How close is the Seven Year Tribulation?

[veteran]

Shabbat shalom, veteran.

Oh, quit being a cantankerous, old ninny! It's hard to say ANYTHING good enough for YOU! I'm not saying that the Davidic covenant BEGAN with Yeshua`; I'm saying that it was STRENGTHENED (yigbar) with Him! IT'S WITH HIM TODAY!!! However, Yeshua` haMashiach is not physically on earth; so, His Kingdom is not physically on earth, either!
It was given to Yeshua` as the rightful heir of David by God; HE anointed Yeshua`! It is irrevocably given to the Messiah and is not on earth now because the Messiah to be King is not on earth now! The King Apparent and the Kingdom are INSEPARABLY LINKED ALREADY!

The Dan.9:27 idea of is about the "league" of Dan.11...

Dan 11:21-23
21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.
22 And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.
23 And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.
(KJV)

That's the event Dan.9:27 is pointing to. It is NOT... pointing to any act by our Lord Jesus Christ at His first coming! You're understanding of that event of the 70 weeks in Daniel is completely askew. It has nothing... to do with the Davidic covenant.

However, it was the DUTY of the elders of the tribe of Y'hudah to accept YHWH's Anointed as their King by anointing Him themselves, just as they did for David at Hevron! This they REFUSED to do! So, any chance they had to be a Kingdom with a YHWH-appointed King left them when the King left them! This is why they don't have a king today! They only have a "prime minister," a "chief steward," who is the absent King's servant while He is away!

And Jesus said He would give care of His vineyard to ANOTHER NATION that would bring forth it's fruit (Matt.21). The rebellious unbelieving Jews at Jerusalem lost ALL RIGHTS to any claim involving David's throne, just as it is still today in Jeruslaem with David's throne no longer there.

I never said the Davidic covenant ended with David! Furthermore, it is still in effect as the Messiah has been chosen by God, His Father, even though the elders of Y'hudah have not relinquished the rule to Yeshua`. So, you are right that when Yeshua` returns, that He will inherit David's throne on earth, but He will only come back when they can say, "Baruwk haba' b'shem YHWH," finally willing to relinquish the rule to "haba' b'shem YHWH," "the Comer in the authority of YHWH."

You're mind is really playing tricks on you. Out of one side of your mouth you claim the Dan.9:27 covenant involves Christ offering His Kingdom to the Jews who refused, while out of the other saying the Davidic covenant never ended. Which is it, because the Dan.9:27 covenant ends in the middle of the "one week" (7 years). If that was the Davidic covenant, then it would mean it ENDED with their refusal, yet... it did not end as per God's eternal promise to David!

In other words, God would not offer the unbelieving Jews a covenant to them like the Davidic covenant that could never... be broken. Yet even per your OWN line of reasoning, they broke it by their refusal, which is impossible. By that, you are following traditions of the Jews, and not what God's Word reveals on the matter.

And, why is it that when YOU don't understand something FROM THE SCRIPTURES, it's a "doctrine of man"?

Simply because when a doctrine does not align with God's Word, there's only one source of confusion it can originate from.


You're interpretation of the Matt.23:39 verse is skewed... also.

Matt 23:38-39
38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see Me henceforth, till ye shall say, 'Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.'"
(KJV)

That ain't... about some imagined Jewish requirement for Jews to admit Jesus Christ is King of kings, and Lord of lords, just so Christ can sit upon David's throne in Jerusalem. What it's about is this...

Zech 12:9-14
9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon Me Whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
11 In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.
12 And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart;
13 The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart;
14 All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.
(KJV)

Instead those Jews will MOURN with Christ's return. Why? Because at that time they will then realize Who He Is. And what did Jesus say to their women weeping for Him on the way to His crucifixion?


Luke 23:27-30
27 And there followed Him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented Him.
28 But Jesus turning unto them said, "Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for Me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.
29 For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, 'Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.'
30 Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, 'Fall on us'; and to the hills, 'Cover us.'"
(KJV)

Does that sound like those unbelieving Jews who rejected our Lord Jesus will be able to REQUIRE Christ to go through some ritual ceremony in order to establish Himself upon David's throne in Jerusalem at His return??? God forbid!

Instead, what those will be doing is bearing their SHAME, instead wanting the mountains to "Fall on us'; and to the hills, 'Cover us.'" They're going to be MOURNING big time for Him! And if Jesus is not going to allow the five foolish virgins who believe on Him in His Presence when He returns, what do you think those Jews who refuse Him are going to be allowed to do???

That idea that before Christ can be crowned KING, the unbelieving Jews must first charge Christ admission to sit upon David's throne is a doctrine of devils. It's a huge... smear against Christ Jesus Messiah in not recognizing Who He Is.

 

[dragonfly]

I need to pick up on some random points which have come to mind while reading this thread. I hope they make sense.

One thing that bemuses me about references to 'the Jews', in our generation, is what seems to be an ignorance, or, a collective amnesia, that there were only Jews in the Church for at least the first two years.

It seems the Day of Pentecost confuses some people, because they don't realise that Jews lived all over the world, and spoke the languages of the countries in which they normally resided. And so did the non-Israelites and proselytes from those same countries, speak those languages. God intended Christians to go home from the Day of Pentecost and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The other thing which bemuses me is that Jesus clearly told the disciples that He was sending them 'as my Father sent me'. They had previously received power and authority for their ministries, but they were to wait in Jerusalem for power and authority of a different order. He had explained it to them, beginning on the Emmaus road. The man at the Beautiful Gate would have been there every day. Jesus would most likely have seen him, but, was never directed to heal him: Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. My understanding of this is, that we, the members of His body, (the Church) are going 'in His name'. This has significance for the curious doctrine which has grown up around Luke 13: '... Ye shall not see me, until [the time] come when ye shall say, Blessed [is] he that cometh in the name of the Lord.'

1 Corinthians 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

2 Corinthians 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we [him] no more.

Surely Paul had been a branch broken off the olive tree while he was still in unbelief? Then when he believed, he was grafted back in? Describing this, he changes Isaiah 59:20 in a subtle way, acknowledging that 'the Redeemer' has come to 'Sion', thus tying in with what Jesus said here: Luke 13: ' ... for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.' I see Jesus as the one who was ' cut off for sins, but not His own', buried - the Branch that grew out of the ground - becoming a new root which bears the entire Church: Israelites first, non-Israelites second.

In other words, the holy root is not natural, unregenerate, Israel. That God introduced John's baptism of repentance to Israel, was a sign of how far they had removed from pleasing Him. Until they repented wholeheartedly, they were as unclean as any non-Israelite.

To me, these connections are obvious once one compares Isaiah 59:20 and how it is quoted in Romans 11:26. Tyndale didn't make the punctuation where the KJV translators put it, so Tyndale's version read's more clearly - that the addition of the Gentiles to the Church, is the beginning of 'all Israel' being saved. That is, of 'Israel' being completed by the inclusion of the 'other sheep' Jesus mentions in John 10.

Regarding the 'blindness' of 'Israel', which God first pronounced against them through Isaiah (ch 6), Paul clearly says that if they will turn to Christ, the vail will be taken away from their hearts. Surely Paul, who had scales fall from his eyes in Acts 9, can make this statement with authority. Again, Tyndale by the use of one different word than that chosen by the KJV translators, makes this meaning very clear. He chooses 'they' instead of 'it', and it radically changes the apparent meaning of the verse: 2 Corinthians 3:16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away', and renders the verse far more sensibly in the light of history - at the same time removing a major support for any idea that God is waiting for some future time when 'the Jews' will be given yet another extra chance to repent - after Jesus has returned - as if 'they' are presently incapable of turning to the Lord under the same conditions as earlier Israelite unbelievers - in humility, repentance and faith towards God. Futurism was not invented till after 1850AD.

I have read the Old Testament very carefully, looking for references to 'the remnant' and who it might be. So far, I can only find two. The first is the remnant which returned from Babylon, and the second is those who were still watching for Messiah when finally He was revealed to and through John the Baptist. I do not believe there is a 'remnant Church' although sometimes it feels like that. But, there are believers, and, there are those who 'act' like believers (but are not) - hypocrites. The Lord will discern perfectly who are His, and pass judgement accordingly.

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, veteran.

The Dan.9:27 idea of is about the "league" of Dan.11...

Dan 11:21-23
21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.
22 And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.
23 And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.
(KJV)

That's the event Dan.9:27 is pointing to. It is NOT... pointing to any act by our Lord Jesus Christ at His first coming! You're understanding of that event of the 70 weeks in Daniel is completely askew. It has nothing... to do with the Davidic covenant.

LOL!!! Well, if THAT'S the case, then Dani'el 9:27 was fulfilled in the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes' league with his 14-year-old nephew (circa 171 B.C.), Ptolemy VI Philometer, son of his sister, Cleopatra I, for THAT is the "league" made in Dani'el 11:23! With a small army to mask his motives, he moved to seize Egypt under the guise as Ptolemy's "protector!"

However, if you will agree with me that Dani'el 9:27 cannot be referring to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, then Dani'el 9:27 has NOTHING to do with Dani'el 11:21-23!

And Jesus said He would give care of His vineyard to ANOTHER NATION that would bring forth it's fruit (Matt.21). The rebellious unbelieving Jews at Jerusalem lost ALL RIGHTS to any claim involving David's throne, just as it is still today in Jeruslaem with David's throne no longer there.

Well, while the unbelieving Jews OF HIS DAY lost all rights to any claim of the Kingdom at the time of Yeshua`s first advent, Yeshua` DID receive and retain the right to David's throne and still retains that right up to the present! But, how do YOU know that David's throne is no longer in Yerushalayim?! David's throne was not an ornate, bejeweled throne, like the royalty in Europe has/had. It was a JUDGMENT SEAT and said to be a "crude, backless bench upon which David sat to hear matters and pass judgment." Unless it was well preserved, the actual throne of David probably no longer exists. HOWEVER, all judgment was committed by God to His Son, Yeshua` haMashiach (John 5:22).

You're mind is really playing tricks on you. Out of one side of your mouth you claim the Dan.9:27 covenant involves Christ offering His Kingdom to the Jews who refused, while out of the other saying the Davidic covenant never ended. Which is it, because the Dan.9:27 covenant ends in the middle of the "one week" (7 years). If that was the Davidic covenant, then it would mean it ENDED with their refusal, yet... it did not end as per God's eternal promise to David!

In other words, God would not offer the unbelieving Jews a covenant to them like the Davidic covenant that could never... be broken. Yet even per your OWN line of reasoning, they broke it by their refusal, which is impossible. By that, you are following traditions of the Jews, and not what God's Word reveals on the matter.

You really don't read to comprehend, do you? BOTH are true! Not only is Dani'el 9:27 about the Davidic Covenant involving the Messiah's offer of God's Kingdom to the Jews, but the Davidic Covenant has never ended! As you said, the Davidic Covenant cannot be broken. However, YHWH anointed Yeshua` at His baptism and "strengthened" (Hebrew: yigbar) that covenant by providing an Heir to David's Throne. The elders of Y'hudah were to accept their role in literally anointing the Messiah Yeshua` with the holy anointing oil (Exodus 30:22-33), but they would not relinquish their political roles and submit to the King Apparent! So, Yeshua` snatched that role away from them and deferred it for a future generation who WOULD accept the role. They never "broke" the Davidic Covenant! They disenfranchised themselves from that role of honor!

Simply because when a doctrine does not align with God's Word, there's only one source of confusion it can originate from.

Awww... You don't give yourself enough credit! You're perfectly capable of creating your own source of confusion, and you don't even have to try hard! One should NEVER say that "the Devil made me do it." The truth is that he doesn't have to do much, if anything, to allow our own ignorance to confuse ourselves. You would be wise to commit to memory Hanlon's razor and live by it:

Wikipedia says,

Hanlon's Razor is an eponymous adage that reads:

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.​

​

You're interpretation of the Matt.23:39 verse is skewed... also.

Matt 23:38-39
38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see Me henceforth, till ye shall say, 'Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.'"
(KJV)

That ain't... about some imagined Jewish requirement for Jews to admit Jesus Christ is King of kings, and Lord of lords, just so Christ can sit upon David's throne in Jerusalem.

Actually, it is YESHUA`S requirement on the Jews to admit that He is indeed the Anointed of God, the Comer in the authority of YHWH, and welcome Him before He will return. It's not something that must be done before He CAN return; it's what HE requires before He WILL return!

What it's about is this...

Zech 12:9-14
9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon Me Whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
11 In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.
12 And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart;
13 The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart;
14 All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.
(KJV)

PLEASE pay attention! This passage of Scripture will also be fulfilled with His return, but it is NOT directly related to Matthew 23:37-39! These are not the unbelieving Jews to which Z'kharyahu was referring! Look carefully at the names listed in verses 12 and 13: Daaviyd (David), Naataan (Nathan), Leeviy (Levi), and the family of Shim`iy (Shimei). These are the same family names found in Luke 3!

Luke 3:23-38
23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei (Shim`iy), which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi (Leeviy),
30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan (Naataan), which was the son of David (Daaviyd),
32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
KJV

These are not arbitrary names; they are names in Yeshua`s lineage! It's really NO WONDER that "they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn!" He WAS in the loins of their only son or in the loins of their firstborn!

However, what can also be deduced from these Scriptures is that all these families - His mishpachah - are all present to mourn for Him at the SAME TIME! This passage can only be fulfilled after the FIRST RESURRECTION! So, what does THAT teach us about the resurrection with regard to the Isra'eliym (the Isra'elites)? No wonder Paul said in Romans 11:15...

Romans 11:15
15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
KJV

Which comes first for the Isra'eliym, according to these Scriptures, the realization and the mourning or the resurrection? On the authority of Z'kharyahu's prophecy - God's Words through Z'kharyahu's hand, the RESURRECTION must come first! And what does THAT tell us about the consciousness of the spirits of men before their bodies are resurrected and their spirits are reunited with their bodies to form souls again?

Instead those Jews will MOURN with Christ's return. Why? Because at that time they will then realize Who He Is. And what did Jesus say to their women weeping for Him on the way to His crucifixion?


Luke 23:27-30
27 And there followed Him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented Him.
28 But Jesus turning unto them said, "Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for Me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.
29 For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, 'Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.'
30 Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, 'Fall on us'; and to the hills, 'Cover us.'"
(KJV)

Sorry, but this passage of Scripture is not about the end times but was fulfilled in 70 A.D., 40 years after the Crucifixion! WEEP FOR YOURSELVES and FOR YOUR CHILDREN! That would be hard to do if both you and your children are NO LONGER AROUND! Thus, your argument is a non sequitur. It "does not follow" because you are mixing apples and oranges.

Does that sound like those unbelieving Jews who rejected our Lord Jesus will be able to REQUIRE Christ to go through some ritual ceremony in order to establish Himself upon David's throne in Jerusalem at His return??? God forbid!

Instead, what those will be doing is bearing their SHAME, instead wanting the mountains to "Fall on us'; and to the hills, 'Cover us.'" They're going to be MOURNING big time for Him! And if Jesus is not going to allow the five foolish virgins who believe on Him in His Presence when He returns, what do you think those Jews who refuse Him are going to be allowed to do???

That idea that before Christ can be crowned KING, the unbelieving Jews must first charge Christ admission to sit upon David's throne is a doctrine of devils. It's a huge... smear against Christ Jesus Messiah in not recognizing Who He Is.

These are not requirements that the Jews put upon the Messiah; they are requirements that the Messiah puts upon the Jews!

 

[us2are1]

Son of Man said
I don't think so. Many of the New Testament references to 'grace' are in the present and present continuous tenses. Of course there are references in the past tense, too, to the moment in which a person first received grace from God.

Ephesians 3:7 '... I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power... 20 Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: 2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. 21 I do not frustrate the grace of God:...'

Hebrews 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

If the Holy Spirit is the 'Spirit of grace', grace has not ceased to be necessary in the Christian life. It enables us to do the right thing.

Ephesians 4:23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;

Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

1 Peter 5:5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all [of you] be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and gives grace to the humble.

Colossians 4:6 Let your speech [be] alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.

1 Corinthians 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder.... '



I think your definition of 'grace' is flawed.

Grace is continuously necessary to a Christian; like the air we breathe.

None of those scriptures say anything contrary to what I stated. I have no definition of Grace nor am I the author. I was given the Gift of Grace By God to grow in Him to maturity.

You have merely missunderstood what I said.

 

[dragonfly]

Grace gives everyone, who will follow Him, the time to achieve this through asking God for His Spirit and walking and talking with the Spirit that is God. Once a person has come into the fold, through the Spirit of God, they are blameless and grace is no longer needed. Grace got them there but is no longer needed.

What is there to misunderstand? What you said is perfectly clear. It didn't line up with scripture; that's all.

 

[veteran]

I need to pick up on some random points which have come to mind while reading this thread. I hope they make sense.

One thing that bemuses me about references to 'the Jews', in our generation, is what seems to be an ignorance, or, a collective amnesia, that there were only Jews in the Church for at least the first two years.

It seems the Day of Pentecost confuses some people, because they don't realise that Jews lived all over the world, and spoke the languages of the countries in which they normally resided. And so did the non-Israelites and proselytes from those same countries, speak those languages. God intended Christians to go home from the Day of Pentecost and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The other thing which bemuses me is that Jesus clearly told the disciples that He was sending them 'as my Father sent me'. They had previously received power and authority for their ministries, but they were to wait in Jerusalem for power and authority of a different order. He had explained it to them, beginning on the Emmaus road. The man at the Beautiful Gate would have been there every day. Jesus would most likely have seen him, but, was never directed to heal him: Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. My understanding of this is, that we, the members of His body, (the Church) are going 'in His name'. This has significance for the curious doctrine which has grown up around Luke 13: '... Ye shall not see me, until [the time] come when ye shall say, Blessed [is] he that cometh in the name of the Lord.'

1 Corinthians 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

2 Corinthians 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we [him] no more.

Surely Paul had been a branch broken off the olive tree while he was still in unbelief? Then when he believed, he was grafted back in? Describing this, he changes Isaiah 59:20 in a subtle way, acknowledging that 'the Redeemer' has come to 'Sion', thus tying in with what Jesus said here: Luke 13: ' ... for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.' I see Jesus as the one who was ' cut off for sins, but not His own', buried - the Branch that grew out of the ground - becoming a new root which bears the entire Church: Israelites first, non-Israelites second.

In other words, the holy root is not natural, unregenerate, Israel. That God introduced John's baptism of repentance to Israel, was a sign of how far they had removed from pleasing Him. Until they repented wholeheartedly, they were as unclean as any non-Israelite.

To me, these connections are obvious once one compares Isaiah 59:20 and how it is quoted in Romans 11:26. Tyndale didn't make the punctuation where the KJV translators put it, so Tyndale's version read's more clearly - that the addition of the Gentiles to the Church, is the beginning of 'all Israel' being saved. That is, of 'Israel' being completed by the inclusion of the 'other sheep' Jesus mentions in John 10.

Regarding the 'blindness' of 'Israel', which God first pronounced against them through Isaiah (ch 6), Paul clearly says that if they will turn to Christ, the vail will be taken away from their hearts. Surely Paul, who had scales fall from his eyes in Acts 9, can make this statement with authority. Again, Tyndale by the use of one different word than that chosen by the KJV translators, makes this meaning very clear. He chooses 'they' instead of 'it', and it radically changes the apparent meaning of the verse: 2 Corinthians 3:16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away', and renders the verse far more sensibly in the light of history - at the same time removing a major support for any idea that God is waiting for some future time when 'the Jews' will be given yet another extra chance to repent - after Jesus has returned - as if 'they' are presently incapable of turning to the Lord under the same conditions as earlier Israelite unbelievers - in humility, repentance and faith towards God. Futurism was not invented till after 1850AD.

I have read the Old Testament very carefully, looking for references to 'the remnant' and who it might be. So far, I can only find two. The first is the remnant which returned from Babylon, and the second is those who were still watching for Messiah when finally He was revealed to and through John the Baptist. I do not believe there is a 'remnant Church' although sometimes it feels like that. But, there are believers, and, there are those who 'act' like believers (but are not) - hypocrites. The Lord will discern perfectly who are His, and pass judgement accordingly.

If you'll read the Old Testament carefully again, you'll eventually discover 1 Kings 11 through 2 Kings 17 details how God split Israel into two separate kingdoms in Solomon's days, giving ten tribes to Jeroboam of the tribe of Ephraim, and then how He first removed only those ten tribes of the "house of Israel" among the nations, with their never having returned to the holy land as a people. Only those of the southern kingdom of Judah went captive to Babylon; the ten tribes did not for their captivity was by the Assyrians, not the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar. The Jewish historian Josephus said the title of 'Jew' came from the tribe of Judah, and applied to the house of Judah that went captive to Babylon with only a small remnant of them returning to Jerusalem (Ezra 2). That title of Jew never historically applied to the ten tribes of Israel.

Paul is who taught that God put the "spirit of slumber" upon the unbelieving branch of Israel, which is about the Jews, and that God did that so that His Salvation could also go to the Gentiles. Paul also showed in Rom.11 when the fulfness of the Gentiles be come in, their blindness is going to be removed. Assuming that everyone has their opportunity to 'hear' and believe The Gospel with eyes to see, and ears to hear during this present time is against what Paul taught there in Romans 11. And that even though the majority of preachers today preach that everyone's opportunity is only for today. Most of those that disregard Paul's message in Rom.11 don't cover God's Word about Christ's future Milennium reign per Rev.20 because of that misleading.

Shalom, veteran.

LOL!!! Well, if THAT'S the case, then Dani'el 9:27 was fulfilled in the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes' league with his 14-year-old nephew (circa 171 B.C.), Ptolemy VI Philometer, son of his sister, Cleopatra I, for THAT is the "league" made in Dani'el 11:23! With a small army to mask his motives, he moved to seize Egypt under the guise as Ptolemy's "protector!"

The Dan.11 Scripture does not declare Antiochus. But what Antiochus did in 165-170 B.C. by desolating the inside of the 2nd temple and setting up an idol in false worship certainly serves as a pattern for what the future false messiah/antichrist is coming to do, which is Dan.11 is ultimately pointing to for the end of this world. Jesus mentioned the "abomination of desolation" event from Daniel at His first coming, which was a lot later than 170 B.C. also if you'll notice. And no one to this day has yet fulfilled that "abomination of desolation" prophecy in Jerusalem; it's still a future event to us.

However, if you will agree with me that Dani'el 9:27 cannot be referring to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, then Dani'el 9:27 has NOTHING to do with Dani'el 11:21-23!

Why are you determined to try and separate the Dan.9:27 events from the rest of the Daniel prophecy that goes with it? The Dan.9:27 "covenant" is about the "league" the "vile person" makes with a 'small people' in Jerusalem, which brings the daily sacrifice to an end with an abomination idol setup instead. That is specifically what the "overspreading of abominations" clause in Dan.9:27 is about! It's the same subject prophecy in Dan.8:13, Dan.11:30-31, and Dan.12:11.

Well, while the unbelieving Jews OF HIS DAY lost all rights to any claim of the Kingdom at the time of Yeshua`s first advent, Yeshua` DID receive and retain the right to David's throne and still retains that right up to the present! But, how do YOU know that David's throne is no longer in Yerushalayim?! David's throne was not an ornate, bejeweled throne, like the royalty in Europe has/had. It was a JUDGMENT SEAT and said to be a "crude, backless bench upon which David sat to hear matters and pass judgment." Unless it was well preserved, the actual throne of David probably no longer exists. HOWEVER, all judgment was committed by God to His Son, Yeshua` haMashiach (John 5:22).

When I speak of David's throne, I mean by that one sitting in authority over God's Israel per His covenant to David and his seed forever. That royal rule in Jerusalem ended... with Zedekiah king of Judah, and I think you well... know that. And the prophetic requirements of God's covenant to David is that it's an earthly sceptre that would last throughout all generations on earth. It still exists on this earth today, for Christ is not to take possession of it until His return, like He revealed in Matt.19:28; Matt.25:31.

You really don't read to comprehend, do you?

Reading comprehension is not about making things up that don't exist in the words, which is what you like to do.

BOTH are true! Not only is Dani'el 9:27 about the Davidic Covenant involving the Messiah's offer of God's Kingdom to the Jews, but the Davidic Covenant has never ended! As you said, the Davidic Covenant cannot be broken. However, YHWH anointed Yeshua` at His baptism and "strengthened" (Hebrew: yigbar) that covenant by providing an Heir to David's Throne. The elders of Y'hudah were to accept their role in literally anointing the Messiah Yeshua` with the holy anointing oil (Exodus 30:22-33), but they would not relinquish their political roles and submit to the King Apparent! So, Yeshua` snatched that role away from them and deferred it for a future generation who WOULD accept the role. They never "broke" the Davidic Covenant! They disenfranchised themselves from that role of honor!

Malarckey. The one in Dan.9:27 overspreads abominations which involves setting up IDOL worship. Christ Jesus NEVER did any such thing as that. The act of overspreading abominations to make the temple desolate was first done by Antiochus Epiphanes as you so said yourself. The stuff coming out of your mouth are falsehoods, even to the point now to where you can't tell how confused you are, saying one thing at one time, and then totally opposite at another. It reveals a sad character flaw I'm afraid to say, and that is with your wanting to be right at the expense of the Truth.

So yes, today, in Jerusalem, and anywhere else in the world, the unbelieving Jew is 'cut off' from Christ's Salvation, which includes being cut off from any involvement with the sceptre rule of David promised to his seed forever. That royal sceptre now belongs to Christ's Church on earth, and that's who Christ is returning to receive it from, one of David's seed sitting upon it right now, on earth. That one upon it now isn't in Jerusalem today, for God moved it out of Jerusalem in Zedekiah's days. Or did you forget about the Genesis 49:10 prophecy that declares that sceptre shall depart from Judah until Shiloh (Christ) come, and to Him will the GATHERING of the people be? (that's SECOND ADVENT timing by the way, not His first coming).

Awww... You don't give yourself enough credit! You're perfectly capable of creating your own source of confusion, and you don't even have to try hard! One should NEVER say that "the Devil made me do it." The truth is that he doesn't have to do much, if anything, to allow our own ignorance to confuse ourselves. You would be wise to commit to memory Hanlon's razor and live by it:

Fact that you would go on with such gibberish as that simply reveals how far you've gotten away from the Scripture, and the topic, not to mention your Wikipedia thing.

Actually, it is YESHUA`S requirement on the Jews to admit that He is indeed the Anointed of God, the Comer in the authority of YHWH, and welcome Him before He will return. It's not something that must be done before He CAN return; it's what HE requires before He WILL return!

That's whack! (x-generation term for 'that's crazy'). I can imagine my Lord Jesus Christ returning to the Mount of Olives as written, and then saying to the saints He brings with Him standing there, "Wait a minute boys, I've got to go down and ask the Jews if they're ready for me to sit upon their throne." Ha, ha, what if they say NO again?!?

Christ's return does NOT have to wait for a time when the unbelieving Jews will accept Him as Messiah! There is NO such written condition anywhere... in all of God's Word! Jesus was QUOTING from the Old Testament prophets in Matt.23:39! And I showed where, which is when the unbelieving Jews in Jerusalem today will MOURN in SHAME when Christ reveals Himself to them. Did you get that? Before they... can even recognize Jesus Christ for Who He is, He must first... reveal Himself to them! That certainly does not depend upon the Jews being ready for His return!

Why will those of the unbelieving Jews that love God be in so much shame and mourning because of Christs return? (Zech.12; Luke 23). Hmmmm? I thought it was supposed to be a blessed time for the sons of Jacob?

It's because the unbelieving Jews... are going to bow in false worship to the "vile person", the antichrist, the son of perdition, the man of sin, Abaddon, Apollyon, the little horn, that is coming... to Jerusalem to set himself up in place of God! That's... why they will be in that terrible shame and mourning when Christ Jesus reveals Himself to all the world. Their future sin of bowing to the "abomination that maketh desolate" will be added to the sin of having pierced Him.

PLEASE pay attention! This passage of Scripture will also be fulfilled with His return, but it is NOT directly related to Matthew 23:37-39! These are not the unbelieving Jews to which Z'kharyahu was referring! Look carefully at the names listed in verses 12 and 13: Daaviyd (David), Naataan (Nathan), Leeviy (Levi), and the family of Shim`iy (Shimei). These are the same family names found in Luke 3!

I'm not the one with ADD here. The only thing the Matt.23:39 Scripture is about is Jesus quoting from the Old Testament prophets of how the majority of those unbelieving Jews will be mourning and in shame when Christ reveals Himself coming in the clouds with great glory with His saints. That's when they will say, "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of The Lord." And just who... are they saying that blessing about?

It's about these who will say this...

Luke 23:29-31
29 For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, "Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck."
30 Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, "Fall on us"; and to the hills, "Cover us."
31 For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?
(KJV)

Just where was Christ Jesus pulling that quote in red from? It's from Isaiah 54, a parable about the 'barren'.


Isa 54:1-8
1 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD.

It's a parable or symbolic analogy about betrothed virgins and marriage in the Old Testament sense of Ezekiel 23 with the two sister harlots, one representing Jerusalem (Judah) and the other representing Samariah (ten tribes), dealing with FALSE WORSHIP. Paul covered some of it in 2 Cor.11 with the idea of presenting believers to Christ as "a chaste virgin".

"Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear, break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child..." - usually it's the other way around, the desolate woman that is barren (no children) is in shame. But this barren state represents joy and singing. Why?

"...for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD." - The desolate barren woman will have MORE children than the "married wife"? How's that? This is to be interpreted in the spiritual worship sense. Bowing in false worship to an IDOL is like being married to another 'spiritually' instead of God. Further down God says He is our Husband (spiritually). The desolate woman that does not travail with child means... she has remained... "a chaste virgin" like Paul reveals in 2 Corinthians 11. The desolate woman (Christ's Church remaining faithful to Christ waiting for His coming) is to have more children than the married woman who fell to worship the false messiah. Those many children of the desolate woman are revealed next...


2 Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations: spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes;
3 For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited.

Is it the unbelieving Jews who refuse Christ Jesus as Messiah to inherit the Gentiles per the above? No way. That's about Christ's Church and HIS inheritance, not those who refuse Him. The Gospel went to the Gentiles after the unbelieving Jews rejected it, and like Apostle Paul said, the Gentiles would believe!


4 Fear not; for thou shalt not be ashamed: neither be thou confounded; for thou shalt not be put to shame: for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more.
5 For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is His name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall He be called.

This is where Apostle Paul was pulling from in 2 Cor.11 saying that he espoused us in marriage to one Husband (Jesus Christ). This is one of the places in the Old Testament prophets where all the 'virgin' metaphors originate. Paul said he wanted to present us to Christ as "a chaste virgin". And Jesus gave the parable of the ten virgins in Matt.25 about His Church waiting for His return.


6 For the LORD hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God.
7 For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee.
8 In a little wrath I hid My face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the LORD thy Redeemer.
(KJV)

In the full sense of the Isaiah 54 chapter, God is applying this to both the believing remnant of Israel and to Jerusalem itself. It is not about the unbelieving Jews. It's about those of Christ's Church, of both believing Israelites and believing Gentiles as one Body, for that's who... Christ is coming to 'gather' to Himself at His return, not unbelieving Jews!

So you need to make up your mind Who you're gonna' follow Retrobyter, Christ Jesus and His Word, or the word of the unbelieving Jews.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi veteran,

I want to thank you for your reply and apologise for not giving you a fuller answer. No doubt some of these points will arise again.

If you'll read the Old Testament carefully again, you'll eventually discover 1 Kings 11 through 2 Kings 17 details how God split Israel into two separate kingdoms in Solomon's days, giving ten tribes to Jeroboam of the tribe of Ephraim, and then how He first removed only those ten tribes of the "house of Israel" among the nations, with their never having returned to the holy land as a people. Only those of the southern kingdom of Judah went captive to Babylon; the ten tribes did not for their captivity was by the Assyrians, not the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar. The Jewish historian Josephus said the title of 'Jew' came from the tribe of Judah, and applied to the house of Judah that went captive to Babylon with only a small remnant of them returning to Jerusalem (Ezra 2). That title of Jew never historically applied to the ten tribes of Israel.

I don't want to get sidetracked about the land, but I take your point that not only the people but the land was divided, and it has never been restored since then, although the land had been fully possessed by David, before the schism under his grandson's reign. To my mind, that the prophecies predicting Judah's returnorm exile were fulfilled, is the main thing.

I believe 'the ten tribes of the house of Israel' were very much in Jesus' mind as He walked around Nazareth, Galilee and Judea. Those ten tribes had been diluted, and eventually the inhabitants of Samaria were referred to as 'Samaritans', but Jesus was not looking for 'the lost sheep of the house of Israel' there. So, it seems that those who had watched for Messiah, and those who had come to faith in Him, were very conscious of their separated brethren.

Acts 26:6 And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: 7 Unto which [promise] our twelve tribes, instantly serving [God] day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews.

Paul is who taught that God put the "spirit of slumber" upon the unbelieving branch of Israel, which is about the Jews, and that God did that so that His Salvation could also go to the Gentiles.

I don't think he was doing any more than restating Isaiah's many references to the Gentiles becoming included with 'Israel'. Surely it was a dubious privilege Isaiah was given, of declaring the slumber in the first place, in Isaiah 6? Paul's revamping of Isaiah 59:20 seems to be overlooked by the majority of believers, but I think it's significant.

Paul also showed in Rom.11 when the fulfness of the Gentiles be come in, their blindness is going to be removed.

I know this is widely taught, but looking at what Paul actually said, 'blindness in part', and, 14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation [them which are] my flesh, and might save some of them,' and, in Romans 9: 6, 7, 8, it is always clear not all of natural Israel will be saved. I say this because I believe the 'all Israel' is a spiritual statement, and it refers to the 'one new man' of Ephesians 2, rather than to the all the descendants of Jacob who are alive when Messiah returns.

Assuming that everyone has their opportunity to 'hear' and believe The Gospel with eyes to see, and ears to hear during this present time is against what Paul taught there in Romans 11.

I think that a close reading of Acts, shows how hard he worked to evangelise Jews, even after he had turned mainly to the Gentiles for his audience. Also, it is Paul who wrote of the 'vail' being taken off Jewish hearts when they turn to the Lord (2 Corinthians 3) - which completely ties with the oft repeated invitation of Jesus, to 'whosoever will'. It really is a matter of heart's desire, rather than nationality.

And that even though the majority of preachers today preach that everyone's opportunity is only for today. Most of those that disregard Paul's message in Rom.11 don't cover God's Word about Christ's future Milennium reign per Rev.20 because of that misleading.

I think there is more to Paul's dissertation than Romans 11.

Romans 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

..... 18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. 19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by [them that are] no people, [and] by a foolish nation I will anger you.

Deuteronomy 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. 19 And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require [it] of him.

Romans 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

I notice that in Jeremiah, the people are referred to as Jacob, some of the time, and it probably influenced how they continued to think of themselves, even after David's kingdom was divided after Solomon.

It is also clear from Peter's quotation of Exodus 19, that Gentile Christians are included in his definition of 'Israel', that I do tire (greatly) of the separation which is perpetuated by (what I call) dodgy doctrine, especially in the face of the increasing number of Messianic synagogues in our day. It is interesting that there is also an increase in fearfulness amongst unbelieving Jews in our day, which seems to me to be a fulfilment of something Jeremiah said, which just at this moment I can't find. I'll keep looking and post it separately when I find it.

Jeremiah 13:11 For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith the LORD; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory: but they would not hear.

2 Corinthians 6:2 (For He saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now [is] the accepted time; behold, now [is] the day of salvation.)


These are my thoughts at the moment. I believe the gospel has gone to the Jews (Israel) ever since before Paul.

 

[veteran]

Hi veteran,

I want to thank you for your reply and apologise for not giving you a fuller answer. No doubt some of these points will arise again.


I don't want to get sidetracked about the land, but I take your point that not only the people but the land was divided, and it has never been restored since then, although the land had been fully possessed by David, before the schism under his grandson's reign. To my mind, that the prophecies predicting Judah's returnorm exile were fulfilled, is the main thing.

The return of Israel to the holy lands of promise per God's OT prophets involves Christ's Church, i.e., Christ's saints being brought to Jerusalem with Christ's return and His eternal reign beginning there. It involves all believers on Christ Jesus inheriting that area. Did that happen with many of the "house of Judah" returning since 1948? No. So what is the 1948 establishing of the nation state of Israel about per God's Word? It's about the prophecy in Jeremiah 24 where God promised to bring Judah back to the holy land, along with another group (tares), and He promised He would not remove Judah from that spot ever again. That prophecy was specific to Judah only, not for the ten tribed "house of Israel" which did not return.

The Orthodox Jews spend quite a bit of effort trying to get the world to believe the 1948 return and thereafter represents the gathering on the last day when Jesus returns. But common sense should reveal that's not true, since our Lord Jesus is still yet to return today. When Christ returns, Jerusalem and the holy lands of promise will be for His Church, not for the unbelievers (though Ezek.44 and Rev.3:9 partly reveals the unbelieving Jews will still be there).

I believe 'the ten tribes of the house of Israel' were very much in Jesus' mind as He walked around Nazareth, Galilee and Judea. Those ten tribes had been diluted, and eventually the inhabitants of Samaria were referred to as 'Samaritans', but Jesus was not looking for 'the lost sheep of the house of Israel' there. So, it seems that those who had watched for Messiah, and those who had come to faith in Him, were very conscious of their separated brethren.

The Jewish historian Josephus said in his days (circa 100 A.D.), the ten tribes were still scattered abroad, and were a great number of people, too many to be counted. If you stay with the Bible history from 1 Kings 11 through 2 Kings 17, you'll discover the 'Samaritans' were not of Israel at all, but foreigners from Babylon. The kings of Assyria had the habit when conquering a land of swtiching the peoples around to keep political control. The Jews in Judea kept separate from the Samaritans for that reason, which is shown even by Christ's disciples asking Him what He had to do with the woman at the well.

Acts 26:6 And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: 7 Unto which [promise] our twelve tribes, instantly serving [God] day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews.

I don't think he was doing any more than restating Isaiah's many references to the Gentiles becoming included with 'Israel'. Surely it was a dubious privilege Isaiah was given, of declaring the slumber in the first place, in Isaiah 6? Paul's revamping of Isaiah 59:20 seems to be overlooked by the majority of believers, but I think it's significant.

I know this is widely taught, but looking at what Paul actually said, 'blindness in part', and, 14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation [them which are] my flesh, and might save some of them,' and, in Romans 9: 6, 7, 8, it is always clear not all of natural Israel will be saved. I say this because I believe the 'all Israel' is a spiritual statement, and it refers to the 'one new man' of Ephesians 2, rather than to the all the descendants of Jacob who are alive when Messiah returns.

Thankfully 'we' cannot say who all among unbelieving Israel will turn to Christ Jesus. I do believe that each MUST choose though with full accountability. If what Paul said at the end of Rom.11 about the blindness upon Israel in part was about the 'new man' of Eph.2, then that blindness wouldn't still be there now would it? Nor would Paul have marked a time when their blindness is to be removed with "...until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."

I think that a close reading of Acts, shows how hard he worked to evangelise Jews, even after he had turned mainly to the Gentiles for his audience. Also, it is Paul who wrote of the 'vail' being taken off Jewish hearts when they turn to the Lord (2 Corinthians 3) - which completely ties with the oft repeated invitation of Jesus, to 'whosoever will'. It really is a matter of heart's desire, rather than nationality.

It's both according to God having chosen Israel, and their willingness to obey Him. There's still an election according to 'seed', even per Paul in Romans 11.


[quote[I think there is more to Paul's dissertation than Romans 11.

Romans 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

..... 18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. 19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by [them that are] no people, [and] by a foolish nation I will anger you.

Deuteronomy 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. 19 And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require [it] of him.

Romans 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

I notice that in Jeremiah, the people are referred to as Jacob, some of the time, and it probably influenced how they continued to think of themselves, even after David's kingdom was divided after Solomon.

It is also clear from Peter's quotation of Exodus 19, that Gentile Christians are included in his definition of 'Israel', that I do tire (greatly) of the separation which is perpetuated by (what I call) dodgy doctrine, especially in the face of the increasing number of Messianic synagogues in our day. It is interesting that there is also an increase in fearfulness amongst unbelieving Jews in our day, which seems to me to be a fulfilment of something Jeremiah said, which just at this moment I can't find. I'll keep looking and post it separately when I find it.

Jeremiah 13:11 For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith the LORD; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory: but they would not hear.

2 Corinthians 6:2 (For He saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now [is] the accepted time; behold, now [is] the day of salvation.)

These are my thoughts at the moment. I believe the gospel has gone to the Jews (Israel) ever since before Paul.
[/quote]


My point is not about whether The Gospel has gone to the Jews or not. My points has been about whether God has allowed them to 'hear' it, vs. His hardening them so The Gospel could go to the Gentiles. Afterall, that's the idea Paul was teaching at the end of Rom.11.


Rom 11:29-32
29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all.
(KJV)

 

[dragonfly]

Hi veteran,

This seems long now I've finished it, and may be out of the order of your points to me.

I re-read Kings and Chronicles and see what you mean about the Samaritans.

So what is the 1948 establishing of the nation state of Israel about per God's Word?

This is one of the questions addressed by the writer of the articles in the 'Mark of the Beast or Mark of Yah?' thread.

It's about the prophecy in Jeremiah 24 where God promised to bring Judah back to the holy land, along with another group (tares), and He promised He would not remove Judah from that spot ever again. That prophecy was specific to Judah only, not for the ten tribed "house of Israel" which did not return.

Don't you believe Ezra's and Nehemiah's accounts are about Judah's return?

The Orthodox Jews spend quite a bit of effort trying to get the world to believe the 1948 return and thereafter represents the gathering on the last day when Jesus returns. But common sense should reveal that's not true, since our Lord Jesus is still yet to return today. When Christ returns, Jerusalem and the holy lands of promise will be for His Church, not for the unbelievers (though Ezek.44 and Rev.3:9 partly reveals the unbelieving Jews will still be there).

I'm acknowledging this paragraph but don't want to try to address it's entire contents. I agree with you that 'Israel' is the Church - Jewish and Gentile believers as 'one new man' - but there are many interpretations of prophecy today, which claim to have Biblical support, but the primary meaning of the verses chosen, is not that which is being (falsely) claimed.

The Jews in Judea kept separate from the Samaritans for that reason, which is shown even by Christ's disciples asking Him what He had to do with the woman at the well.

It was the woman herself who brought up this point:

John 4:9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.

John 4:27 And upon this came his disciples, and marvelled that he talked with the woman: yet no man said, What seekest thou? or, Why talkest thou with her?

There's still an election according to 'seed', even per Paul in Romans 11.

Yes.

Romans 9:33 As it is written,

Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence:
and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.'

Romans 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

When he refers to, 'provoke to jealousy', he is quoting Deuteronomy 32:21. God originated the idea back then.

If what Paul said at the end of Rom.11 about the blindness upon Israel in part was about the 'new man' of Eph.2, then that blindness wouldn't still be there now would it? Nor would Paul have marked a time when their blindness is to be removed with "...until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."

Paul's argument begins in Romans 9, where he finds several different ways to show that not all natural Israel will be saved. I've chosen these few verses:

22 [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. 26 And it shall come to pass, [that] in the place where it was said unto them, Ye [are] not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. 27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved.

(Isaiah 1:9 Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, [and] we should have been like unto Gomorrah.)

In vv 22 and 23, Paul has already divided Israelites and Gentiles into two groups, with Israelites and Gentiles in both.

Romans 11:14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation [them which are] my flesh, and might save some of them.

I believe Paul's reference to 'blindness' goes all the way back to Isaiah 6, and, this accounts for Jesus' references to that specific prophecy (as well as others by Isaiah). We know that another 'part' of Israel became believers.

Here is Tyndale's 1535 rendering of vv 25 - 27:
I would not that this secret should be hid from you my brethren (lest ye should be wise in your own conceits) that partly blindness is happened in Israel, until the fulness of the gentiles be come in: and so all Israel shall be saved. As it is written, 'There shall come out of Sion he that doth deliver, and shall turn away the ungodliness of Jacob'. [Isa 59:20] 'And this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.' [Jer 31:34; Heb 8:12] [I've added the references.]

The fact is that by the time Paul was writing to the church in Rome, Isaiah's prophecy in 59:20 had been fulfilled. It reads slightly differently from Paul's rendering, though. 'And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.' The Deliverer (Redeemer) had indeed come to Sion (Luke 13:33), and those Jews who had turned away from ungodliness (repented, been baptised by John or Jesus' disciples) had been baptised in the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, and tasted that the new covenant was now in operation.

Paul had been blind. He knew what it was to come to faith in Christ and to see the familiar scriptures in a new light.

I am mystified every time it is suggested that God is actively preventing Jews/Israel from turning to their Messiah by His having hardened their hearts. My reading is that they hardened their own hearts, (Hebrews 3:7, 8; Amos 5:25, 26) and later, God endorsed it. Even so, the preaching of the gospel is capable of opening their ears that they may hear and believe. That's what is meant, I believe, when Jesus said: John 20:21b '... as [my] Father hath sent me, even so send I you'.

The 'one new man' is not, I believe, about every Israelite being saved, but about the unity of the Spirit enjoyed by all believers - Jews and Gentiles together in one body, having equal access to the Father.

In Ephesians 2:1 - 3, there is no distinction made as to nationality. Those 'dead in trespasses and sins' are all 'children of unbelief' (wrath). At any time, new converts - of whatever nationality - could be, and were being added to Church.

I think we can read too much into 'such as should be saved'. Isn't that just a way of saying: those who had identified themselves as sinners, could seek God for His mercy through Jesus Christ, and find it?

To me, 'all Israel' is about those who believe into Christ for the salvation of their souls. It is not about a miraculous re-gathering of every descendant of Jacob. Only those who have believed in their Messiah, Jesus, will be/are 'saved' under the New Covenant. And there are those who kept the Old Covenant, who also are saved by Christ's sacrifice.

Hebrews 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

My points has been about whether God has allowed them to 'hear' it, vs. His hardening them so The Gospel could go to the Gentiles.

Personally, I don't think so. From Exodus, when God was stating who could share Passover, Gentiles were allowed to be circumcised if they were willing, so as to come under the full blessing of God. This is such an old idea in the Old Testament, it cannot have been new to Paul. All Paul did was make New Covenant sense out of God's previous words to the nation. I don't mean that that was a small thing, but really, he just picked up the trail left in God's word.

Amos 3:7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, veteran.

If you'll read the Old Testament carefully again, you'll eventually discover 1 Kings 11 through 2 Kings 17 details how God split Israel into two separate kingdoms in Solomon's days, giving ten tribes to Jeroboam of the tribe of Ephraim, and then how He first removed only those ten tribes of the "house of Israel" among the nations, with their never having returned to the holy land as a people. Only those of the southern kingdom of Judah went captive to Babylon; the ten tribes did not for their captivity was by the Assyrians, not the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar. The Jewish historian Josephus said the title of 'Jew' came from the tribe of Judah, and applied to the house of Judah that went captive to Babylon with only a small remnant of them returning to Jerusalem (Ezra 2). That title of Jew never historically applied to the ten tribes of Israel.

However, not all of the ten tribes were taken to Assyria. There was a remnant of them left in the Land. They became the Samaritans (Shomroniym) during Yeshua`s time. By Yeshua`s time, they had intermarried with the Goyim (Gentiles) who lived in the Land and were thus looked down upon by the Jews as "half-breeds." However, they were still better (in the Jews' view) than the Goyim, both those who lived among them and those who lived outside of the Land. It is the ancestors of these Samaritans who still make animal sacrifices in the Land upon the mountains of Isra'el today. They are the ones who still wear priestly garments, and they are the ones who still keep the ritual practices
alive! The Jews have not been able to make animal sacrifices since the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D.

Paul is who taught that God put the "spirit of slumber" upon the unbelieving branch of Israel, which is about the Jews, and that God did that so that His Salvation could also go to the Gentiles. Paul also showed in Rom.11 when the fulfness of the Gentiles be come in, their blindness is going to be removed. Assuming that everyone has their opportunity to 'hear' and believe The Gospel with eyes to see, and ears to hear during this present time is against what Paul taught there in Romans 11. And that even though the majority of preachers today preach that everyone's opportunity is only for today. Most of those that disregard Paul's message in Rom.11 don't cover God's Word about Christ's future Milennium reign per Rev.20 because of that misleading.

You should make a distinction between the "spirit of slumber" and "blindness in part." They are NOT identical, although they are related. A "spirit of slumber" is a "sleepy attitude." And, "blindness in part" is just that, "partial blindness." That term "partial" is not just referring to the part of the Jews who remained "blind," but is also talking about the fact that the "blindness" is not PERMANENT!

The Dan.11 Scripture does not declare Antiochus. But what Antiochus did in 165-170 B.C. by desolating the inside of the 2nd temple and setting up an idol in false worship certainly serves as a pattern for what the future false messiah/antichrist is coming to do, which is Dan.11 is ultimately pointing to for the end of this world. Jesus mentioned the "abomination of desolation" event from Daniel at His first coming, which was a lot later than 170 B.C. also if you'll notice. And no one to this day has yet fulfilled that "abomination of desolation" prophecy in Jerusalem; it's still a future event to us.

Sorry, but here you are 100% wrong. Dani'el 11 is NOT about anything future to us. It is all a FULFILLED prophecy! It started with the last three prominent kings in Persia (vs. 2), went through Alexander the Great (vv. 3-4a), his four generals who divided his kingdom into the Seleucid Empire, the Ptolemaic Empire, the Macedonian Empire, and the Pergamum Empire (vs. 4b), specific skirmishes between the Ptolemaic Empire (the kingdom of the south) and the Seleucid Empire (the kingdom of the north) (vv. 5-20), the antics of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (vv. 21-32a), Judas Maccabees and his brothers (vv. 32b-35), and finished with Augustus and his puppet king over Isra'el, Herod the Great (vv. 36-45). You've heard the old saying, "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it"? Well, when it comes to prophecy, it is equally true that, "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to think it MUST be repeated!" Antiochus IV is not just a pattern; he was the one who fulfilled these prophecies in Dani'el 11!

Why are you determined to try and separate the Dan.9:27 events from the rest of the Daniel prophecy that goes with it? The Dan.9:27 "covenant" is about the "league" the "vile person" makes with a 'small people' in Jerusalem, which brings the daily sacrifice to an end with an abomination idol setup instead. That is specifically what the "overspreading of abominations" clause in Dan.9:27 is about! It's the same subject prophecy in Dan.8:13, Dan.11:30-31, and Dan.12:11.

Simply because it DOESN'T go with it! The Covenant in Dani'el 9:27 is NOT the "league" NOR is it a covenant that the "prince that shall come" makes!" It is a Covenant that the MESSIAH of Dani'el 9:26 CONFIRMS (STRENGTHENS) with many for a seven! That has absolutely NOTHING in common with Dani'el 11! The "overspreading of abominations" is their rejection of the Messiah during Yeshua`s first advent! It was a rejection by degrees! At first, everyone was getting on board with accepting Yeshua` as the Messiah of God, but when the P'rushiym (Pharisees) saw that He would upset their little applecart and damage the status quo of power, they turned on Him and, out of envy and jealousy, they rejected Him more and more, turned the people against Him, and finally had the people crying out, "Crucify Him!" THAT was the "overspreading of abominations!" And, for their abominations, He left them desolate!

When I speak of David's throne, I mean by that one sitting in authority over God's Israel per His covenant to David and his seed forever. That royal rule in Jerusalem ended... with Zedekiah king of Judah, and I think you well... know that. And the prophetic requirements of God's covenant to David is that it's an earthly sceptre that would last throughout all generations on earth. It still exists on this earth today, for Christ is not to take possession of it until His return, like He revealed in Matt.19:28; Matt.25:31.

Wrong again, brother. Yeshua`, although not yet reigning on earth as He is prophesied to do, still already has the authority to reign! Some things to consider: We hear it every December 25th, but what did the Magi say in Matthew 2:2? "Where is He that is born King of the Jews?" What was the prophecy before His conception?

Luke 1:30-33
30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
KJV

Do you imagine that this is only something that will happen in the future?! I walk a tight-rope here. While I do NOT believe that He is currently reigning, I believe that the RIGHT TO RULE has already been given to Him! Consider the parable of Luke 19:12-27:

Luke 19:12-27
12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.
14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.
15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
16 Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.
17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.
18 And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds.
19 And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.
20 And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:
21 For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.
22 And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:
23 Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?
24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.
25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)
26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.
27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
KJV

The King will ALREADY BE IN POSSESSION OF THE KINGDOM when He returns! Don't forget the words of Ephesians 1:15-23:

Ephesians 1:15-23
15 Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,
16 Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers;
17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to usward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places (Greek: en tois pouraniois = in the [places]-above-the-sky),
21 Far above (literally) all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world (Greek: en too aiooni = in this age), but also in that which is to come:
22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
KJV

So, when did He receive the right to rule over His Kingdom? At the beginning of His time away from earth or at its end when He returns?

Reading comprehension is not about making things up that don't exist in the words, which is what you like to do.

I don't "make things up that don't exist in the words"; I dig deeply into the words to pull out the things that most people miss!

Now, to my statement, ...

BOTH are true! Not only is Dani'el 9:27 about the Davidic Covenant involving the Messiah's offer of God's Kingdom to the Jews, but the Davidic Covenant has never ended! As you said, the Davidic Covenant cannot be broken. However, YHWH anointed Yeshua` at His baptism and "strengthened" (Hebrew: yigbar) that covenant by providing an Heir to David's Throne. The elders of Y'hudah were to accept their role in literally anointing the Messiah Yeshua` with the holy anointing oil (Exodus 30:22-33), but they would not relinquish their political roles and submit to the King Apparent! So, Yeshua` snatched that role away from them and deferred it for a future generation who WOULD accept the role. They never "broke" the Davidic Covenant! They disenfranchised themselves from that role of honor!

you said, ...

Malarckey. The one in Dan.9:27 overspreads abominations which involves setting up IDOL worship. Christ Jesus NEVER did any such thing as that. The act of overspreading abominations to make the temple desolate was first done by Antiochus Epiphanes as you so said yourself. The stuff coming out of your mouth are falsehoods, even to the point now to where you can't tell how confused you are, saying one thing at one time, and then totally opposite at another. It reveals a sad character flaw I'm afraid to say, and that is with your wanting to be right at the expense of the Truth.

Wake up and smell the coffee! I never SAID that "Christ Jesus did any such thing as setting up IDOL worship!" You're not listening (again). It doesn't have to be literal "IDOL worship" anyway for people to commit abominations, such as setting THEMSELVES up as idols! These were not things that the Messiah would do; these were things that were simply done! Check the wording! Dani'el 9:27 said, "...and for the overspreading of abominations, He shall make it desolate!" Furthermore, the word "temple" is not in the text! It was merely ASSUMED by the translators of the NIV and other versions, and you know what they say about the word "ASSUME," ...!

I have never contradicted what I've said on this topic! An even sadder "character flaw" would be to accuse someone of telling "falsehoods" without hard evidence as proof!

So yes, today, in Jerusalem, and anywhere else in the world, the unbelieving Jew is 'cut off' from Christ's Salvation, which includes being cut off from any involvement with the sceptre rule of David promised to his seed forever. That royal sceptre now belongs to Christ's Church on earth, and that's who Christ is returning to receive it from, one of David's seed sitting upon it right now, on earth. That one upon it now isn't in Jerusalem today, for God moved it out of Jerusalem in Zedekiah's days. Or did you forget about the Genesis 49:10 prophecy that declares that sceptre shall depart from Judah until Shiloh (Christ) come, and to Him will the GATHERING of the people be? (that's SECOND ADVENT timing by the way, not His first coming).

You don't know what you're talking about. The unbelieving Jew is not "cut off" from Christ's Salvation! They can be redeemed same as anybody! AND, although there will never be another in the Jewish line to receive the sceptre rule of David promised to His seed forever, YESHUA` (WHO IS A JEW) ALREADY HAS IT!!! It was NEVER deferred to Efrayim! Shiloh (Peace), HAR SHALOM, the PRINCE OF PEACE, has already come ... once! HE HAS the sceptre, not some Brittish wannabee!

Fact that you would go on with such gibberish as that simply reveals how far you've gotten away from the Scripture, and the topic, not to mention your Wikipedia thing.

That's okay, brother. I'll just chalk that up to your ignorance.

Now, to my statement, "Actually, it is YESHUA`S requirement on the Jews to admit that He is indeed the Anointed of God, the Comer in the authority of YHWH, and welcome Him before He will return. It's not something that must be done before He CAN return; it's what HE requires before He WILL return!" you have the NERVE to say,...

That's whack! (x-generation term for 'that's crazy'). I can imagine my Lord Jesus Christ returning to the Mount of Olives as written, and then saying to the saints He brings with Him standing there, "Wait a minute boys, I've got to go down and ask the Jews if they're ready for me to sit upon their throne." Ha, ha, what if they say NO again?!?

Christ's return does NOT have to wait for a time when the unbelieving Jews will accept Him as Messiah! There is NO such written condition anywhere... in all of God's Word! Jesus was QUOTING from the Old Testament prophets in Matt.23:39! And I showed where, which is when the unbelieving Jews in Jerusalem today will MOURN in SHAME when Christ reveals Himself to them. Did you get that? Before they... can even recognize Jesus Christ for Who He is, He must first... reveal Himself to them! That certainly does not depend upon the Jews being ready for His return!

Why will those of the unbelieving Jews that love God be in so much shame and mourning because of Christs return? (Zech.12; Luke 23). Hmmmm? I thought it was supposed to be a blessed time for the sons of Jacob?

It's because the unbelieving Jews... are going to bow in false worship to the "vile person", the antichrist, the son of perdition, the man of sin, Abaddon, Apollyon, the little horn, that is coming... to Jerusalem to set himself up in place of God! That's... why they will be in that terrible shame and mourning when Christ Jesus reveals Himself to all the world. Their future sin of bowing to the "abomination that maketh desolate" will be added to the sin of having pierced Him.

You are SO very confused on these points! First, let's get a little thing out of the way: Abaddown (Hebrew) and Apolluon (Greek) are names for the king of the locusts, not for the man of sin. Both names mean "destruction" (NOT "destroyer") and are referring to the fate of this species of locust! When the king dies, the species dies. That's why they only survive for 5 months!

Now, Christ's return DOES have to wait for a time when the unbelieving Jews will accept Him as Messiah! Yeshua` HIMSELF stated that condition!!! (Sigh.) Look at it again:

Matthew 23:37-39
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.
KJV

And, verse 39 is NOT from Zechariah 12; it's from Psalm 118:26!

Psalm 118:22-26
22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.
23 This is the LORD'S doing; it is marvellous in our eyes.
24 This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.
25 Save now, I beseech thee, O LORD: O LORD, I beseech thee, send now prosperity.
26 Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the LORD: we have blessed you out of the house of the LORD.
KJV

And, the Hebrew of Psalm 118:26 is...

26 Baaruwkh habaa' b-sheem YHWH: Beerakhnuwkhem mibeeyt YHWH:

26 Baaruwkh = Happy/Welcome
habaa' = the-comer
b-sheem = in-name/in-authority
YHWH: = of-the Name of God, YaHuWH, YaHoWH, or YaHWeH.
Beerakhnuwkhem = We-have-made-(you)-happy/We-have-welcomed-(you)
mibeeyt = from-house
YHWH: = of-the Name of God, YaHuWH, YaHoWH, or YaHWeH.

So, the phrase which Yeshua` quoted is "Welcome, the comer in authority of YaHuWH!" Substituting into what Yeshua` said, one gets...

39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth (from now on), till (until) ye shall say, "Welcome, the Comer in authority of YaHuWH."

And, as far as your little scenario is concerned, Yeshua` will not even BEGIN His journey back until He hears those words!

Also, you're mixing things up right away! The "vile person" was Antiochus IV Epiphanes! The "son of perdition" was Judas Iscariot! The "man of sin" may be yet to come, but he should NOT be called "the antichrist!" The "man of sin" MAY be the "little horn" of Revelation, but that's equating two different books and a better foundation must be laid that these two terms are talking about the same person! Zechariah 12 does NOT say that they are "in shame!" They are just "in mourning!" Why because He is THEIR great, great, ..., grandson! And, don't forget a little verse that is applicable here:

Psalm 30:4-6
4 Sing unto the LORD, O ye saints of his, and give thanks at the remembrance of his holiness.
5 For his anger endureth but a moment; in his favour is life: weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.
6 And in my prosperity I said, I shall never be moved.
KJV

Yes, the Millennium will be a time of GREAT JOY for the Israe'liym, but that doesn't mean that they can't cry and wail for a short time first! After all, tears aren't wiped away forever until the New Earth is established.

I'm not the one with ADD here. The only thing the Matt.23:39 Scripture is about is Jesus quoting from the Old Testament prophets of how the majority of those unbelieving Jews will be mourning and in shame when Christ reveals Himself coming in the clouds with great glory with His saints. That's when they will say, "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of The Lord." And just who... are they saying that blessing about?

It's about these who will say this...

Luke 23:28-31
28 But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.
29 For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, "Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck."
30 Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, "Fall on us"; and to the hills, "Cover us."
31 For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?
(KJV)

(You conveniently left out verse 28. I added it back for you.) This passage is NOT about the future! It was already fulfilled in the PAST! It was fulfilled in the days when the daughters of Yerushalayim to whom Yeshua` was speaking were told to weep for themselves and for their own children!

Just where was Christ Jesus pulling that quote in red from? It's from Isaiah 54, a parable about the 'barren'.

Isa 54:1-8
1 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD.

It's a parable or symbolic analogy about betrothed virgins and marriage in the Old Testament sense of Ezekiel 23 with the two sister harlots, one representing Jerusalem (Judah) and the other representing Samariah (ten tribes), dealing with FALSE WORSHIP. Paul covered some of it in 2 Cor.11 with the idea of presenting believers to Christ as "a chaste virgin".

"Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear, break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child..." - usually it's the other way around, the desolate woman that is barren (no children) is in shame. But this barren state represents joy and singing. Why?

"...for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD." - The desolate barren woman will have MORE children than the "married wife"? How's that? This is to be interpreted in the spiritual worship sense. Bowing in false worship to an IDOL is like being married to another 'spiritually' instead of God. Further down God says He is our Husband (spiritually). The desolate woman that does not travail with child means... she has remained... "a chaste virgin" like Paul reveals in 2 Corinthians 11. The desolate woman (Christ's Church remaining faithful to Christ waiting for His coming) is to have more children than the married woman who fell to worship the false messiah. Those many children of the desolate woman are revealed next...

2 Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations: spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes;
3 For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited.

Is it the unbelieving Jews who refuse Christ Jesus as Messiah to inherit the Gentiles per the above? No way. That's about Christ's Church and HIS inheritance, not those who refuse Him. The Gospel went to the Gentiles after the unbelieving Jews rejected it, and like Apostle Paul said, the Gentiles would believe!

4 Fear not; for thou shalt not be ashamed: neither be thou confounded; for thou shalt not be put to shame: for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more.
5 For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is His name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall He be called.

This is where Apostle Paul was pulling from in 2 Cor.11 saying that he espoused us in marriage to one Husband (Jesus Christ). This is one of the places in the Old Testament prophets where all the 'virgin' metaphors originate. Paul said he wanted to present us to Christ as "a chaste virgin". And Jesus gave the parable of the ten virgins in Matt.25 about His Church waiting for His return.

6 For the LORD hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God.
7 For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee.
8 In a little wrath I hid My face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the LORD thy Redeemer.
(KJV)

In the full sense of the Isaiah 54 chapter, God is applying this to both the believing remnant of Israel and to Jerusalem itself. It is not about the unbelieving Jews. It's about those of Christ's Church, of both believing Israelites and believing Gentiles as one Body, for that's who... Christ is coming to 'gather' to Himself at His return, not unbelieving Jews!

Who says Yeshua` was quoting from ANYWHERE?! You've woven this whole fabricated thing out of a passage that is BACKWARDS to what Yeshua` was saying! Yeshua` was saying that they would CURSE themselves in the day when they were running from Rome! It would be closer to say He was quoting from the feelings of JOB more than from Isaiah!

So you need to make up your mind Who you're gonna' follow Retrobyter, Christ Jesus and His Word, or the word of the unbelieving Jews.

Hmmmm.... I think I will follow the Messiah Yeshua` and His Word AND the word of believing Jews!

 

[us2are1]

What is there to misunderstand? What you said is perfectly clear. It didn't line up with scripture; that's all.

It does line up with scripture. What does not line up with scripture is the gospel of "do whatever you like, grace will get you there". You are not there until you do what the Lord commanded. Hearers and talkers will always be searching and finding nothing because they were not willing to become imitators of God as dear children. They never become a friend of Christ and God and will become part of a rejected generation of Gods wrath.

.John 15
14 You are My friends if you do whatever I command you.

Jeremiah 7
29 Cut off your hair and cast it away, and take up a lamentation on the desolate heights; for the Lord has rejected and forsaken the generation of His wrath.'

Deuteronomy 32
20 And He said: 'I will hide My face from them, I will see what their end will be, For they are a perverse generation, Children in whom is no faith.

James 1
21 Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.
22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.
23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror;
24 for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was. 25 But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does.

Luke 6
46 "But why do you call Me 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do the things which I say?
47 Whoever comes to Me, and hears My sayings and does them, I will show you whom he is like:
48 He is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock. And when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently against that house, and could not shake it, for it was founded on the rock.
49 But he who heard and did nothing is like a man who built a house on the earth without a foundation, against which the stream beat vehemently; and immediately it fell. And the ruin of that house was great."


So you see no one is saved by talking some words into the air before men. But rather by hearing the gospel of Christ and doing it.

The modern gospel of "repeat after me" and all the false doctrines that acompany it, is witch craft design for monetary gain and selling souls to do evil..

 

[dragonfly]

39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. KJV

Shalom Retrobyter,

I can see that you and veteran are battling with the immensely powerful lobby which has put forward various false notions about how to interpret the scriptures you bring to bear in your answers. I believe both of you are right about some of your reinterpretations, but neither of you - nor I, perhaps - have the whole thing correctly reinterpreted.

Now, to the quote above. It seems to me really quite amazing that Paul's statement that the Lord appeared to him as one born out of due time, gets no recognition as a standard. He (Paul) is elevated in the minds of some Christians because 'he saw the Lord', and I've even heard some say that the mark of an apostle today is that he or she has 'seen' the Lord.

I would be grateful if you'd look into the word which is used in the verse you quoted, to determine whether there is any reason at all, that it does not mean the same kind of appearing as Paul experienced?

Because, if it doesn't mean Christ in His resurrected body - as your interpretation necessitates - then 'Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord', is a similar statement to 'How beautiful are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings to Zion'. It could be argued that the prophets brought 'good tidings' to Zion when the foretold of the Messiah, as much as it could be said that Messiah Himself brought good tidings to Zion. Do you see what I mean?

My belief is that many Christians 'see' the Lord, although there is a group of believers who feel they are believing without 'seeing' physically, in the way that Jesus pointed out to Thomas. Nevertheless, I believe that 'seeing' the Lord with the eye of faith, and spiritually, is expected, by the following verses at least.

(I'm quoting from Tyndale because, yes, it says what I want it to say, but also, it flows completely in the context of the preceding verses about Moses having to cover his face so that the people didn't see the glory of God shining from it. Yes, Moses may not have had the glory of God inside him, but we cannot transfer that Old Covenant standard to the New Covenant, because 'we have this treasure in earthen vessels'.)

Tyndale's New Testament: 2 Corinthians 3:18 But we all behold the glory of the Lord with His face open, and are changed unto the same similitude, from glory to glory, even of the Spirit of the Lord.

KJV 2 Corinthians 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we [him] no more.

So if we don't know Him after the flesh, we know Him by the Spirit, if we know Him at all - as Matthew 23:39 implies. He is telling them that He accepts their rejection of Him, which He Himself prophesied in Matt 21:38, and 42, and until they 'see' Him through His disciples, and humbly attribute to them, Psa 118:26, He will be hidden from them (by their unbelief).

2 Corinthians 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to [give] the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Luke 11:34 The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when [thine eye] is evil, thy body also [is] full of darkness.

'Thine eye' is a way of saying 'what you're looking at'. 'Single', is about looking at Jesus Christ, the Light of the world', only.

Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.


Do we see Him? Or don't we?

It does line up with scripture. What does not line up with scripture is the gospel of "do whatever you like, grace will get you there". You are not there until you do what the Lord commanded. Hearers and talkers will always be searching and finding nothing because they were not willing to become imitators of God as dear children. They never become a friend of Christ and God and will become part of a rejected generation of Gods wrath.

.John 15
14 You are My friends if you do whatever I command you.

Jeremiah 7
29 Cut off your hair and cast it away, and take up a lamentation on the desolate heights; for the Lord has rejected and forsaken the generation of His wrath.'

Deuteronomy 32
20 And He said: 'I will hide My face from them, I will see what their end will be, For they are a perverse generation, Children in whom is no faith.

James 1
21 Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.
22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.
23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror;
24 for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was. 25 But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does.

Luke 6
46 "But why do you call Me 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do the things which I say?
47 Whoever comes to Me, and hears My sayings and does them, I will show you whom he is like:
48 He is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock. And when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently against that house, and could not shake it, for it was founded on the rock.
49 But he who heard and did nothing is like a man who built a house on the earth without a foundation, against which the stream beat vehemently; and immediately it fell. And the ruin of that house was great."


So you see no one is saved by talking some words into the air before men. But rather by hearing the gospel of Christ and doing it.

The modern gospel of "repeat after me" and all the false doctrines that acompany it, is witch craft design for monetary gain and selling souls to do evil..

Brother Son of Man,

You seem to have changed the subject from your original statement of grace not being needed once we are inside the fold, to, a discussion about the way some Christians use the word 'grace'. This was not the purpose of my first reply to you, in which I showed a number of verses in the present tense during the ongoing life of the Christian (ie after entering the fold) in which grace was deemed to be both relevant and necessary.

As for, "do whatever you like, grace will get you there", I do not go along with that either.

Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, dragonfly.

[/color]

Shalom Retrobyter,

I can see that you and veteran are battling with the immensely powerful lobby which has put forward various false notions about how to interpret the scriptures you bring to bear in your answers. I believe both of you are right about some of your reinterpretations, but neither of you - nor I, perhaps - have the whole thing correctly reinterpreted.

Now, to the quote above. It seems to me really quite amazing that Paul's statement that the Lord appeared to him as one born out of due time, gets no recognition as a standard. He (Paul) is elevated in the minds of some Christians because 'he saw the Lord', and I've even heard some say that the mark of an apostle today is that he or she has 'seen' the Lord.

I would be grateful if you'd look into the word which is used in the verse you quoted, to determine whether there is any reason at all, that it does not mean the same kind of appearing as Paul experienced?

Because, if it doesn't mean Christ in His resurrected body - as your interpretation necessitates - then 'Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord', is a similar statement to 'How beautiful are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings to Zion'. It could be argued that the prophets brought 'good tidings' to Zion when the foretold of the Messiah, as much as it could be said that Messiah Himself brought good tidings to Zion. Do you see what I mean?

Sure, I understand you. The Greek of Matthew 23:39 is clear:

39 legoo gar humin, ou mee me ideete ap' arti heoos an' eipeete, "Eulogeemenos ho erchomenos en onomati Kuriou."

39 legoo = 39 I-say
gar = for
humin, = to-you-(plural),
ou = no/not-(positively)
mee = no/not-(negatively)
me = me
ideete = you-(plural)-shall-see
ap' (apo) = off/away-from
arti = just-now
heoos = until
an' (ana) = up/at
eipeete, = you-(plural)-shall-say,
"Eulogeemenos = "We-are-speaking-well-of/We-are-welcoming
ho = the
erchomenos = one-(who)-is-coming
en = in
onomati = name/authority
Kuriou." = of-Lord."

39 I-say for to-you-(plural), no/not-(positively) no/not-(negatively) me you-(plural)-shall-see off/away-from just-now until up/at you-(plural)-shall-say, "We-are-speaking-well-of/We are welcoming the One-(who)-is-coming in name/authority of-Lord."

39 For I say to you, you shall NOT see me (whether you want to or not) from now on until you shall up say (up to or at that point), "We are welcoming the One who is coming in [the] name of [the] Lord."

The Greek word "ideete," coming from "eidoo" meaning "I-see," means "you-(plural)-shall-see" and with the double negative, the first expecting a positive response and the second expecting a negative response and adding in the personal pronoun "me", literally means "you-(plural)-shall-NOT-see me!" It's a simple phrase that establishes NO MORE CONTACT! He was not talking to His disciples or believers at the time; He was talking to His ENEMIES! He was telling His enemies - ALL of His enemies - those Jews who would not accept Him - that He would not deal with them again UNTIL they could speak those words and mean them about Himself!

However, context is EVERYTHING! Yeshua`s quote from Psalm 118:26 is not ANYTHING LIKE Isaiah 40:9!

Isaiah 40:9-11
9 You who bring good tidings to Zion,
go up on a high mountain.
You who bring good tidings to Jerusalem,
lift up your voice with a shout,
lift it up, do not be afraid;
say to the towns of Judah,
"Here is your God!"
10 See, the Sovereign Lord comes with power,
and his arm rules for him.
See, his reward is with him,
and his recompense accompanies him.
11 He tends his flock like a shepherd:
He gathers the lambs in his arms
and carries them close to his heart;
he gently leads those that have young.
NIV

Isaiah 40:9 is more like Isaiah 52:7!

Isaiah 52:7
7 How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!
KJV

The closest thing to Psalm 118:26 is that the words translated "how beautiful" in Isaiah 52:7, "maah naa'wuw," literally mean "how at-home," which might also suggest "welcome" as a "welcome sight." These verses are talking about a runner who brings good news from a battle or some other announcement of good news.

Certain runners were sent to bear good news and other runners were sent to bear bad news. This is why there was initial confusion about the results of the battle between Avshalom (Absalom) and his men against David's men in 2 Samu'el 18:

2 Samu'el 18:19-33
19 Then said Ahimaaz (a bearer of good news) the son of Zadok, Let me now run, and bear the king tidings, how that the Lord hath avenged him of his enemies.
20 And Joab said unto him, Thou shalt not bear tidings this day, but thou shalt bear tidings another day: but this day thou shalt bear no tidings, because the king's son is dead.
21 Then said Joab to Cushi (a bearer of sad news), Go tell the king what thou hast seen. And Cushi bowed himself unto Joab, and ran.
22 Then said Ahimaaz the son of Zadok yet again to Joab, But howsoever, let me, I pray thee, also run after Cushi. And Joab said, Wherefore wilt thou run, my son, seeing that thou hast no tidings ready?
23 But howsoever, said he, let me run. And he said unto him, Run. Then Ahimaaz ran by the way of the plain, and overran Cushi.
24 And David sat between the two gates: and the watchman went up to the roof over the gate unto the wall, and lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold a man running alone.
25 And the watchman cried, and told the king. And the king said, If he be alone, there is tidings in his mouth. And he came apace, and drew near.
26 And the watchman saw another man running: and the watchman called unto the porter, and said, Behold another man running alone. And the king said, He also bringeth tidings.
27 And the watchman said, Me thinketh the running of the foremost is like the running of Ahimaaz the son of Zadok. And the king said, He is a good man, and cometh with good tidings.
28 And Ahimaaz called, and said unto the king, All is well. And he fell down to the earth upon his face before the king, and said, Blessed be the Lord thy God, which hath delivered up the men that lifted up their hand against my lord the king.
29 And the king said, Is the young man Absalom safe? And Ahimaaz answered, When Joab sent the king's servant, and me thy servant, I saw a great tumult, but I knew not what it was. (I.e,, I don't know.)
30 And the king said unto him, Turn aside, and stand here. And he turned aside, and stood still.
31 And, behold, Cushi came; and Cushi said, Tidings, my lord the king: for the Lord hath avenged thee this day of all them that rose up against thee.
32 And the king said unto Cushi, Is the young man Absalom safe? And Cushi answered, The enemies of my lord the king, and all that rise against thee to do thee hurt, be as that young man is. (I.e., a diplomatic way of delivering bad news meaning, "No, he's dead.")
33 And the king was much moved, and went up to the chamber over the gate, and wept: and as he went, thus he said, O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! would God I had died for thee, O Absalom, my son, my son!
KJV

Furthermore, Isaiah 40:9-11 and 52:7 don't mean "salvation" in the modern sense of "personal justification by God"; they are talking about the DELIVERANCE or RESCUE that God performs for His people Isra'el when the Messiah passionately arrives and zealously fights for them against their enemies!

I would recommend that you read the prophecies of the Tanakh (the OT) carefully and with a literal view FIRST!

My belief is that many Christians 'see' the Lord, although there is a group of believers who feel they are believing without 'seeing' physically, in the way that Jesus pointed out to Thomas. Nevertheless, I believe that 'seeing' the Lord with the eye of faith, and spiritually, is expected, by the following verses at least.

(I'm quoting from Tyndale because, yes, it says what I want it to say, but also, it flows completely in the context of the preceding verses about Moses having to cover his face so that the people didn't see the glory of God shining from it. Yes, Moses may not have had the glory of God inside him, but we cannot transfer that Old Covenant standard to the New Covenant, because 'we have this treasure in earthen vessels'.)

Tyndale's New Testament: 2 Corinthians 3:18 But we all behold the glory of the Lord with His face open, and are changed unto the same similitude, from glory to glory, even of the Spirit of the Lord.

KJV 2 Corinthians 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we [him] no more.

So if we don't know Him after the flesh, we know Him by the Spirit, if we know Him at all - as Matthew 23:39 implies. He is telling them that He accepts their rejection of Him, which He Himself prophesied in Matt 21:38, and 42, and until they 'see' Him through His disciples, and humbly attribute to them, Psa 118:26, He will be hidden from them (by their unbelief).

But what you are NOT getting from Tyndale is the TENSE OF THE VERBS! The words "are changed" is a simple present perfect tense in English, which suggests an action that started in the past and is completed in the present. The Greek word in 2 Cor. 3:18 so translated is "metamorfoumetha," which is the present, middle voice meaning "we are BEING changed." It was an action started in the past but is continuing through the present and will be completed in the future!

2 Corinthians 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to [give] the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Luke 11:34 The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when [thine eye] is evil, thy body also [is] full of darkness.

'Thine eye' is a way of saying 'what you're looking at'. 'Single', is about looking at Jesus Christ, the Light of the world', only.

Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.


Do we see Him? Or don't we?
...

Sorry. That's a different Greek word. "We see" is so translated from "blepomen," a form of "blepoo," meaning "to look at (literally or figuratively)," according to Strong's. Thus, the author of Hebrews is saying, "But we look at Yeshua`," in the same sense as "we contemplate Yeshua`."

There's just too much figurative and symbolic imagery in your interpretation. IMO, you're missing the whole point!

 

[dragonfly]

Shalom Retrobyter,

Thank you for the very detailed reply. I learned a lot!

Still, I think the principle which was in my mind, is borne out by the study you gave. The 'runner' (disciple) has been sent on the authority of A N Other, with a message for a n other or others.

In the case of those sent with the gospel, until the gospel is received (with open hearts) and there is a response to God because of it (they turn to the Lord), the vail will not be removed from the eyes of their hearts. But if they do turn to the Lord, the vail will be removed, and they will 'see' Him with open face. He will reveal Himself in them, as within us.

I take your point about the tense, and no doubt Tyndale was aware of that. I'm not sure about present continuous early in the 16th century when he was writing for ploughboys. But I think - and perhaps he thought - that the phrase 'from glory to glory', implied an ongoing work. In those days, daily devotions were the norm for everyone in the country. The idea that was seek the face of God every day, thus laying ourselves open to be changed every day, was implicit.

Regarding Strong's 'literal or figurative', this is typical of Strong's. Never known to err on the side of being over-spiritual!

My comment: I don't 'see Jesus' figuratively. I 'see' in the Spirit. He is real to me. I mean, I literally see Him in the Spirit. But what everyone (including yourself, it seems - although you have not cast your lot one way or the other, I note) thinks - with no real reason for doing so - is that 'literal' means He will have returned by then. Yet, with every other people group to whom disciples preach the gospel, the converts are expected to 'see' Him with the eye of faith, by the Spirit. I cannot find any reason to make an exception of the last generation of Israelites and Jews, as so many others do.

Do you?

 

[veteran]

Hi veteran,

This seems long now I've finished it, and may be out of the order of your points to me.

I re-read Kings and Chronicles and see what you mean about the Samaritans.

Good. Difficult to understand later history without first understanding previous history.

This is one of the questions addressed by the writer of the articles in the 'Mark of the Beast or Mark of Yah?' thread.

Possibly, I don't recall at the moment.

Don't you believe Ezra's and Nehemiah's accounts are about Judah's return?

Ezra 1:4-5
4 And whosoever remaineth in any place where he sojourneth, let the men of his place help him with silver, and with gold, and with goods, and with beasts, beside the freewill offering for the house of God that is in Jerusalem.
5 Then rose up the chief of the fathers of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests, and the Levites, with all them whose spirit God had raised, to go up to build the house of the LORD which is in Jerusalem.
(KJV)

Per the number of all those returning in Ezra 2, it was 42,360 total. Look at previous numbers of just Judah prior to their Babylon captivity and you'll see those of the "house of Judah" were just a small remnant. And that took place way back in history. So no, Ezra and Nehemiah have nothing to do with any modern return of Jews back to the holy land.

I'm acknowledging this paragraph but don't want to try to address it's entire contents. I agree with you that 'Israel' is the Church - Jewish and Gentile believers as 'one new man' - but there are many interpretations of prophecy today, which claim to have Biblical support, but the primary meaning of the verses chosen, is not that which is being (falsely) claimed.

Shouldn't be difficult to understand that the Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem are still... waiting for Messiah, as they don't believe He ever came yet, definitely not as Jesus of Nazareth. So I don't know how much more prophetic proof one would need that today's return to the holy lands of unbelieving Jews has nothing to do with Christ Jesus' second coming, especially when they refuse to recognize His first coming. What their return has to do with is the Jeremiah 24 prophecy, and that's only about a promise that God would bring them back and not remove them again, and... it was a promise only... to Judah, and not the ten lost tribes of Israel. Nor does that Jer.24 chapter say how many of Judah would return, as it's obvious not all Jews have returned.

It was the woman herself who brought up this point:

John 4:9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.

John 4:27 And upon this came his disciples, and marvelled that he talked with the woman: yet no man said, What seekest thou? or, Why talkest thou with her?

Your second verse quote is what I was referring to.

Yes.

Romans 9:33 As it is written,

Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence:
and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.'

Romans 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

When he refers to, 'provoke to jealousy', he is quoting Deuteronomy 32:21. God originated the idea back then.

Yep. And Orthodox Jews are still very jealous, especially the crept in unwares false ones among them.

Paul's argument begins in Romans 9, where he finds several different ways to show that not all natural Israel will be saved. I've chosen these few verses:

22 [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. 26 And it shall come to pass, [that] in the place where it was said unto them, Ye [are] not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. 27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved.

(Isaiah 1:9 Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, [and] we should have been like unto Gomorrah.)

In vv 22 and 23, Paul has already divided Israelites and Gentiles into two groups, with Israelites and Gentiles in both.

Romans 11:14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation [them which are] my flesh, and might save some of them.

I believe Paul's reference to 'blindness' goes all the way back to Isaiah 6, and, this accounts for Jesus' references to that specific prophecy (as well as others by Isaiah). We know that another 'part' of Israel became believers.

Here is Tyndale's 1535 rendering of vv 25 - 27:
I would not that this secret should be hid from you my brethren (lest ye should be wise in your own conceits) that partly blindness is happened in Israel, until the fulness of the gentiles be come in: and so all Israel shall be saved. As it is written, 'There shall come out of Sion he that doth deliver, and shall turn away the ungodliness of Jacob'. [Isa 59:20] 'And this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.' [Jer 31:34; Heb 8:12] [I've added the references.]

The fact is that by the time Paul was writing to the church in Rome, Isaiah's prophecy in 59:20 had been fulfilled. It reads slightly differently from Paul's rendering, though. 'And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.' The Deliverer (Redeemer) had indeed come to Sion (Luke 13:33), and those Jews who had turned away from ungodliness (repented, been baptised by John or Jesus' disciples) had been baptised in the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, and tasted that the new covenant was now in operation.

Paul had been blind. He knew what it was to come to faith in Christ and to see the familiar scriptures in a new light.

I am mystified every time it is suggested that God is actively preventing Jews/Israel from turning to their Messiah by His having hardened their hearts. My reading is that they hardened their own hearts, (Hebrews 3:7, 8; Amos 5:25, 26) and later, God endorsed it. Even so, the preaching of the gospel is capable of opening their ears that they may hear and believe. That's what is meant, I believe, when Jesus said: John 20:21b '... as [my] Father hath sent me, even so send I you'.

The 'one new man' is not, I believe, about every Israelite being saved, but about the unity of the Spirit enjoyed by all believers - Jews and Gentiles together in one body, having equal access to the Father.

In Ephesians 2:1 - 3, there is no distinction made as to nationality. Those 'dead in trespasses and sins' are all 'children of unbelief' (wrath). At any time, new converts - of whatever nationality - could be, and were being added to Church.

I think we can read too much into 'such as should be saved'. Isn't that just a way of saying: those who had identified themselves as sinners, could seek God for His mercy through Jesus Christ, and find it?

To me, 'all Israel' is about those who believe into Christ for the salvation of their souls. It is not about a miraculous re-gathering of every descendant of Jacob. Only those who have believed in their Messiah, Jesus, will be/are 'saved' under the New Covenant. And there are those who kept the Old Covenant, who also are saved by Christ's sacrifice.

Hebrews 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.



Personally, I don't think so. From Exodus, when God was stating who could share Passover, Gentiles were allowed to be circumcised if they were willing, so as to come under the full blessing of God. This is such an old idea in the Old Testament, it cannot have been new to Paul. All Paul did was make New Covenant sense out of God's previous words to the nation. I don't mean that that was a small thing, but really, he just picked up the trail left in God's word.

Amos 3:7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

If you keep that opinion, then how can God's Plan in Jerusalem for the end of this world be done?? You see brother, there's a reason why we are told how unbelieving Judah will look upon Christ they pierced, and feel shame and mourn for Him (Zechariah; Rev.). There's ample evidence of God having hardened a portion of Israel through the "spirit of slumber" for this world, with a future time that blindness will be removed by Christ when the fulness of the Gentiles comes in like Paul stated in Rom.11. Without that... it would mean the fulness of the Gentiles had already come in on Pentecost, and we certainly know that isn't true.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi veteran,

Thanks for your reply. :)

Look at previous numbers of just Judah prior to their Babylon captivity and you'll see those of the "house of Judah" were just a small remnant. And that took place way back in history. So no, Ezra and Nehemiah have nothing to do with any modern return of Jews back to the holy land.

We may have a misunderstanding here. I did not mean to suggest that Ezra and Nehemiah had to do with a 'modern return of Jews back to the holy land'. I was suggesting that the fulfilment of the prophecies to Judah has already occurred at the time recorded by Ezra and Nehemiah. That's what I was trying to say, anyway.

Shouldn't be difficult to understand that the Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem are still... waiting for Messiah, as they don't believe He ever came yet, definitely not as Jesus of Nazareth. So I don't know how much more prophetic proof one would need that today's return to the holy lands of unbelieving Jews has nothing to do with Christ Jesus' second coming

There is quite a work of evangelism going on there, and many Jews turning to the Lord.

But, at the risk of sounding heretical with respect to the doctrine which links our Lord's return with the prior regathering of Israel and Judah, I don't see in the Bible. Their return to Him, yes. To the land... I think that's ambiguous.

In a nutshell, historically the only people (Hebrews, Israel, Jews) to whom God's promises apply, are those who have obeyed Him, either in walking with Him before the Mosaic law, through the Mosaic Covenant or in the New Covenant. From your mention of unbelieving Jews, I guess you agree with that, too. Looking at the second part of Jeremiah 24, there is no mention of those descendants returning to the land. God's intention is to remove them far away indefinitely, although their descendants are necessarily included in all the references to a return to Him, if they will obey Him.

Jeremiah 24:8 And as the evil figs, which cannot be eaten, they are so evil; surely thus saith the LORD, So will I give Zedekiah the king of Judah, and his princes, and the residue of Jerusalem, that remain in this land, and them that dwell in the land of Egypt: 9 And I will deliver them to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth for [their] hurt, [to be] a reproach and a proverb, a taunt and a curse, in all places whither I shall drive them. 10 And I will send the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, among them, till they be consumed from off the land that I gave unto them and to their fathers.

What their return has to do with is the Jeremiah 24 prophecy, and that's only about a promise that God would bring them back and not remove them again, and... it was a promise only... to Judah, and not the ten lost tribes of Israel. Nor does that Jer.24 chapter say how many of Judah would return, as it's obvious not all Jews have returned.

I called up a count of Jeremiah's mention of 'Israel', and there are 123. Obviously, most of these are unfavourable, but, later the promise is declared to them too; and clearly, after the New Covenant has been established.

Jeremiah 50:19 And I will bring Israel again to his habitation, and he shall feed on Carmel and Bashan, and his soul shall be satisfied upon mount Ephraim and Gilead. 20 In those days, and in that time, saith the LORD, the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for, and [there shall be] none; and the sins of Judah, and they shall not be found: for I will pardon them whom I reserve.

But, at the time Jeremiah is prophesying, hundred's of years before Christ's first advent, there is no mention of His return. I find a preoccupation with the 'second coming' seems to overlook that He returned from the grave, and stood on the Mount of Olives then. This is just one of the reasons I'm not signed up to the interpretaton - you mention.

If you keep that opinion, then how can God's Plan in Jerusalem for the end of this world be done??

He will bring His plan to pass in the time He knows it will come to pass. I'm just being honest with you.

I believe that scripture has been cobbled together to make a false construct. I'm not claiming to know what will happen, and I'm also not saying that I'm 'right'. But I am definitely saying that I remain unconvinced by the present-day doctrine which has gained so much momentum.... since when I'm not sure. I just don't buy it.

You see brother, there's a reason why we are told how unbelieving Judah will look upon Christ they pierced, and feel shame and mourn for Him (Zechariah; Rev.).

Why do you restrict this reaction to Judah?

Also, are you thinking it will occur on Christ's return? You don't associate the 'seeing' as with eyes of the heart, and the mourning with Acts 2:37, and Peter's exhortation to the 'inhabitants of Jerusalem' to repent (v 38)?

When I was reading Jeremiah recently, I noticed his reference to 'mourning as for an only son', associated with 'bitter'ness. Then I discovered it in Amos, too, and it seems to be based on the experience of those who have lost an only son. For instance, Jacob mourned for 'many days' for Joseph, whom he thought of - being Rachel's first - as the
son who should have been his first child.

Jeremiah 6:26 O daughter of my people, gird [thee] with sackcloth, and wallow thyself in ashes: make thee mourning, [as for] an only son, most bitter lamentation: for the spoiler shall suddenly come upon us.

Amos 8:10 And I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation; and I will bring up sackcloth upon all loins, and baldness upon every head; and I will make it as the mourning of an only [son], and the end thereof as a bitter day.

Then there is Zechariah's reference, chapter 12:7 The LORD also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify [themselves] against Judah. 8 In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David [shall be] as God, as the angel of the LORD before them. 9 And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. 10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for [his] only [son], and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for [his] firstborn. 11 In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon. (Heb 10:29)

In Ezekiel 9, we see that God's definition of 'mourning' has its roots in a hatred of sin, and an appreciation of the death penalty due for it. When I see the word 'as', it seems to me there is more than one meaning to lay hold of. In other words, they are mourning not only because a man died, but because they recognise their part in it for their sin (not the sin of being party to His death, but the sin which necessitated His death in our stead as our Redeemer.) The moment when this began to happen (Pentecost, I believe) was a great turnaround of hearts, considering that the same crowd of Jews, only a few weeks earlier, were implicated in the cries of 'Crucify!' and, 'His blood be upon us and on our children'. By Acts 5:28 the high priest is accusing the apostles of having had a hand in laying His blood upon them. How quickly he tries to slide out from under it.

Ezekiel 9:4 And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof... 6 Slay utterly old [and] young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom [is] the mark; and begin at my sanctuary.

I do believe that when the gospel is preached one of the right responses is a deep mourning over sin.

Here is the last paragraph from the page linked below it, about Josiah's death in Hadadrimmon.

The army of Judah went out and encountered that of Egypt at Megiddo, on the verge of the plain of Esdraelon. Josiah went into the field in disguise, and was fatally wounded by a random arrow. His attendants conveyed him toward Jerusalem, but had only reached Hadadrimmon, a few miles south of Megiddo, when he died (2 Kings 23:28, 30; compare 2 Chr. 35:20-27), after a reign of thirty-one years. He was buried with the greatest honors in fulfilment of Huldah's prophecy (2 Kings 22:20; compare Jer. 34:5). Jeremiah composed a funeral elegy on this the best of the kings of Israel (Lam. 4:20; 2 Chr. 35:25). The outburst of national grief on account of his death became proverbial (Zech. 12:11; compare Rev. 16:16).

http://christianansw...ght=hadadrimmon

There's ample evidence of God having hardened a portion of Israel through the "spirit of slumber" for this world, with a future time that blindness will be removed by Christ when the fulness of the Gentiles comes in like Paul stated in Rom.11. Without that... it would mean the fulness of the Gentiles had already come in on Pentecost, and we certainly know that isn't true.

I agree that there will be a moment when everyone on earth understands that Jesus Christ is the Saviour of the world - their Saviour - the Saviour of individuals. But, whether it will dawn in time for all of them, or all Israelis, to be saved - that's a different question. I don't believe that Jesus promised that. (Or any of the prophets.)

I do think there was a catching up of the Gentiles, with the Jews, after they began to come in, in that generation. Also, I note this, that after the famous v 26 in Romans 11, Paul says in the present tense - and I believe he believed it - that Jews would be saved through the evangelisation of them by Genitle Christians.

Romans 11:31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

I firmly believe that Paul counted himself as a branch of unbelieving 'Israel' who had been grafted into Christ after coming to faith in Him, or he could not have written those words with such hope for Israelites, and, authority. And, we know from Acts that he continued to evangelise Jews successfully.

1 Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

Another point is, that when Jesus spoke in Matthew 24, He did not restrict the group of mourners to 'Israel'. He said:

Matthew 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

This ties in with John's observation of a Roman soldier piercing His side. Jesus tells the disciples several times that He will be put to death by Gentiles. In this way, I believe, God ensured that there is no people group on earth who can claim some exclusion from responsibility for Christ's death. Likewise, they can claim an interest in it for their salvation.

Romans 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable [are] his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

Amen.

Well, you have a better idea of where I'm coming from. I think the big idea which I have not seen anywhere in scripture, is a command to prepare things on earth in such and such a way (as is put forward by the teaching which abounds) so that Christ can return. He left no such stipulation; only that we watch, be ready, occupy till He come. He made it clear that many many would not be ready and would not be glad of His arrival 'as a thief in the night'.

 

[veteran]

Hi veteran,

Thanks for your reply. :)

We may have a misunderstanding here. I did not mean to suggest that Ezra and Nehemiah had to do with a 'modern return of Jews back to the holy land'. I was suggesting that the fulfilment of the prophecies to Judah has already occurred at the time recorded by Ezra and Nehemiah. That's what I was trying to say, anyway.

What do you mean by, "fulfillment of the prophecies to Judah has already occurred at the time recorded by Ezra and Nehemiah"? The Jer.24 prophecy to Judah wasn't fulfilled until the 20th century, when some of Judah began trekking back to the holy land in modern times to form the nation state of Israel again. There's still quite a bit of Bible prophecy yet to come concerning Judah, i.e., the "house of Judah" (see Ezek.37 with the joining of the two sticks, which is yet future to us). Now if... today's return of many of Judah to the holy land somehow was to end, with their being removed out of the holy land again, then it would mean the Jeremiah 24 prophecy would be yet unfulfilled. But as of right now, especially since 1948, Jer.24 shows fulfillment in modern times.

There is quite a work of evangelism going on there, and many Jews turning to the Lord.

But, at the risk of sounding heretical with respect to the doctrine which links our Lord's return with the prior regathering of Israel and Judah, I don't see in the Bible. Their return to Him, yes. To the land... I think that's ambiguous.

I don't think the Jeremiah 24 prophecy is ambiguous at all. Afterall, per 1 Kings 11 God promised He would always leave 'one tribe' in Jerusalem for His servant David and for Jerusalem's sake. That can occur and still be independent of their accepting Christ Jesus. And if you'll look at history in that area in the 20th century, you should see how that event of their return there is driving other prophecies of the end in God's Word to completion in prep for our Lord Jesus' future second coming. In other words, how much Bible prophecy for the end could not come to pass if there had been no return of a portion of Judah back to the holy lands in modern times?

In a nutshell, historically the only people (Hebrews, Israel, Jews) to whom God's promises apply, are those who have obeyed Him, either in walking with Him before the Mosaic law, through the Mosaic Covenant or in the New Covenant. From your mention of unbelieving Jews, I guess you agree with that, too.

I cannot really agree with that. Our Heavenly Father often does things for His Own Sake, irregardless of the people's actions. The Biblical evidences for such are too numerous to list here (Paul even gives examples of that in the Rom.9 thru 11 chapters we've discussed). I'm talking about matters for this present world time, independent of the world to come under Christ Jesus as KING. God still has promises in effect specifically for Judah (Jews) and Israel (ten tribes) all the way up to Christ's return. The Jer.24 prophecy is one of them (for Judah only).

Looking at the second part of Jeremiah 24, there is no mention of those descendants returning to the land. God's intention is to remove them far away indefinitely, although their descendants are necessarily included in all the references to a return to Him, if they will obey Him.

Am I to assume you made a huge mistake by bypassing the previous Jeremiah 24 verses, or was that on purpose? Instead of quoting them you chose to just immediately jump to the Jer.24:8 verse which is not about Judah. Here's the important part of Jer.24 you skipped over...

Jer 24:5-7
5 Thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel; Like these good figs, so will I acknowledge them that are carried away captive of Judah, whom I have sent out of this place into the land of the Chaldeans for their good.
6 For I will set Mine eyes upon them for good, and I will bring them again to this land: and I will build them, and not pull them down; and I will plant them, and not pluck them up.
7 And I will give them an heart to know Me, that I am the LORD: and they shall be My people, and I will be their God: for they shall return unto Me with their whole heart.
(KJV)

Just when... did God do that with Judah?? We know it wasn't with the return of the remnant of Judah in Ezra's days, why? Because after Jerusalem and the 2nd temple was destroyed by the Romans in 69 A.D., the Jews in Jerusalem were dispersed again through the nations, especially around 130 A.D. with the Jewish rebellion in Hadrian's time. That's when the holy land became designated as Palestina, the Jews forbidden to live there, until... modern times.

I called up a count of Jeremiah's mention of 'Israel', and there are 123. Obviously, most of these are unfavourable, but, later the promise is declared to them too; and clearly, after the New Covenant has been established.

Jeremiah 50:19 And I will bring Israel again to his habitation, and he shall feed on Carmel and Bashan, and his soul shall be satisfied upon mount Ephraim and Gilead. 20 In those days, and in that time, saith the LORD, the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for, and [there shall be] none; and the sins of Judah, and they shall not be found: for I will pardon them whom I reserve.

But when... specifically are those other prophecies about Israel for? Has a time been reached today when Israel's iniquity is looked for and not found? What's that about? It's about God's future promise to forgive Israel and disregard their sins. Clearly that has yet to occur, because the majority of Judah still refuse The Saviour Jesus Christ, so they are yet still in their sins today. One must needs to be very careful to look at all the parameters given within a prophecy.

But, at the time Jeremiah is prophesying, hundred's of years before Christ's first advent, there is no mention of His return. I find a preoccupation with the 'second coming' seems to overlook that He returned from the grave, and stood on the Mount of Olives then. This is just one of the reasons I'm not signed up to the interpretaton - you mention.

In other words, you do NOT... believe in the SECOND COMING of Jesus Christ? It that is so, then I really don't have time to waste with such a nonsense notion as refusing Scripture about Christ's second coming which is still yet future.

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, veteran.

...
Shouldn't be difficult to understand that the Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem are still... waiting for Messiah, as they don't believe He ever came yet, definitely not as Jesus of Nazareth. So I don't know how much more prophetic proof one would need that today's return to the holy lands of unbelieving Jews has nothing to do with Christ Jesus' second coming, especially when they refuse to recognize His first coming.

They STILL expect the Messiah to come as promised. When they see Him come as expected, as prophesied by the prophets in the Tanakh, they WILL accept Him, whether they recognize Him as Yeshua` or not. The real problem is the learning curve:

While there are thousands, even tens of thousands, of Jews coming to understand that Yeshua` was INDEED the promised Messiah of God, there are millions more who have yet to come to that realization. The tide is already turning, however, and they are coming to the Master Yeshua` haMashiach by the DROVES! But, just like the proverbial "Missourians," some just won't believe until they can see it with their own eyes, rather like Toma (Thomas). These will have that problem with the learning curve. Those who didn't learn about Yeshua` the Messiah NOW will have to have a "crash course" on Yeshua` being the Messiah of God THEN!

Pay attention to the Messianic Movement; they are making great strides in bringing Yeshua`s family back to an understanding of who Yeshua` was and is! The Jews should NOT have to wait for the day they look upon the One who was pierced to begin to experience blessings with Him!

What their return has to do with is the Jeremiah 24 prophecy, and that's only about a promise that God would bring them back and not remove them again, and... it was a promise only... to Judah, and not the ten lost tribes of Israel. Nor does that Jer.24 chapter say how many of Judah would return, as it's obvious not all Jews have returned.

Frankly, the 24th chapter of Yirmeyahu's (Jeremiah's) prophecy is not about the future. It was fulfilled with the return of the Jews after the Captivity, first to Bavel and then to Persia. The two baskets of figs in his vision had to do with those who humbly submitted to God's punishment and went willingly into captivity vs. those who had to be dragged into captivity by their captors and were "removed into all the kingdoms of the earth for their hurt, to be a reproach and a proverb, a taunt and a curse, in all places whither I shall drive them."

Yep. And Orthodox Jews are still very jealous, especially the crept in unwares false ones among them.

And, why shouldn't they be jealous?! They were THEIR prophecies that were appropriated by an often antisemitic, replacement theology! It was THEIR concept of a Messiah highjacked by the Christian Church and called "Jesus Christ" (from their point of view)! It was THEIR position of honor that was supplanted! THEY were to be God's People!

But, all of that was BY DESIGN to GOAD them into curiosity and seeking out the truth! Romans 11:11 is clear about that! However, it would be VERY difficult for anyone to "creep in unaware" within the Orthodox Jews! Theirs is an "exclusive club" into which a person can only become a member if they can show positive, matriarchal lineage to others known to be Jews! And, if you meant anything else by that comment, you're thinking too much like a Christian!

Don't mistake Reformed Judaism or Conservative Judaism for Orthodox Judaism! Many Jews in Isra'el, particularly those in Yerushalayim, are VERY Orthodox! If they had their way, the government of Isra'el wouldn't tolerate Zionism! They are the ones you will see with the phylacteries on their foreheads and their arms wrapped with black cords, praying at the Western Wall on a daily basis! They are the ones you will see in their black suits, broad-brimmed, black hats, white and blue prayer shawls, called "talits," with the tassles called "zitzits" at the four corners, full beards, and braided sidelocks! THEY are the ones who yet need to be reached for the Messiah! Furthermore, we must ACTIVELY work to reach them and not sit back and expect them to come to the Messiah when He returns, for Yeshua` has said that they wouldn't see Him again until they could welcome Him back! To avoid our responsibility to them is to prolong the gap in the 70 sevens of Dani'el and the associated tribulation!

If you keep that opinion, then how can God's Plan in Jerusalem for the end of this world be done?? You see brother, there's a reason why we are told how unbelieving Judah will look upon Christ they pierced, and feel shame and mourn for Him (Zechariah; Rev.). There's ample evidence of God having hardened a portion of Israel through the "spirit of slumber" for this world, with a future time that blindness will be removed by Christ when the fulness of the Gentiles comes in like Paul stated in Rom.11. Without that... it would mean the fulness of the Gentiles had already come in on Pentecost, and we certainly know that isn't true.

As I've told you before, you're adding a word to what the Scriptures say. You add "shame" to the Scriptures that shouldn't be there! They mourn for Him, yes, but it is NOT a SHAMEFUL thing! They don't "feel shame"; that's YOUR INTERPRETATION!! They mourn for THEIR LOSS!! They are the Messiah's grandparents however many "greats" removed! Their grandson has been marred and the Messiah of prophecy shall carry the marks of His piercing for all eternity! They MOURN FOR THEIR SON!!! Read for understanding, brother!

What do you mean by, "fulfillment of the prophecies to Judah has already occurred at the time recorded by Ezra and Nehemiah"? The Jer.24 prophecy to Judah wasn't fulfilled until the 20th century, when some of Judah began trekking back to the holy land in modern times to form the nation state of Israel again. There's still quite a bit of Bible prophecy yet to come concerning Judah, i.e., the "house of Judah" (see Ezek.37 with the joining of the two sticks, which is yet future to us). Now if... today's return of many of Judah to the holy land somehow was to end, with their being removed out of the holy land again, then it would mean the Jeremiah 24 prophecy would be yet unfulfilled. But as of right now, especially since 1948, Jer.24 shows fulfillment in modern times.
...
I don't think the Jeremiah 24 prophecy is ambiguous at all. Afterall, per 1 Kings 11 God promised He would always leave 'one tribe' in Jerusalem for His servant David and for Jerusalem's sake. That can occur and still be independent of their accepting Christ Jesus. And if you'll look at history in that area in the 20th century, you should see how that event of their return there is driving other prophecies of the end in God's Word to completion in prep for our Lord Jesus' future second coming. In other words, how much Bible prophecy for the end could not come to pass if there had been no return of a portion of Judah back to the holy lands in modern times?
...
I cannot really agree with that. Our Heavenly Father often does things for His Own Sake, irregardless of the people's actions. The Biblical evidences for such are too numerous to list here (Paul even gives examples of that in the Rom.9 thru 11 chapters we've discussed). I'm talking about matters for this present world time, independent of the world to come under Christ Jesus as KING. God still has promises in effect specifically for Judah (Jews) and Israel (ten tribes) all the way up to Christ's return. The Jer.24 prophecy is one of them (for Judah only).
...
Am I to assume you made a huge mistake by bypassing the previous Jeremiah 24 verses, or was that on purpose? Instead of quoting them you chose to just immediately jump to the Jer.24:8 verse which is not about Judah. Here's the important part of Jer.24 you skipped over...

Jer 24:5-7
5 Thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel; Like these good figs, so will I acknowledge them that are carried away captive of Judah, whom I have sent out of this place into the land of the Chaldeans for their good.
6 For I will set Mine eyes upon them for good, and I will bring them again to this land: and I will build them, and not pull them down; and I will plant them, and not pluck them up.
7 And I will give them an heart to know Me, that I am the LORD: and they shall be My people, and I will be their God: for they shall return unto Me with their whole heart.
(KJV)

Just when... did God do that with Judah?? We know it wasn't with the return of the remnant of Judah in Ezra's days, why? Because after Jerusalem and the 2nd temple was destroyed by the Romans in 69 A.D., the Jews in Jerusalem were dispersed again through the nations, especially around 130 A.D. with the Jewish rebellion in Hadrian's time. That's when the holy land became designated as Palestina, the Jews forbidden to live there, until... modern times.
...

Brother, the prophecy of Yirmeyahu in that portion we have numbered as chapter 24 HAS been fulfilled. We list it with 10 verses; so, it has been given a relatively small section of the prophecy, but Yirmeyahu had a vision of two baskets of figs. BOTH of these baskets represented some of the Jews, the Southern Kingdom, if you will. The one basket was filled with figs that had just turned ripe, perfect for eating. The other basket was filled with figs that were WAY overripe, rotten and poisonous to eat.

God, through Yirmeyahu had already told them they were to go quietly to Bavel (Babylon) because of their sin. This was GOD'S doing and it was their punishment. They were to be submissive to God's servant, N'vukhadretsar (Nebuchadnezzar), and not rebel against him for fight him to stay in the Land.

The first basket represented those Jews who went quietly and submissively to Bavel (Babylon).
The second basket represented those who were rebellious and ran to Egypt or resisted in some other way.

The promise to the first basket Jews was ...

Jer 24:5-7
5 “Here is what ADONAI the God of Isra’el says: ‘I will regard the exiles from Y’hudah, whom I sent away from this place to the land of the Kasdim, as good, just as I do these good figs.

6 “‘I will look after them for their good,
I will bring them back to this land;
I will build them up and not tear them down,
plant them and not pull them up.
7 I will give them a heart to know me
that I am ADONAI.
They will be my people,
and I will be their God;
for they will return to me
with all their heart.’
CJB

This WAS accomplished in the days of Nechemyahu, Z'rubavel (Yeshua`s ancestor), and Ezra the priest. It was written for that generation, not for all eternity! God DID build them up and did not tear them down! God DID plant them and did not pull them up!

You're right that God's Word through His prophet Yirmeyahu was not ambiguous; however, neither was it for today or our future.

PLEASE learn to read history and PLEASE pick a version of the Bible you can truly understand, if you can't study it out of the original languages. And, I would also suggest that you drop the dichotomous thinking and learn that there are far fewer universalisms in the Bible than you think.

Shalom again, veteran.

P.S. - I should have qualified my statement that "You're right that God's Word through His prophet Yirmeyahu was not ambiguous; however, neither was it for today or our future" to be true FOR THIS CHAPTER and several others nearby. There are certain portions of Yirmeyahu's prophecy that ARE applicable for today, just not here!

 

[dragonfly]

Hi veteran, :)

What do you mean by, "fulfillment of the prophecies to Judah has already occurred at the time recorded by Ezra and Nehemiah"? The Jer.24 prophecy to Judah wasn't fulfilled until the 20th century, when some of Judah began trekking back to the holy land in modern times to form the nation state of Israel again. There's still quite a bit of Bible prophecy yet to come concerning Judah, i.e., the "house of Judah" (see Ezek.37 with the joining of the two sticks, which is yet future to us). Now if... today's return of many of Judah to the holy land somehow was to end, with their being removed out of the holy land again, then it would mean the Jeremiah 24 prophecy would be yet unfulfilled. But as of right now, especially since 1948, Jer.24 shows fulfillment in modern times.

What is your Biblical basis for ignoring the return to Judah the land, made by the people of Judah after the exile?

What is your Biblical basis for insisting that Jeremiah 24 was not fulfilled as part of the general fulfilment Jeremiah's word, since everything else God had given him to say, came to pass with regard to the exile itself?

Daniel 9:2 In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

In view your comment, I decided to look up 'Palestinian people' online, and dipped into Wikipedia (not always reliable) but even I was astonished by the genetic evidence cited in the article. I quote:

'Genetic analysis suggests that many of the Muslims of Palestine are descendants of Christians, Jews, and other earlier inhabitants of the Levant and surrounding area, and that over 70% of Jewish men and half of the Palestinian and Israeli Arab male population share genetics with populations throughout the centuries, some even to prehistoric times. [21]

http://en.wikipedia....estinian_people

I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this ... that the modern State of Israel as a political entity is not responsible for a genetic heritage so relevant to my assertion that Judah returned after the exile, fulfilling Jeremiah's prophecy then.

I don't think the Jeremiah 24 prophecy is ambiguous at all. Afterall, per 1 Kings 11 God promised He would always leave 'one tribe' in Jerusalem for His servant David and for Jerusalem's sake.

1 Kings 11:13 Howbeit I will not rend away all the kingdom; [but] will give one tribe to thy son for David my servant's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake which I have chosen.

Wouldn't that tribe be Benjamin? (We know Levi was there in part, because of the Temple.)

That can occur and still be independent of their accepting Christ Jesus.

That's not the context of the promise though. It is clear that the people who return are in co-operation with God. Or, as we have seen repeatedly by His punishments for disobedience, He would not be bringing them back to the land.

Regarding the two sticks, were they not made one in Christ? Can there by any other agreement than in Christ? What unity could they find which would please God, yet be outside Christ?

Ezekiel 37 is interesting for it's mention of the people coming up out of the graves. This does raise the possibility that the return only applies in the resurrection, to those who are resurrected to life rather than condemnation.

And if you'll look at history in that area in the 20th century, you should see how that event of their return there is driving other prophecies of the end in God's Word to completion in prep for our Lord Jesus' future second coming. In other words, how much Bible prophecy for the end could not come to pass if there had been no return of a portion of Judah back to the holy lands in modern times?

Well, I don't find your argument convincing. All prophecy will be fulfilled in its time. I firmly believe that not only Judah, but also Israel have trickled back to the land over the years. In fact, since Jesus was mainly preaching in the territory from which Israel had been separated for centuries before He came, it is remarkable, is it not, that He kept telling His disciples to call on the lost sheep of the house Israel, rather than Judah, most especially if there were no Israelites living there. It brings to mind this famous verse:

John 1:47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!

God still has promises in effect specifically for Judah (Jews) and Israel (ten tribes) all the way up to Christ's return.

This I can agree. I can even agree that the modern State of Israel is something to do with the fulfilment of prophecy... just not the exposition you are giving.

Am I to assume you made a huge mistake by bypassing the previous Jeremiah 24 verses, or was that on purpose? Instead of quoting them you chose to just immediately jump to the Jer.24:8 verse which is not about Judah. Here's the important part of Jer.24 you skipped over...

Jer 24:5-7
5 Thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel; Like these good figs, so will I acknowledge them that are carried away captive of Judah, whom I have sent out of this place into the land of the Chaldeans for their good.
6 For I will set Mine eyes upon them for good, and I will bring them again to this land: and I will build them, and not pull them down; and I will plant them, and not pluck them up.
7 And I will give them an heart to know Me, that I am the LORD: and they shall be My people, and I will be their God: for they shall return unto Me with their whole heart.
(KJV)

I skipped over them because I believe they were fulfilled by those who returned after the exile. My point was that disobedience is not overlooked by God. Generation after generation were destroyed by Him for their idolatry. The segment of Judah who refused to obey Him by going to Egypt received that same treatment.

You've just said:

Originally posted by dragonfly:

In a nutshell, historically the only people (Hebrews, Israel, Jews) to whom God's promises apply, are those who have obeyed Him, either in walking with Him before the Mosaic law, through the Mosaic Covenant or in the New Covenant. From your mention of unbelieving Jews, I guess you agree with that, too.

I cannot really agree with that. Our Heavenly Father often does things for His Own Sake, irregardless of the people's actions.

And I can't really agree with that. God has never over-ridden a person's will, including His treatment of the children of Israel. I think it's a mistaken notion of God's sovereignty to imply that some of His people are puppets. Rather it is that regardless of people's actions, He loves them and died to redeem them. But unless they turn to Him with a contrite heart, I don't think they can experience all the benefits of their possible relationship with Him. In this respect, I don't think He has changed, and even descendants of the ten tribes of Israel will have to comply with the Door, to be received back in.

Just when... did God do that with Judah??

Okay. Could we approach this from a different angle, please?

We know that there were no Gentiles saved until Cornelius (Acts 10). We also know this:

Acts 2:5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

Were there any local Jews living in Jerusalem?

When the Jews who had travelled for Passover and stayed until Pentecost went home (taking the gospel with them), were there members of the tribe of Judah (Jews), also left behind in Jerusalem and the surrounding land?

Were any other tribes represented in the local population?

Why did Jesus tell the disciples to preach only to the 'lost sheep of the house of Israel'?

Was He including members of Judah in that call, or, was Judah excluded from the gospel at that time?

If there were no members of Judah included, then what was the genetic make-up of the crowds that followed Jesus?

The genealogy given by gospels - Luke 3:33, and Matthew 1:3 specifically name Judah. How did they get there?

We know it wasn't with the return of the remnant of Judah in Ezra's days, why? Because after Jerusalem and the 2nd temple was destroyed by the Romans in 69 A.D., the Jews in Jerusalem were dispersed again through the nations, especially around 130 A.D. with the Jewish rebellion in Hadrian's time. That's when the holy land became designated as Palestina, the Jews forbidden to live there, until... modern times.

Well, I've already quoted the genetic evidence.

And, I honestly believe there has been a war of disinformation going on since the 1930s. That's the decade Francis Schaeffer attributes to the beginning of an overt attack on the word of God. What I have noticed also, is a steady undermining in the public consciousness, of the accepted importance of God's miracles in scripture, particularly the crossing of the Red Sea. (This is most obvious when looking at the maps given in Bibles printed since the 1960s, where the crossing point of the Red Sea, which had not been in doubt since the event, has been obliterated. The location of Mount Sinai has been moved about 80 miles westwards, and the unmistakable trade route eastwards out of Egypt, still used today, is not even shown.)

The non-Christian Jewish community has also played a significant part in maintaining a belief in the political facade which led to the modern State of Israel - although everyone at the time knew that Jews still lived there. Part of the public relations exercise has been to separate the land from acceptance of the Messiah. And yet, there is no place in the Old Testament where God promised to take them back while they were yet in their idolatry and sorceries. If you can find one, where the land is mentioned, which is not also a consequence of their walking with God on His terms, I will be dumbfounded.

Seriously!

But when... specifically are those other prophecies about Israel for? Has a time been reached today when Israel's iniquity is looked for and not found? What's that about? It's about God's future promise to forgive Israel and disregard their sins.

So, what do you think Paul was talking about in Romans 9:4, when as a Christian of the tribe of Benjamin, he wrote this:

'Who are Israelites; to whom [pertaineth] the adoption...'?

Has the man who wrote: For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God' (Romans 8:15) stopped being 'of Israel', as he refers to them in Romans 9:6b For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel'. Isn't he speaking about Israelite believers: those who are 'Israel', who are 'of Israel', as much as those who are not 'Israel' who are of Israel'?

I acknowledge that there were unbelieving Jews/Israelites, but there were a great many coming to know the Lord, also. In fact, when Paul was still Saul, 'breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord', it was Israelite believers he was persecuting. I am not trying to deny that centuries before that, the ten tribes had separated from Judah and Benjamin, but I do think there is a mountain of scriptural evidence to show that Israelites were also in the land.

Clearly that has yet to occur, because the majority of Judah still refuse The Saviour Jesus Christ, so they are yet still in their sins today. One must needs to be very careful to look at all the parameters given within a prophecy.

I fully accept these points, but, I don't accept them as overriding all the past when Jews and Israelites have become Christians not only in Jerusalem, but in the uttermost parts of the earth to which they were dispersed by their forefathers' disobedience. There is nothing in scripture which necessitates a descendant of Jacob to return to the land in order to be converted (17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Hebrews 10).

Hmm. Is it that you don't believe Isaiah 59:20 has begun to be fulfilled yet? Have you fallen for the false rhetoric that it's all still in the future, or, can you see that with regard to all Israelites, Judah included, it began to be fulfilled when Jesus died on the cross, rose again, ascended, and sent the Holy Spirit at Pentecost?

In other words, you do NOT... believe in the SECOND COMING of Jesus Christ? It that is so, then I really don't have time to waste with such a nonsense notion as refusing Scripture about Christ's second coming which is still yet future.

That's not what I said. I resisted to give more explanation, because I (perhaps, rashly) thought you could work it out for yourself. I didn't say I don't believe in a future coming, because He did say He would 'come again', and the angels at His Ascension also said He would return. I mentioned that He's already 'returned' once, (which could be interpreted as having come twice - making the next 'coming', the third. The term 'second coming' is not in the Bible, you know).

Also, on His last return, He did some of the things some people expect Him to do the next time He comes.

My point is, have those prophecies been already fulfilled?


A sub-question would be - what is the symbolic significance of 'the Mount of Olives'?

It's about a heap of oil. It's about the 'head' being anointed. Oil burns (flames on heads). It's about the High Priest:

Psalm 133:like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, [even] Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments;

It is healing for the Mount of corruption (the minds of men devoted to idols) (2 Kings 23: 13 And the high places that [were] before Jerusalem, which [were] on the right hand of the mount of corruption, which Solomon the king of Israel had builded for Ashtoreth the abomination of the Zidonians, and for Chemosh the abomination of the Moabites, and for Milcom the abomination of the children of Ammon, did the king defile. {the mount...: that is, the mount of Olives}

The Mount of Olives is, also, already divided by a north-south valley and an east-west valley.

And, it is indisputable that the 'Spirit of grace' was poured out in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. [grace = charis]

And, that therefore, John 7:37 is in operation:In the last day, that great [day] of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. 38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Living water (the word of God empowered by the Holy Spirit) is flowing out to the seas east and west - the peoples of world - as water flowed from the High Priest's side when it was riven, His death and His blood making a way of full escape from the power of sin for all who will lay hold on it.



There are many prophecies which none of the gospel or epistle writers mention, which have been fulfilled.



These are my replies to your thoughts. Please don't feel obliged to answer, if it's a waste of your time. I will understand.

 

[veteran]

Shalom, veteran.

They STILL expect the Messiah to come as promised. When they see Him come as expected, as prophesied by the prophets in the Tanakh, they WILL accept Him, whether they recognize Him as Yeshua` or not. The real problem is the learning curve:

The one soon to come to Jerusalem and proclaim himself as God in place of Jesus Christ is who the Orthodox unbelieving Jews will... accept...

John 5:43
43 I am come in My Father's name, and ye receive Me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
(KJV)

What is your Biblical basis for ignoring the return to Judah the land, made by the people of Judah after the exile?

What is your Biblical basis for trying to infer 'unbelieving' Judah's only partial return to the holy land has something to do with Christ's Kingdom?

What is your Biblical basis for insisting that Jeremiah 24 was not fulfilled as part of the general fulfilment Jeremiah's word, since everything else God had given him to say, came to pass with regard to the exile itself?

What is your Biblical basis for NOT... understanding how God said in Jer.24 that He would bring Judah back to the land and not remove them from the land again, with the start of their return to the holy lands to form the state of Israel again not until modern times?

Daniel 9:2 In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

In view your comment, I decided to look up 'Palestinian people' online, and dipped into Wikipedia (not always reliable) but even I was astonished by the genetic evidence cited in the article. I quote:

'Genetic analysis suggests that many of the Muslims of Palestine are descendants of Christians, Jews, and other earlier inhabitants of the Levant and surrounding area, and that over 70% of Jewish men and half of the Palestinian and Israeli Arab male population share genetics with populations throughout the centuries, some even to prehistoric times. [21]

http://en.wikipedia....estinian_people

I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this ... that the modern State of Israel as a political entity is not responsible for a genetic heritage so relevant to my assertion that Judah returned after the exile, fulfilling Jeremiah's prophecy then.

Such ideas as those defy common sense, and certainly don't address God's Word about the return of a portion of Israel to the holy lands of promise.

1 Kings 11:13 Howbeit I will not rend away all the kingdom; [but] will give one tribe to thy son for David my servant's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake which I have chosen.

Wouldn't that tribe be Benjamin? (We know Levi was there in part, because of the Temple.)

Per history, like in Ezra 2, it was a remnant of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. No Revisionist pry bar attempts can remove that promise and history. That's why God keeps bringing a portion of Judah back to the land, because of His promise. Today's nation state of Israel is only further proof of that promise.

That's not the context of the promise though.

Yes it is. The Jer.24 promise didn't require they believe on Christ Jesus, nor did the promise in 1 Kings 11. And just as we can see Judah today in the holy land, the majority of them still refuse Jesus of Nazareth as Christ The Saviour.

Regarding the two sticks, were they not made one in Christ?

No, they were not. Not yet. And knowing that per Ezek.37 is easy, because of the events of return for both 'houses' of Israel, and with Christ ruling there as King in the holy land. Anyone claiming that's already happened today is quite off their 'rocker'.

Well, I don't find your argument convincing.

I have no intention of trying to convince you nor anyone else. You are free to believe whatever groups of traditions from men you want. Heeding God's Word as written never has been very popular, which you revealed you're not prepared to do with your skip to Jer.24:8 example from your prevoius post.

This I can agree. I can even agree that the modern State of Israel is something to do with the fulfilment of prophecy... just not the exposition you are giving.

Then in other words, you don't really know, and have just been loosely going on here. I can understand that.

I skipped over them because I believe they were fulfilled by those who returned after the exile.

You specifically skipped the part of the Jer.4 prophecy I posted that was in question here from the beginning, which Scripture points directly to what I've been saying from the start. That's why... you bypassed it and instead jumped to the Jer.4:8 verse. But if you don't care to admit that's why you skipped it, that's fine too.

And I can't really agree with that. God has never over-ridden a person's will, including His treatment of the children of Israel.

Well, I guess that's further proof that you don't really care to heed Scripture as written to know the Truth. Afterall, what did Christ do to Saul (Apostle Paul) on the road to Damascus? Was Saul then obeying Christ? And with Jonah who had refused to obey God, what did God do in Jonah's case? Why would did Apostle Paul say in Romans 9 about Jacob and Esau, that before either child being born, neither have chance to do good or evil, God said, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau I hated." And why did Paul also affirm that God hardened Pharaoh's heart?

Maybe you ought to start your own religion?