22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[stunnedbygrace]

It seems like you don't really want to address what "it" is referring to in Isaiah 65:20 when it says "Never again will there be in IT an infant who lives but a few days". If "it" is not referring to Jerusalem and the new heavens and the new earth from the previous few verses then what else is "it" referring to?

Isaiah 65:19 I will rejoice over Jerusalem and take delight in my people; the sound of weeping and of crying will be heard in it no more. 20 “Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; the one who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere child; the one who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed.

This says "the sound of weeping and of crying will be heard in IT no more" and "never again will there be in IT an infant who lives but a few days". Why is "it" not the same in both verses?

It is referring to Jerusalem. This is not proof that prophecy does not jump forward or back in time. We have proof that it does. …to proclaim the year of His favor and the day of His vengeance. There was a jump in just this one sentence. There was no warning that two different different times were being spoken of in one sentence. We can see it now, but they couldn’t see it. In fact, they thought He had to do it all at once. But Jesus gave us a huge clue there. It’s a phenomenal key to rightly dividing scripture and prophecy. I say, when you’re given a key, use it!

 

[WPM]

Paul argues for an entirely new type of citizenship, based on the creation of an entirely new "anthropos." Citizens from people groups all around the world, including citizens from the people group known as "Israel" are united, by Christ, into an entirely new people group, not based on lineage, but based on "the new man", as Paul indicates it.

The new man or the new "anthropos" is one on whom God has poured out his spirit. This one's eyes are opened; his (or her) heart is no longer stubborn; he has the eyes to see and the ears to hear; he is walking by the spirit; he has been granted the fruits of the spirit; he cries abba Father; he is humble, loves God, fears God, loves the brethren, forgives those who persecute them, seeks first the kingdom of God; he rejoices with the truth; he bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Thus God has created a new life form, a new type of human being. And all those like him (or her) are all united under Christ into a new polis a new people group, which is why Paul refers to them as "fellow-citizens." These haven't joined an existing polis, they joined an entirely new polis the world has never seen before.

Totally, totally, wrong! We were grafted into an already existing spiritual entity - the good olive tree, the flock of God, which represents remnant elect believing Israel. This was alive and active in the OT, and is still alive. What changed was that it was expanded out to the nations after the earthly ministry of Christ, in fulfillment of multiple prophecies tracing right back the book of Genesis.

Romans 11:24 explains, speaking about natural Israel: “these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?” This is an Israeli tree that holds Israeli citizens.

Paul is careful to demonstrate God’s ongoing covenantal favor to Israel through the continuation of a faithful remnant in his day. He shows this enlightened company to be part of the ongoing historic existence of true Israel, not some brand new faction. This is integral to his whole argument that God has not abandoned Israel.

We should consider, if the infant New Testament Church did not relate to true Israel then a question mark could be placed over the faithfulness of God. The Almighty would indeed have broken His promise never to forsake His people. But the promises of God were fully realized through a believing remnant of historical Israel, which morphed into the empowered new covenant global Church. As a New Testament Christian, Paul demonstrates the continuation of believing Israel by showing he is personally part of remnant Israel. As a member of the New Testament congregation, Paul remained attached to the good Israeli olive tree. The whole thrust of the good olive tree teaching is that only the righteous remnant of Israel continues in covenant blessing through their faith in Christ.

We should remember that it was the believing remnant of the Old Testament ekklesia of Israel (true Israel) that in fact became the infant New Testament Church (ekklesia or congregation or assembly). The Gospel was actually received and embraced first by those among natural Israel who had eyes to see and ears to hear.

The word ekklesia (Church) is found 77 times in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint or LXX) referring to Israel. This proves that the terms “Church” and “Israel” are synonymous and interchangeable. Christ and the Apostles employed and quoted extensively from the Septuagint during the early New Testament Church. The word is found 116 times in the New Testament. It was a term that they were very familiar with. The Septuagint was written about 200 years before Christ was born. While Dispensationalist conveniently portray the ekklesia as an Old Testament mystery and a New Testament phenomenon, Christ and the disciples were not so ignorant.

The ekklesia is found throughout the Greek Old Testament – the Septuagint (LXX): in Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Lamentations, Joel, and Micah. That is 16 of the Old Testament books, which is nearly half of them.

Theologian John J Parsons who majors in Hebrew research, explains: “It appears to be a major fault of various English translations of the Christian Bible that the word ‘Church’ was translated for the Greek word ekklesia in the New Testament, since this suggests an anti-Jewish bias in their work by implying that there is a radical discontinuity between ‘Israel’ and the the ekklesia of Jesus (i.e., the ‘Church’). In other words, if the same Greek word (ekklesia) is used in both the LXX and the NT, then why was a new word coined for its usage in the English translation of the New Testament? Why not translate the word as it was used in the LXX, or better still, as it was used in the OT Scriptures?”

He continues: “In the New Testament sense, the word ekklesia refers to the group of ‘called out’ people (from every tribe and tongue) in covenant with God by means of their trust in Jesus Christ. In particular, this is composed of only those people who confess their faith that Jesus (Yeshua) is none other than Adonai come in the flesh.”

Jesus said prior to the cross, speaking to His Jewish converts, in John 10:14-16, “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.”

The continuation of the believing Israeli flock, and its morphing into the New Testament congregation, confirmed the expansion of faithful Israel in the new covenant period. It also explains the Israeli identify of the new covenant people of God and demonstrates the sense of continuity that existed between both covenant eras. Gentiles were now to be corralled into faithful Israel in extraordinary numbers. They trusted in Israel’s Messiah, they joined the old covenant flock, and became the New Testament people of God. This was a radical overhaul for even the most open-minded of Christ’s disciples. We saw that in their parochial response to Christ’s kingdom teaching in Acts 1:6 and with their struggle in the book of Acts to come to terms with accommodating Gentiles joining the congregation (ekklesia) on an equal basis to that of Jews.

Jesus brought a radical revolutionary message to the early Jewish disciples. He told them that there are others that are not of this flock (namely not of the Jewish race) that belong to Him, who will be integrated into His sheepfold. He was talking here of the Gentiles. What is more, He describes how these two peoples (both Jews and Gentiles) would be united together in Him and become one flock! Jesus is here acknowledging that salvation would not be limited to the Jewish race. He was predicting that the Gospel would expand out and embrace the nations. He explains that there would then be a fusion of the believing element of both ethnic groups into one cohesive believing sheepfold – with Him as a Shepherd. This indeed happened 2000 years ago.

 

[WPM]

I explain this in several posts, answering the questions of @Spiritual Israelite


There is NO indication, one way or the other, that the Commonwealth of Israel represents a company of believers.

Paul makes no such claim.

The reader can observe for themselves the multiple Scriptures, points and posts that have been sidestepped by yourself. That is the only way you can sustain your argument. These expose the Premil theory.

 

[WPM]

I understand. I see how one might read the passage that way.

Some people understand Paul this way. The Gentiles were formerly deprived of various conditions necessary for salvation: citizenship in the commonwealth of Israel, access to Christ, and access to the promises. This left the Gentiles hopeless and Godless. Therefore, the solution to that problem is to declare that Gentiles are citizens of Israel, after they believe in Jesus Christ and hear about the promises.

I understand Paul this way instead. The Gentiles were formerly deprived of access to God and his message of salvation because of distance. The reason they lacked access to God is the following: they lived in Ephesus among the Ephesians, had they lived in Israel, they would have heard the message. Since they lived in Ephesus instead of Israel, they had never heard about a coming messiah, and they never heard about his death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. Since they were located in Ephesus rather than Israel, they never heard the message about the covenants of promise. Since they were located in Ephesus rather than Israel they were without God and without hope.

The solution: bring the message to them. Take it to them. Send missionaries, ministers, preachers, and apostles to them. This is what God did.

Those who heard and believed the message were granted an inheritance, and the down-payment of that inheritance is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Ephesians 1:13-14 Paul refers to these folks as those who are "in him" (verses 1:3, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 13) Here in chapter 2 he says, "in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ." (emphasis mine) In other words, the solution to the proximity problem was not to bring the Ephesians to Israel to hear the message; the solution was to bring the message to Ephesus, where the Ephesians were able to gain access to the Father via the Holy Spirit.

After that, being a foreigner to the Commonwealth of Israel is no obstacle.

This is so wrong, and such a political answer. The reality is: we have become citizens of Israel. You refuse to say which Israel. It seems like you are suggesting ethnic Israel, which is absurd. You are going to have to dig yourself out of this massive hole, of your own making.

All you need now is an excuse to get out of this discussion.

 

[CadyandZoe]

This is so wrong, and such a political answer. The reality is: we have become citizens of Israel. You refuse to say which Israel. It seems like you are suggesting ethnic Israel, which is absurd. You are going to have to dig yourself out of this massive hole, of your own making.

All you need now is an excuse to get out of this discussion.

How does it seem like I am suggesting ethnic Israel? How does it sound like a political answer? Try reading it again.

 

[CadyandZoe]

The reader can observe for themselves the multiple Scriptures, points and posts that have been sidestepped by yourself. That is the only way you can sustain your argument. These expose the Premil theory.

You seem to have given up. Is that because I defeated all of your arguments?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Totally, totally, wrong! We were grafted into an already existing spiritual entity - the good olive tree, the flock of God, which represents remnant elect believing Israel.

So far you haven't proven your view. Why don't you get around to proving it?
[/quote]
This is integral to his whole argument that God has not abandoned Israel.
[/quote]That's right. God has not abandoned natural Israel.

Paul remained attached to the good Israeli olive tree.

The olive tree doesn't represent Israel.

We should remember that it was the believing remnant of the Old Testament ekklesia of Israel (true Israel)

No such thing as "true Israel." There is only Israel.

The word ekklesia (Church) is found 77 times in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint or LXX) referring to Israel. This proves that the terms “Church” and “Israel” are synonymous and interchangeable.

No, it doesn't prove that. No.
The term ekklesia, means "the called out assembly", which is true. But the Old Testament refers to Israel as the ekklesia because God called them out of Egypt. God did not call the church out of Egypt. God is calling the church out of humanity. Same word, two different meanings.

[/quote]
Jesus is here acknowledging that salvation would not be limited to the Jewish race. He was predicting that the Gospel would expand out and embrace the nations. He explains that there would then be a fusion of the believing element of both ethnic groups into one cohesive believing sheepfold – with Him as a Shepherd. This indeed happened 2000 years ago.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but he NEVER refers to them as Israel, spiritual or otherwise.

 

[WPM]

You seem to have given up. Is that because I defeated all of your arguments?

The opposite is the truth. You are actually admitting where your arguments have arrived. They have hit a brick wall. You have no answer to the Word of God. That is becoming abundantly clear. You have not defeated anything apart from your own credibility. You have ducked around contradiction after contradiction in your own theories, none of which makes sense. The reader can look back on this discussion and see who is avoiding Scripture after Scripture, argument after argument, and post after post. This has been such a one-sided discussion. All your claims have been ably, strongly and repeatedly refuted by Amils.

 

[farouk]

Coming in to this discussion many pages later, but I agree. I used to believe in a future thousand year reign. It's already been said, but this is one problem I now have with dispensationalism...that the new testament plainly teaches the end of the world and judgment is at Christ's coming, which teachings have to be wrested and added to in order to make them agree with a dispensationalist understanding of Revelation of a future millennial reign.

Dispensationalism also completely ignores Christ's victory and rule and reign NOW in this age to the very great detriment of the church. Jesus is Lord and King ruling and reigning now with that rod of iron (His word/sword) in His mouth! All authority in heaven and on earth has already been given to Him. And aren't we as believers ruling and reigning with Him in our delegated authority in this age, whenever we enforce His rule, casting out demons, healing the sick, saving souls from Satan's grip, etc.

I'm just old enough to barely remember that the victory and reign of Christ in this age used to be taught and sung about before all the popular "end time" Christian writers came on the scene, and I was led astray by it. Is it any wonder the church in the west at least has lost so much traction and ground since then? I'm sure it is one huge factor. The church is not enforcing and living in the reality of His rule and reign any more by faith, but instead is sitting back waiting for it to start.

Hi @Lizbeth Clearly in 1 Corinthians 11.26 it's the church in view with regard to the coming of the Lord Jesus for His people.

 

[WPM]

So far you haven't proven your view. Why don't you get around to proving it?

This is integral to his whole argument that God has not abandoned Israel.

That's right. God has not abandoned natural Israel.
The olive tree doesn't represent Israel.
No such thing as "true Israel." There is only Israel.
No, it doesn't prove that. No.
The term ekklesia, means "the called out assembly", which is true. But the Old Testament refers to Israel as the ekklesia because God called them out of Egypt. God did not call the church out of Egypt. God is calling the church out of humanity. Same word, two different meanings.

Jesus is here acknowledging that salvation would not be limited to the Jewish race. He was predicting that the Gospel would expand out and embrace the nations. He explains that there would then be a fusion of the believing element of both ethnic groups into one cohesive believing sheepfold – with Him as a Shepherd. This indeed happened 2000 years ago.

Yes, but he NEVER refers to them as Israel, spiritual or otherwise.

Your position is such a contradiction. You seem to make it up as you go. My last post totally demolishes your whole argument. The Church is true Israel and true Israel is the Church. This dismantles everything you have been taught. You are clearly out of your depth.

Christ speaking in the gospel that the Dispensationalists say was written solely to the Jews – Matthew – confirms how the term ekklesia was related to the gathering of God’s people in His day, rather than some post-Pentecost New Testament period of time, as some would try and argue. Jesus said, in Matthew 18:15-17, “if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the ekklesia: but if he neglect to hear the church [Gr. ekklesia], let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.”

Here, in this supposed Jewish gospel, the disciples are carefully counseled in the proper way to deal with matters of discipline within the local assembly. Expressly, if the transgressor does not receive the private admonition from a brother, with a witness, or from the ruling elders, the issue should be brought before ‘the congregation’ of God’s people – the ekklesia – for public exposure. This is historically before Pentecost, where Dispensationalists suggest “the Church” began.

Stephen goes back even further. He takes us back to ancient Israel in the wilderness. He taught in Acts 7:36-38, “he (Moses) had shewed wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red sea, and in the wilderness forty years. This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. This is he, that was in the church [Gr. ekklesia] in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us.”

Stephen classifies Old Testament Israel in this text as the ekklesia (or Church or assembly or congregation). This correlates with our previous findings. No one could surely deny this. This passage shows the existence of the Church long before Pentecost. Nothing could be clearer. To deny that is to fight with Scripture.

Speaking on Acts 7:36-38, Peter Ditzel writes: “Like the New Testament ekklēsia that God called out of this world of sin, God called Israel out of Egypt. In a physical, typological way, Israel was God’s special people, physically assembled before Him. In those places in the Old Testament where English versions refer to Israel as an assembly or a congregation, the Greek Septuagint uses the word ekklēsia” (What is the relationship between the Old Covenant assembly of Israel and the New Covenant assembly of believers?).

The Roman Catholic Church was the first to change the meaning of ekklesia from the congregation of God’s people to a religious institution of man replacing physical Israel. This was highly advantageous in reinforcing its apostate religious system. It allowed its clergy to lord over the people. This strategy likewise rubber stamped the whole foundation of its global religious system, its “Holy” Roman Empire, its papal state and its false teaching. But this construal was totally out of kilter with the common usage of the word in ancient times.

William Tyndale recognized this when translating his early English Bible. Despite intense pressure from the Roman Catholic powers that be, he stood strong on his interpretation, suitably and consistently translating ekklesia as congregation. The Coverdale Bible (1535), The Great Bible (1540), Matthew Bible (1549) and The Bishops Bible (1568) all followed suit, using the word “congregation” to describe God’s New Testament people.

The writer of the Hebrews also quotes and applies the word ekklesia, as it literally reads in Psalm 22:22 in the Greek Septuagint, to the Old Testament saints, saying: “I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church [Gr. ekklesia] will I sing praise unto thee” (Hebrews 2:12).

Psalm 22:22 reads, “I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.”

This quote is taken directly from the Greek Septuagint, the Bible that was used by Jesus, and Paul, and the disciples in the first century AD. It proves that the ekklesia (the Church) was alive, kicking, and written about throughout the Old Testament. Wherever people of faith are found or written about in history, the “Church” (ekklesia) is revealed. Dr. Michael Milton (President, Reformed Theological Seminary) tells us that “Psalm 22 [verse 22] uses the Hebrew word qahal for congregation … This same verse appears in Hebrews … the Holy Spirit has replaced qahal with ecclesia” (Engrafted, Not Replaced).

Just like with Israel in the Old Testament, the New Testament assembly has a visible and an invisible aspect. Those who profess a faith in Christ, and participate in Christian worship, are recognized as the outward visible congregation, but only those who have a saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ are recognized as being part of the true invisible Church – that which Christ sees and knows – His redeemed. The visible congregation are those who are typically outwardly committed to the Christian faith, whereas, the redeemed invisible congregation are those that have “passed from death unto life” (John 5:24).

When Jesus states in Matthew 16:18, “I will build my church [Gr. ekklesia]; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” He is only referring to the elect of God. He is describing the faithful remnant that have entered into spiritual union with God. This is the invisible ekklesia.

The Church describes those who he has redeemed with his own precious blood. It describes all those that have a personal relationship with Christ! Paul instructs the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:28: “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church [Gr. ekklesia] of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”

The visible ekklesia is that which gives outward adherence to the Lord and which congregates together in public worship. For example, we see the local churches in Asia Minor mentioned in Revelation chapter 2 and 3. These were local congregations that evidently included believers and unbelievers. We know that because the Lord exposed those that were playing at it in these gatherings. There was “the church [Gr. ekklesia] of Ephesus” (Rev 2:1-7), “the church [Gr. ekklesia] in Smyrna” (Rev 2:8-11), “the church [Gr. ekklesia] in Pergamos” (Rev 2:12-17), “the church [Gr. ekklesia] in Thyatira” (Rev 2:18-29), “the church [Gr. ekklesia] in Sardis” (Rev 3:1-6), “the church [Gr. ekklesia] in Philadelphia” (Rev 3:7-13) and “the church [Gr. ekklesia] of the Laodiceans” (Rev 3:14-22). This was the visible outward face of the Church, but it did not denote the true elect ekklesia of God who existed within those congregation.

 

[WPM]

How does it seem like I am suggesting ethnic Israel? How does it sound like a political answer? Try reading it again.

So, is it spiritual Israel then?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I understand. I see how one might read the passage that way.

Some people understand Paul this way. The Gentiles were formerly deprived of various conditions necessary for salvation: citizenship in the commonwealth of Israel, access to Christ, and access to the promises. This left the Gentiles hopeless and Godless. Therefore, the solution to that problem is to declare that Gentiles are citizens of Israel, after they believe in Jesus Christ and hear about the promises.

I understand Paul this way instead. The Gentiles were formerly deprived of access to God and his message of salvation because of distance. The reason they lacked access to God is the following: they lived in Ephesus among the Ephesians, had they lived in Israel, they would have heard the message. Since they lived in Ephesus instead of Israel, they had never heard about a coming messiah, and they never heard about his death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. Since they were located in Ephesus rather than Israel, they never heard the message about the covenants of promise. Since they were located in Ephesus rather than Israel they were without God and without hope.

The solution: bring the message to them. Take it to them. Send missionaries, ministers, preachers, and apostles to them. This is what God did.

Those who heard and believed the message were granted an inheritance, and the down-payment of that inheritance is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Ephesians 1:13-14 Paul refers to these folks as those who are "in him" (verses 1:3, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 13) Here in chapter 2 he says, "in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ." (emphasis mine) In other words, the solution to the proximity problem was not to bring the Ephesians to Israel to hear the message; the solution was to bring the message to Ephesus, where the Ephesians were able to gain access to the Father via the Holy Spirit.

After that, being a foreigner to the Commonwealth of Israel is no obstacle.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. I'm going to quote the relevant verses here for the benefit of anyone else who might be reading this so that we can see what Paul was saying in terms of not being citizens of Israel and being foreigners (aliens) before Christ came and then the blood of Christ brought them near and made them fellow citizens and no longer foreigners.

Ephesians 2:11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)— 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ....19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household,

So, in times past before Christ came they were not citizens of Israel and were "foreigners to the covenants of the promise" and then the blood of Christ made them "fellow citizens". Fellow citizens of what? Of what they formerly were not citizens of: Israel. That fits the context. And they were no longer foreigners to what? The covenants of the promise.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

This is still pointing to God's choice not one's physical connection.

It certainly is not redefining Israel into a spiritual entity. You are trying to prove that many physically born to Abraham will some how loose that physical connection.

God has always preferred certain offspring over other offspring. One receives the promise, the other left out on the front porch. Sitting around in the lake of fire bragging you are a descendant of Abraham is not going to make a difference one bit.

How about you break Romans 9:6-8 down for me to show exactly how you interpret it instead of just posting this gibberish?

 

[CadyandZoe]

The opposite is the truth. You are actually admitting where your arguments have arrived. They have hit a brick wall. You have no answer to the Word of God. That is becoming abundantly clear. You have not defeated anything apart from your own credibility. You have ducked around contradiction after contradiction in your own theories, none of which makes sense. The reader can look back on this discussion and see who is avoiding Scripture after Scripture, argument after argument, and post after post. This has been such a one-sided discussion. All your claims have been ably, strongly and repeatedly refuted by Amils.

You are dreaming.

 

[CadyandZoe]

So, is it spiritual Israel then?

Did I say it was? It seems you are playing games now, which means you are no longer willing to engage. Sorry to hear that.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. I'm going to quote the relevant verses here for the benefit of anyone else who might be reading this so that we can see what Paul was saying in terms of not being citizens of Israel and being foreigners (aliens) before Christ came and then the blood of Christ brought them near and made them fellow citizens and no longer foreigners.

Ephesians 2:11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)— 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ....19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household,

So, in times past before Christ came they were not citizens of Israel and were "foreigners to the covenants of the promise" and then the blood of Christ made them "fellow citizens". Fellow citizens of what? Of what they formerly were not citizens of: Israel. That fits the context. And they were no longer foreigners to what? The covenants of the promise.

Have you redefined "commonwealth of Israel" allegorically also? Why do you think it doesn't mean what it says?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Paul describes an entirely new creation, one that is unique and unprecedented in human history. He indicates this with the phrase "the new man" or the new "anthropos" We are a new creation, he says, (verse 15) created by God for good works. (verse 10)

He tells us that both those near and those far away were brought near in a new way, according to a unique and unprecedented method for drawing near to God, i.e. the Holy Spirit. Where as in times past, people needed to physically gain access to the temple in order to draw near to God; now we gain access to God through the Spirit. (Verse 22) So then, not only has God recreated each believer, transforming that person into a new creature, he has granted them access to him via the Spirit and by means of the blood of the Cross. (verse 13)

For this reason, in my opinion, we are "fellow-citizens" with the saints in a new polis, a new city. Formerly, the Gentiles were not citizens of the commonwealth of Israel, but now, both Jewish believers and Gentile believers are united together into an entirely new type of commonwealth, one that has no precedent in human history.

So, let's say this was the correct way to interpret the passage (even though I still disagree). What could we call this "entirely new type of commonwealth"? Why couldn't we call that something like, say, spiritual Israel?

 

[WPM]

Did I say it was? It seems you are playing games now, which means you are no longer willing to engage. Sorry to hear that.

No. LOL. We have you in a check-mate and you have nowhere to go. The Bible says we part of the citizenship of Israel. You admit that. Which one - ethnic or spiritual?

It is time to cough up or shut up. You choose!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It is referring to Jerusalem.

Okay, so that means Isaiah 65:20 is talking about the same thing as verse 19, right? And you already indicated that you believe Isaiah 65:17-19 is about the new heavens and new earth, right? So, that means verse 20 is about the new heavens and new earth as well. So, what are you going to do with this new knowledge you have obtained?

This is not proof that prophecy does not jump forward or back in time. We have proof that it does.

I didn't say otherwise. You continue to miss the point. What I was saying is that it makes no sense to bring up a subject in one verse and then immediately change the subject in the very next verse. I said that before I realized that you, unlike other premils, didn't just see Isaiah 65:17 as referring to the new heavens and new earth and then verses 18-25 as talking about a supposed future earthly millennial kingdom. Instead, you see verses 17-19 as being about the new heavens and new earth before the subject is changed. I still don't believe that makes any sense and I showed how verse 20 relates back to 19, but can you at least understand my point now? Which has nothing to do with saying that prophecy never jumps forward or back in time?

…to proclaim the year of His favor and the day of His vengeance. There was a jump in just this one sentence. There was no warning that two different different times were being spoken of in one sentence. We can see it now, but they couldn’t see it. In fact, they thought He had to do it all at once. But Jesus gave us a huge clue there. It’s a phenomenal key to rightly dividing scripture and prophecy. I say, when you’re given a key, use it!

But, this has nothing to do with the point I was making. The main subject in that verse is the time relating to "the year of His favor". That subject wasn't just brought up in one verse and then changed to another subject in the next verse. No, it continues to talk about that time in the verses following that one. The reference to "the day of His vengeance" was just a side note.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Have you redefined "commonwealth of Israel" allegorically also? Why do you think it doesn't mean what it says?

Don't ever tell me that I don't think scripture means what it says. I always believe it means what it says, but you and I don't always agree on what it means. I disagree with you, not scripture.

You've been following the discussion, right? I believe I have clearly explained why I interpret it the way I do. What are you confused about in regards to the explanations I've given? It says they (Gentiles) used to be excluded from citizenship in the "commonwealth of Israel" but now they (Gentile believers) are fellow citizens. That tells me they are now fellow citizens of the commonwealth of Israel. And we know they are not citizens of the earthly nation of Israel, so that means it has to be talking about them being fellow citizens of spiritual Israel.

I believe I'm being very clear here, but just let me know if you're still not understanding why I interpret Ephesians 2:11-13 the way I do.