon biblical Christianity. It is my studied conclusion that we are all wrong about eschatology. If God really wanted us to know the exact details of last-day events, He would have made it as clear as the Gospel. God has given us a mere glimpse of the future to further appreciate His saving grace and to create a greater doxology for His elect.
Dennis Fischer |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 11146
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 16, 2010 - 3:44 pm: | |
Dennis said,
quote:From the infallibility of the Pope and Darwinian theory to Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormonism, the nineteenth century was a serious assault upon biblical Christianity. It is my studied conclusion that we are all wrong about eschatology. If God really wanted us to know the exact details of last-day events, He would have made it as clear as the Gospel. God has given us a mere glimpse of the future to further appreciate His saving grace and to create a greater doxology for His elect.
I completely agree, Dennis. In fact, this has been my point. We don't know how it will look!! We will really know for sure only when it happens. We really can't be certain that events will be a certain way when there are plenty of NT texts that cannot be explained by any one theory.
And Ramone, you said this:
quote:This might seem like minor things, but it is not safe to practice such an inconsistent hermeneutic as dispensationalism which literalizes so arbitrarily and is founded on the separation of Israel and the church (not Israel and Gentiles culturally, but Israel and the church -- contradicting Scripture which says there is one body). Dispensationalism is simply the result of seeing through an Old Testament veil, and some of its fruits are things like Christian Zionism and the pre-trib rapture idea (which ignores the three clear scriptures at the beginning of this thread). The fruits are sadly very visible to unbelievers in the world with the way Christians unconditionally support Israel and even issue condemnation on people who suggest letting Palestinians have their own state in the land. Unbelievers can see the bad fruit (and Palestinian Christians can see it, too). Even the mildest dispensationalists check their tongue before they speak about Israel and hesitate to question the absoluteness of 1948 being a "fulfillment of God's promises". There is a subtle fear behind these things, a fear of "speaking against God's people", or at the very least a fear of disagreeing with the mainstream teaching (even though it's only 200 years old and arose in an era with heresies like Adventism -- similar hermeneutics are probably not conicidental).
Ramone, I am not a "dispensationalist". I do not subscribe even to the schematic of modified dispensationalism. I do see, though, that we can read the OT and find clear prophecies of the New Earthwhich are not yet fulfilled. I can also see OT prophecies that sound a lot like Revelation 20and the new covenant does not change what those prophecies mean. The new covenant is now; the kingdom of God is the "already-but-not-yet" kingdom. It is physical as well as spiritual. If it were not, there would be no need for our resurrection. Our spirits could inherit eternal life, and that would be enough.
Seeing that God has (according to Romans 11) a separate timetable for "fulfilling" Israel's story (Rom 11:11-32) in no way means He has two separate people; He has only one body. But to say there is no more literal difference between the physical reality and the timing of God's grafting in of the Gentiles and the Jews would be the same as to say there is now no difference between men and women.
After all, Galatians 3:28 says,
quote:There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
I don't know any Christian of any stripe who would argue that this verse means the distinction between men and women is now null and void. Salvation and access to God directly is the same for all; yet, regardless of what a person may think of men's and women's roles in the church, people who take the Bible seriously would still say homosexual marriage is not God's will.
We have no trouble seeing that men and women are different and even have different God-given roles in the new covenant, yet we have trouble seeing that God is still dealing with Jews and Gentiles on different time tables and will still do things He promised. And all this without denying those promises to ANY of His people. If Christ reigns from Jerusalem, that isn't a "Jewish" issue. It will include His whole body. All those who are in Christ will be part of that kingdom.
The issue of Zionism can't be what determines whether or not the Bible means what the Bible says...and I'm referring primarily now to Romans and Revelation, because these are the books that I can't ignore, written as they were by new covenant apostles. These books are the ones that give me pause and make me rethink the clearly-unfulfilled prophecies for the future in the OT.
Zionism isn't God's fulfillment. Yet even the godless state of modern Israel can't be ignored any more than we can ignore the significance of the dismantling of the Soviet Union or the development of the European Unionsince Acts 17 says that God determines the times and places for each person and each nation.
We really can't decide that the words Paul wrote or the words John wrote don't mean what they say just because we disagree with dispensationalism. The words mean what they say...even if we aren't clear exactly how they will look.
Colleen |
Animal
Registered user
Username: Animal
Post Number: 790
Registered: 7-2008
| | Posted on Friday, April 16, 2010 - 4:27 pm: | |
AMEN Colleen !!!!!!
Animal....accept the Bible for what it says...not what you want it to say !! |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 11147
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2010 - 1:16 pm: | |
I just want to follow up with a quote. Since I've mentioned Gary Inrig in this conversation and his position has been discussed, I thought he should be able to speak for himself. Here is his response to the question of Israel and how it fits into Christian history and the future:
quote:1. The connection of the issue with dispensationalism is a red herring. While dispensationalists certainly believe in a restoration of national Israel, the idea certainly didn't originate with them. Postmillennialists such as Jonathan Edwards were speaking of such a thing a hundred years before. Premillennialism has a far more ancient
heritage than that.
2. The entire issue is tinged with a sad history of anti-Semitism on the part of the Christian church, that has roots back into the early church. The Jewish rejection of Christ, the Jewish revolt in the second century and the desire of early Christians to distance themselves from the Jewish people led to a spiritualizing and de-Judaizing of the Biblical record. Sadly, this led to replacement theology and a "supercessionist" viewpoint (the church gets Israel's blessings; they get to keep the curses) which bedeviled "Christian" theology down through the centuries. Much of what by Christians to Jews was utterly shameful.
3. The modern secular nation of Israel remains in a state of unbelief and rebellion against God, just as the United States, Canada and all nations do. The time of national salvation has not come. That means that Christians cannot and ought not mindlessly defend Israel's actions. But the reemergence of the nation after 1900 years of dispersion is a remarkable event, especially in the light of OT promises, that it is foolish to deny.
4. It is well and good to be suspicious of the "novel" [i.e., recent emergence of an idea such as Dispensationalism]. However, the
ultimate question must be, Is it Biblical? After all, some of those who most ardently profess the novelty of dispensationalism ardently defend the Reformation or Reformed theology, which are only 250 years earlier. The fact is, as James Orr showed in a book called The Progress of Dogma, certainly issues have come to the forefront in Christian history at different points in history. So the deity of Christ and the Trinity were of central importance in the early centuries, and then concern shifted
to the nature of the person of Christ (what did it mean that he was God and man). Issues of the nature of the church formed the next period (with sad conclusions), and soteriology came to the fore during the Reformation. Eschatology wasn't on the front burners for most until the 18th and 19th centuries.
Very helpful, I thought.
Colleen |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 1956
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2010 - 3:15 pm: | |
Reformed theology did not originate from the Protestant Reformation, but rather parallels Augustinianism in basic Christian dogma. Indeed, Charles Spurgeon summed it up clearly: "It is a nickname to call it Calvinism. Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."
Dennis Fischer |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 11149
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2010 - 4:13 pm: | |
Dennis, it's true that the biblical teaching of justification by faith and the gospel of our depravity and salvation by God's gracious choice is as old as the apostles. You are right; that did not originate with the Reformation but was, rather, "re-taught" after centuries of being eclipsed by the Catholic perversions of it.
What Gary was referring to was exactly the phenomenon that God shone the light on the truth about how we are saved through the reformers. The irony Gary is pointing out is that some of dispensationalism's strongest defenders are those who are outspoken in defending "Reformation theology". The traditional position of people who are "reformed" is some form of amilliennialsim or preterism...but Gary is saying that many outspoken defenders of justification by faith as taught by Reformation theology also strongly defend dispensationalism.
Interesting irony...
Colleen |
Cindy
Registered user
Username: Cindy
Post Number: 831
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2010 - 8:09 pm: | |
Interesting discussion...there's so much to contemplate!
Ramone,
I have so loved many of Isaac Watts' hymns! He has a primary focus on the Cross of Christ and the realities Jesus has ushered in for us.
I believe we truly do live NOW in the new aeon of freedom from the power/dominion of Death, of Sin, of the Law, and of the Wrath of God being poured out on us.
We are now, instead... because of Jesus!... in the dominion and age of LIFE, of RIGHTEOUSNESS, of GRACE, and of the LOVE OF GOD being poured out on us who are included in Christ.
This spiritual realization for me resonates with your own words above: "and once you see this, you find that your 'home' is in Christ all the more."
grace,
cindy |
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob
Post Number: 551
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2010 - 11:35 pm: | |
quote:The entire issue is tinged with a sad history of anti-Semitism on the part of the Christian church, that has roots back into the early church. The Jewish rejection of Christ, the Jewish revolt in the second century and the desire of early Christians to distance themselves from the Jewish people led to a spiritualizing and de-Judaizing of the Biblical record. Sadly, this led to replacement theology and a "supercessionist" viewpoint (the church gets Israel's blessings; they get to keep the curses) which bedeviled "Christian" theology down through the centuries. Much of what by Christians to Jews was utterly shameful.
Is it permitted on this forum to give a reply to this serious charge?
Until this point I tried to keep myself away from this friendly debate but I think that this association of the ammilenial view with anti-semitism is a serious charge that needs to be answered. I have in mind writing a post in which I'll try to track the history and the role of Israel in the God's developing plan of salvation with respect to the covenants and the conditional/unconditional aspects of the covenants.
Gabriel |
Raven
Registered user
Username: Raven
Post Number: 1123
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2010 - 3:50 am: | |
All I know is that God Himself decided Israel was "done" when the entire system was destroyed through the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Whatever God's ultimate promises to Israel look like "after the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled," can't possibly mean reinstatement of Old Covenant shadows.
Jackob, I will be interested in reading your post. |
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob
Post Number: 552
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2010 - 10:03 am: | |
Ok, friends, I'll start by formulating the thesis which I'll back up afterwards with biblical content.
The basic thesis which I'm going to argue is that while Israel as a nation was not rejected by God and share in the promises to Abraham (Romans 11:1), the typological role of Israel has ceased after Christ's coming, precisely at the 70 AD, when the final typological curses related with the mosaic covenant came on the nation. If we keep these two levels in our mind, the typological level and the level of the reality toward which the types and shadows pointed as the true fulfillment of God's promises to Israel, we will not become anti-semitic or zionists.
In order to unpack this loaded understanding of the history of redemption, the first point to be established is that Israel itself, as a nation, was a type of Christ. Jesus Christ was forced at a very early age to run from Herod to Egypt, and we are told that this happened in order for the following prophecy to be fulfilled: "Out of Egypt I called my son." (Matthew 2:15). Matthew is quoting Hosea 11:1 which says "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son." Israel as a son of God is a type of Jesus the Son of God, and the history of Israel, what happened with Israel is a type of Christ.
This is no mistake, because the events from Jesus life are typological in nature, there is a pattern that the life of Jesus had followed that connected him with Israe's past and projected in the people's minds the idea that the old prophecies about a new Moses, a new Exodus, a new possession of the land of Canaan were going to be fulfilled by Jesus. There are many parallels, for example, Jesus escapes death in a similar way Moses escapes death: in both cases, the king orders children to be killed, pharaoh in Moses'case, Herod in Jesus'. But both Moses and Jesus are miraculously saved. Next after Jesus goes to Egypt and comes back, this is connected by Matthew with the exodus. And the identification at the typological level with Israel doesn't end here: Jesus is baptized at the Jordan river closely to the place where Israel under Moses entered into Canaan to take it into possession, symbolizing the fact that Jesus is going to lead his people in the land, acting as both Moses and Israel at the same time. Also Jesus spends 40 days in wilderness as Israel spent 40 years in wilderness, just this time Jesus gains victory with Satan instead of failing to do so as Israel did. There are other streams of prophecy related to Jesus but it is no space to track them. It's sufficient to get it at this moment that Jesus is the new Moses, the prophet about which Moses spoke, and also the new Israel, recapitulating the history of Israel and winning the battles that Israel lost.
I'll come back later to the way in which the typological scheme unfolds in Christ's life, but now I'll go back to the original promise to Abraham that his descendants will possess the land of Canaan. It's important to notice that Abraham himself understood that this promise has the two levels, that his descendants will possess the land of Canaan but that the ultimate fulfillment of this promise was the heavenly city and land (Hebrews 11:8-13) for which the earthly land of Canaan was a type and shadow, it was a typological fulfillment pointing forward and upward for the ultimate fulfillment. This view is reinforced by Romans 4:13: "For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith" There is no promise to Abraham recorded in the OT about Abraham inheriting the world, the only promise related with inheritance for Abraham is the little land of Canaan. It follows that the promise to inherit the land of Canaan has in focus also much more than the land itself which is only the typological fulfillment.
Beside this, the promise to Abraham was that all nations will be blessed in his offspring (Galatians 3:8, Genesis 12:3). This is presented as a case of the Bible foreshadowing the inclusion of the gentiles in this blessing, and this blessing refers to justification by faith. Another detail is that not only the land refers to the world and goes far beyond a little piece of land in Middle East, but the offspring is identified with Christ (Galatians 3:16)
All these things do not mean simply that the promise had not an earthly fulfillment, just that this earthly fulfillment is not the final stop, it's just a typological and imperfect fulfillment pointing forward to the real and final fulfillment, the goal of the promise. This ultimate fulfillment is mediated through the typological fulfillments related to the nation Israel (Abraham's offspring)which is the type of Christ (THE singular offspring), and to the land of Palestine which is the type of the world possessed when the heavenly kingdom will become a reality.
The question is if the promise to Abraham is unconditional or conditional. The promise was both unconditional and conditional, but not in the same sense. For example, it was unconditional because when God made the covenant with Abraham, instead of both parties walking in the middle of the animals cut in two, God put Abraham to sleep and walked alone through the animals, symbolizing by this act that this covenant is an unilateral promise, God standing alone behind his promises, Abraham being out of sight. I don&'t have time to develop the imagery at this point, sufficient to say that this unilateral promise stands in contrast with what happened at Sinai.
At Sinai God erects a covenant which is ratified not by himself but by the people. They said "All that God commanded we will do", they ratified the covenant with their promise, their oath. While with Abraham God is the single one taking the oath of ratification, in the Sinaitic covenant the people take the oath. Why?
The error of the judaizers in Galatia was to think that the covenant with Abraham and the covenant at Sinai were successive covenants in which the second replaces the first. The truth is that the law, this covenant at Sinai, cannot annul the covenant of promise, the one sided covenant with Abraham, rather it had a different purpose. It doesn't make God's unconditional promise conditional on man's ability to keep his part of the covenant.
There are many things that can be said at this point, but my focus is on the rationality for the curse/blessings found in the covenant, the conditionality of it on obedience. These things point to the role Jesus was going to fulfill in order to redeem the people and gain the inheritance for them. Israel's tenure in the land was conditional on their obedience. If they would obey, they will possess the land, if they will disobey, they will lose the land. In fact, the last thing happened and they had gone into exile in Babylon. These things pointed forward to the reality of the fact that Jesus was going to be obedient to the law in place of Israel and also suffer the curses for Israel's disobedience and in this way he will gain for them their eternal inheritance.
But it is very important to keep in mind that what Jesus was going to do as Israel is at the level of ultimate fulfillment, not at the typological level. At the typological level, Israel was going to suffer the sanctions of the covenant of Sinai. Because they had not kept the covenant, they were going to lose the country again. In fact, they were not in the possession of the land of Canaan, the land was under Roman rule at the time of Jesus. They hoped that Messiah will restore to them this possession, but Jesus came to gain for them the eternal possession of the heavenly Jerusalem toward which the earthly land was just the type.
Nevertheless, it's interesting to see the parallel between what happened at the typological level and at the fulfillment level. What's striking is how Jesus' suffering the curse of the law, the real curse for sin, is in parallel with Israel suffering the typological curse of the law. God's judgment for sins of Israel had fallen on Jesus, while at the same time Israel, at the typological level, received the curses of the covenant. Many times prophets warned people that they will receive the curses of the covenant for their disobedience. And in the final week when Jesus was on earth, he presented Himself as being the last one of these messengers and if his message was to be rejected, the inheritance will be lost.
Remember, John the Baptist, when he announced the nearness of the kingdom said that the axe is already laid at the root of the trees and the trees that are not producing good fruit are going to be cut. Jesus also told a parable in which a fig tree was given one more year to bring fruit before being cut. In the Passion Week the parables used by Jesus to point to the fact that Israel was going to receive the curses of the covenant are multiple.
First, he curses the fig tree (Matt. 21:19) which connects with the parable of the fig tree which has been given one year before being cut. Next Jesus tells the parable of the wicked tenants in which perhaps the image is amazing: the tenants kill the son in order to inherit the vineyard, and as consequence, they are going to be killed and the vineyard given to somebody else. Jesus presents himself as the son of the owner who was going to be killed and concludes
"Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits"(Matthew 21:43)
Well, the nation of Israel did what it did. They killed the Messiah, and as the parable said, the kingdom of God was taken away from them and given to another people. But keep in mind that this is just the typological level, not the fulfillment level toward which the typological pointed, the superior level.
Next comes the speaches against the leaders of the nation:
"Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
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 would not! See, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you,you will not see me again, until you say "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord." (Matt. 23:32-38)
The things are clear: the house is left desolate, all the blood of the prophets Israel shed will come upon this generation, they fill up the measure of their fathers.
And in the next chapter, in order to be no mistake about this, Jesus shows how the house is left desolate, how the curses of the covenant fall on the nation and on the earthly Jerusalem, how these things happen on "this generation", as he said previously. Also he connects Jerusalem's destruction with the end of the world, making this typological curse the type for the ultimate curse on the world, the final curse. Obviously it is the final typological curse, too. Nothing typological will happen after this.
When Jesus died, when the curse had fallen on him, the Jesusalem's temple was also cursed, when the curtain temple was cut in two, the temple became unclean. It will be erased entirely in 70 AD to make sure that no prophecy related to its existence will be fulfilled.
Now, keep in mind that here we are speaking about the typological level about Israel. Practically at this level the nation Israel came full circle: it filled up the wickedness of its parents, it went to the place of no return, the events around 70 AD constitute the type of final judgment! The kingdom of God was taken from them, in the typological sense. There is no relation at the typological level between the kingdom of God and the nation of Israel, Jerusalem temple and possession of land.
But, and here is the big BUT, at the level of God's fulfillment of his promise, Israel is fully the basis of connected with God's kingdom. Why? Because Israel gained the blessings of the covenant! A jew, Jesus, acting in the place of Israel, the new Israel, obeyed the law perfectly, took upon himself the curse of the covenant and gained the inheritance of the heavenly Jerusalem, the world promised to Abraham which is the earth renewed, and through Him God's promise to Israel is fulfilled.
At the level of promise there is nothing as replacement theology. The church is built on the prophets and apostles which are all Jews. Christ who is the cornerstone is jew and the rest of the foundation, the twelve apostles who constitute the foundation of the heavenly Jerusalem, all are Jews!
The point of Romans 11 is to present Israel as a tree in which some unnatural branches are implanted, gentiles. The tree is as jewish as it possible can be, the root remains jewish, the natural branches are the jews, the unnatural branches are the gentiles. They will always be unnatural branches, because the natural tree is formed by ethnic jews. These distinctions are clear enough and I believe that at the end time many jews will come to faith in Christ. But this is not my point.
My point is that the olive tree is not cut in order to be replaced with a wild olive tree, it's not the church replacing the ethnic Israel, rather it is Israel which is enlarged in order to include in it unnatural branches, gentiles, people from wild olive tree. The church is Israel in a new dimension under a better covenant, Israel in time of the fulfillment in contrast with Israel in the time of shadows. We, the gentiles, are brought into contact with Israel, and made partakers of the promises made to Israel through Christ, to the degree that we are even called "a chosen race, a royal priesthood" and more important "a holy nation"(1 Peter 2:9). All these titles which Israel shared are now applied to the church, which had not replaced Israel, but it's Israel enlarged. The church is a "nation" , "Israel of God" as it is called by Paul in the last chapter of Galatians.
Regarding the promises to David, read the report of the Jerusalem's council in Acts 15 in order to see how James places the restoration of the throne of David as being fulfilled by the coming of the gentiles to Christ, the Son of David. He sees already the promises to David as being fulfilled by the conversion of gentiles. Romans 11 presents a similar picture but this time in regard to ethnic jews
So there is no anti-semitic sentiment that draws the interpreters to the conclusion that the nation Israel will never be again in the same place as it was in the past because its typological role had been fulfilled, it came full circle to the final judgment, but Jesus himself predicted this especially in his last week before crucifiction. And also there is not a negation of the unconditionality of God's promise to Israel because they are yes in Jesus, a jew, Abraham offspring to whom the promise was made and who inherited for Israel the promised land by his obedience and by his suffering. Both the curses and the blessings for Israel can be affirmed when the two levels, typological and the fulfillment level are kept in side. And of course, the fulfillment level is more important than the typological level. I can't see how anti-semitic somebody can be when he looks at Israel from this perspective.
Gabriel |
Christo
Registered user
Username: Christo
Post Number: 220
Registered: 2-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2010 - 11:43 am: | |
Thank you Gabriel,
Chris |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 1958
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2010 - 7:04 pm: | |
Well stated, Gabriel. To speculate that the temple and its rituals (shadows) will be restored someday is beyond Scripture. For serious Bible students, I heartily recommend the following classic books entitled, "The Temple: Its Ministry and Services" by Alfred Edersheim, and "Josephus: The Essential Works" edited and condensed by Paul L. Maier (Lutheran Professor of Ancient History).
Next to the Bible in importance, the works of Jewish historian Flavius Josephus are the most authoritative ancient source for illuminating the people, places, and events recorded in the Old and New Testaments. Born in Jerusalem only four years after Jesus' crucifixion, Josephus was a eye-witness to much of the reported in the first century A. D. Don't miss reading the chapters titled, "Titus Besieges the City," "Horrors At Jerusalem," and "The Destruction of Temple and City." Clearly, God's message to the Jews was like saying "Folks, it's over!" The incredible sufferings of the Jews is partially depicted as follows: WARNING: Not recommended as a bedtime story.
quote:In the meantime, countless thousands of Jews died of hunger. In every house where was the least morsel of food, relatives fought over it. Gaping with hunger, the outlaws prowled around like mad dogs, gnawing at anything: belts, shoes, and even the leather from their shields. Others devoured wisps of hay, and then there was the incredible horror of Mary of Bethezuba. Distinguished in family and fortune, Mary fled to Jerusalem from Perea, but her property had been plundered by the tyrants during the siege, and her food by the daily raids of their followers. Maddened by hunger, she seized the infant at her breast and said, "Poor baby, why should I preserve you for war, famine, and rebellion? Come, be my food--vengeance against the rebels, and the climax of Jewish tragedy for the world." With that, she killed her infant son, roasted his body, and devoured half of it, hiding the reminder.
Instantly the rebels arrived, sniffing the unholy smell and threatening her with death if she did not produce what had been prepared. She had reserved a fine portion for them too, she replied, uncovering the remnants of her baby. They stood paralyzed with horror. "This is my child and my action. Don't be weaker than a woman or compassionate than a mother! But if you're squeamish and disapprove of my sacrifice, then leave the rest for me." They left trembling, and the whole city rocked with this abomination, while the Romans were horrified, and Caesar declared himself innocent of this crime in the sight of God. He swore, however, to bury this atrocity of infant cannibalism beneath the ruins of the country...
Famine now raged in the city, and the rebels took all the food they could find in a house-to-house search, while the poor starved to death by the thousands. People gave all their wealth for a little measure of wheat, and hid to eat it hastily and in secret so it would not be taken from them. Wives would snatch the food from their husbands, children from fathers, and mothers from the very mouths of infants. Many of the rich were put to death by Simon and John, while the sufferings of the people were so fearful that they can hardly be told, and no other city ever endured such miseries. Not since the world began was there ever a generation more prolific in crime than this bastard scum of the nation who destroyed the city...A measure of wheat now sold for a talent, and when it was no longer possible to gather herbs after the city was walled in, some searched the sewers for offal or ate old cow dung.
It is no wonder that Jesus lamented over the pending destruction of Jerusalem and its inhabitants in 70 AD. "Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down" (Matt. 24:2 ESV). The ritual mandates of the Old Covenant could no longer be practiced in the very heart of Judaism.
Dennis Fischer |
Cindy
Registered user
Username: Cindy
Post Number: 832
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2010 - 8:51 pm: | |
Thanks, Gabriel...
For taking the time to put in writing my thoughts also. I appreciate your words.
I love the reality of Jesus being the new Israel... and of us, IN CHRIST, as the church...and, as you say, Israel enlarged.
I'm overwhelmed in seeing always that all the Promises of God are YES in Jesus Christ! (a Jew!)
grace,
cindy |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 11152
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2010 - 11:51 pm: | |
Gabriel, what you are describing is not replacement theology. You are right that the description of the olive tree being supported by the patriarchal rootthat the olive tree is not "gentile" but Jewish with wild olives grafted in and sharing in the rich root of the treethis view is not an anti-semitic view.
The fact of which most of modern Christianity has lost sight is that many of the the patristic fathers and even, to a less severe degree, Augustine and even some of the reformers did see Jews as being completely replaced as God's people by the church.
Classic "replacement theology" really is based on teachings and writings most people don't know about that established a strong anti-Jewish sentiment that caused Christians to consider themselves the "new Israel" and, in fact, fueled much of the atrocities of the Crusades.
An interesting book which I've started but have not yet finished that looks at the history of replacement theology and what has driven its development is Future Israel by Barry E. Horner. I've learned a lot I just didn't know anything about. The things many of the very early churchmen wrote about Israel is as shocking as the equally-little-known things some of them wrote about women.
That being said, I don't believe there will ever be a God-ordained restoration of Mosaic shadows. They have been fulfilled! And as for Ezekiel's temple, while it certainly does seem that it will yet be built, it will not, in spite of the references to sacrifices and priests, be the same as the rituals in the OT. I believe this first of all because Jesus has come, and the new covenant is here.
Second, the fact that Ezekiel's temple does not contain the ark of the covenant but has the glory of God in the most holy place signifies that none of the worship at the temple will be "shadows", because the "shadows" were the Law--and the Law was in the ark.
The fact that Ezekiel's temple will have the glory of God in the Most Holy Place but without the ark of the covenant certainly sounds pretty "new covenant" to me.
I have no idea how this will play out or look; but the lack of the ark of the covenant means Ezekiel's temple will not be based on the Mosaic law. What Ezekiel said about the shadows of sacrifices and priests will likely be realized in new terms that reflect Jesus. He is the glory of God, and it's possible He is Who will be in that temple, with worship occurring that reflects His finished work.
Just as we now look back and understand Isaiah's shadows of Sabbath as true rest in Christ, I suspect much of Ezekiel's descriptions will look different because the fulfillments of those prophecies will be on this side of the cross.
I see the fact that Revelation contains a description about the millennium on earth before the eradication of sin to be perhaps the biggest paradigm shift for many of us. If that is true (and the Bible clearly describes it), it makes many of the enigmatic OT prophecies look different.
Colleen |
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob
Post Number: 553
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2010 - 2:31 pm: | |
Chris, Dennis, Cindy, thanks for your kind words. I really appreciate them because I see that my work was not in vain. It was a pretty big task to present this overview.
Colleen, I'm glad my view is not perceived by you as anti-semitic. I was accustomed with dispensationalists painting with the broad brush, I think, who classified my position as anti-semitic. I confess I don't know what you are talking about when you speak about replacement theology, but I'm glad you're not thinking about me as sustaining a position fueled by anti-semitic sentiments. While I think differences at the level of eschatology may be held by Christians without creating divisions between them, looking to those who differ with you as potential anti-semitic advocates is disturbing for those involved and begs for clarifications.
Gabriel |
Raven
Registered user
Username: Raven
Post Number: 1124
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2010 - 6:28 pm: | |
Thanks for the clear explanation, Gabriel! I agree as well. |
Lifeanew
Registered user
Username: Lifeanew
Post Number: 233
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - 4:02 am: | |
Thank you all for this amazing discussion. You have no idea how much many of us reading on this forum needed to hear this and continure to learn.
Praise Him,
Jan |
River
Registered user
Username: River
Post Number: 6186
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - 7:39 am: | |
Gabriel,
I guess I missed your post, but went looking for Lifeanew (Jan) and found it.
Excellent!
River |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 2000
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - 12:54 am: | |
Wow... a lot to catch up on. Not sure if I'll be able to! We just moved to a new apartment and will be without internet probably for two or three weeks. Which is good because I really ought to devote time to unpacking boxes.
But speaking of "unpacking" things, wow! I looked at Ezekiel the last time I thought about this conversation and you know, the dispensational viewpoint (the millenial temple theory) basically takes literally ONLY the word "temple" and ignores almost everything else! One can believe that view so long as one doesn't actually read the passage and grapple with what it says, but takes one or two words and hangs on just those. It's like taking the word "Sabbath" out of Hebrews 4 and saying, "See, we need to keep Sabbath!" The Millenial Temple theory ignores the entire context and surrounding words of the passage. It even ignores the whole purpose of the "temple" itself! Shoot, the passage starts out describing rooms in the temple for preparing sacrifices! It talks about Levites and priests! It says only the priests may "approach the Lord"! It is a complete picture of an OLD COVENANT temple, start to finish. The only people who may approach "the Lord" in that temple are descendants of Zadok. The entire plan --every part of it-- is one that portrays life under the Old Covenant. Even the prince (the son of David) is under the Old Covenant and must make sacrifices for his sin and keep holy days and festivals.
The attempt to mesh the end of Ezekiel with the end of Revelation just doesn't hold up under any serious reading of Scripture, UNLESS people are going to return to the Old Covenant sacrifices, priests, restrictions, holy days, etc. The purpose of the temple institution was to show us the truth of heavenly things -- of what Christ's sacrifice accomplished for us and that He is our permanent High Priest. The physical "temple" has been fulfilled. The new temple is BELIEVERS. Ezekiel's passage was a design given for the exiles who returned from captivity, and was conditional on their repentance from their sin [see 43:9-11] (note: The absence of the ark is not significant since the exiles went into and returned from captivity without the ark). The Ezekielian temple was not an unconditional promise nor was it something that described the coming of the New Covenant.
The "Ezekielian millenial temple" theory may seem like a convenient explanation of end times things when one is trying to maintain or defend dispensational paradigms. But there is no consistent hermeneutic or logic to the theory at all. It's about as arbitrary as anything in Adventism. There are a lot of other things to reply to which I left hanging here, but the Ezekielian Temple theory is just easier to focus on because it is probably one of the most embarassing examples of flagarant disregard for consistent Biblical hermeneutics in the modern-day church. If dispensationalism didn't need to have its faulty bases defended, the millenial temple theory would probably not exist at all.
Okay, jumping offline again to continue unpacking.
Blessings to all in Jesus--hermeneutical or not!
Ramone
(Message edited by agapetos on May 12, 2010) |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 1972
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - 5:53 pm: | |
Our Dispensationist friends attempt to negate 1 Thessalonians 4:14 by insisting that it applies specificly to the secret rapture (before the visible Second Coming of Christ). So, they interpret this passage alot like the Adventists do--resurrected saints enroute to heaven.
Dennis Fischer |
Hec
Registered user
Username: Hec
Post Number: 1022
Registered: 3-2009
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - 8:22 pm: | |
Was Paul in heaven when he wrote that? The last time I checked, bring means to take to where one is. So if Jesus will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus, that would mean to take them to where Paul is. Where would Paul be? On earth. Where would Jesus bring those who slept in Him? To earth. From where? Obviously from where Jesus is.
Of course there was a time when I couldn't see this either. Thanks God for taking the veil away from my eyes.
Hec |
|
