Featured Dispensationalists: Why is This Version of Israel THE One of Prophecy?

It's interesting that you bring up the Abrahamic Covenant because that is usually my next step. The Abrahamic covenant is effective only insofar as it is applied to those faithful believers.

Some will try to say that all of Abraham's descendents are inheritors of the Abrahamic blessing. That isn't true, even within his immediate progeny.

The Abrahamic Covenant isn't too effective for Ishmael...Abraham's son.
The Abrahamic Covenant isn't too effective for Esau...Abraham's grandson.
The Abrahamic Covenant isn't too effective for Eliphaz...Abraham's great grandson.

Just saying, maybe we're misunderstanding the Abrahamic Covenant. Maybe it has more to do with faithfulness than genetics.

 

Romans 11:25-26 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to 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 the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

The church has never been referred to as "Jacob".

 

Its NOT, for that was only the partial fulfillment, that God would gather back his jewish peoples in end times...

Still NOT the isreal foretold by Ezeckiel in his vision of the dead bones, not Zechariah/isaiah of isreal spiritually reborn, under rule of Messiah, that will come to pass at the Second coming of christ!

 

Who is Sion? Who is the "Deliverer"? And has He come yet?

 

No He hasn't. What does it mean "when the fullness of the Gentiles has come in"? What will take place when the fullness has come in?

 

So, rather than try to reestablish a geopolitical nation of ethnic Jews again (not that this is necessarily bad if done properly), the best thing for the Jews is to win them to Christ through the gospel? Who'd 'a thunk.

I didn't see Paul talking about any duty for Christians to gather Jews back into the former historical Promised Land. Paul's attitude toward Jews was that Jew and Gentile are equal in Christ. He talked about the errors of Judaism because "they have a zeal for God but not according to knowledge," but he never promoted "Christian Zionism" like dispensationalism today. The whole idea has nothing to do with anything taught in the Scripture as a duty, but rather a conclusion of the "necessary" parenthesis church resulting from the way dispensationalism interprets prophecy as having been "interrupted."

 

Exactly. That was Paul's point in Romans 9 about "the children of the promise are regarded as descendants."

When God gave Abram the promise, He said that his "offspring" would be as the sand of the sea. God told Abram this before he had any children.

Now, Abram's lack of faith produced Ishmael through Hagar. Ishmael was technically a descendant of Abraham, but he was not a "child of promise." The promise was that "Sarah shall have a son."

Even still, it was then not that all Isaac's descendants that would be of promise either because Isaac had twin sons, but only Jacob was a child of promise; Esau wasn't. The point was not that anyone who was born physically of Abraham inherited Abraham's promise, but that God would progress the promise through covenants within the physical descendants of Abraham. The promise was always with a subset of Abraham's physical descendants who were faithful to the types and shadows that pointed to Christ Who is the Seed to Whom the promise was made.

The promise to Abraham was a promise of the Gospel of Christ that would save people from all nations of the world. "The gospel was preached to Abraham, saying 'In thee shall all families be blessed.'" The promise was all about the instrumental lineage through which Messiah Prince would come, and all "are blessed with faithful Abraham" in Christ.

 

God STILL has to fulfill the vision of Ezekiel of the dead bones to isreal in the future, and had the remaining 7 years of daniel imn order to preapre isreal to "meet her coming King/messiah"

 

That is just poor dispensational doctrine. Israel as a chosen nation is no more. If anyone who is an ethnic Israelite is to meet Jesus Christ it will be through faith, just as for all the unsaved.

 

Take your time with it.Hold onto what you believe ,until you can see another way. Try and read, or understand the other position accurately....be fore coming to any conclusion....it takes some time, because of the amount of verses.....

 

Back to the op...my answer would be to look around the world. If this nation is as insignificant as most on this thread say it is, why is such an insignificant country the size of New Jersey ruling our nightly news? Why does the entire world hate it? What is so important about a non oil producing country in the middle east that satan has turned the world against? I think it was Jesus that said when the sky is pink you know it is going to be good weather the following day and to look for the signs.

 

First, I think the gospel accounts (especially John) point out that the resurrection of Jesus is the beginning of the new creation. Regeneration corresponds to that. So in a way not understood in the OT (when is a prophecy ever understood properly then?), the fulfillment of Eze. finds its "yes" in Jesus (kata Paul 2 Cor. 1:20). John alludes to Ezekiel a couple of important times. It is clear that he presented Jesus as the new temple (ie the temple of Ezek). It is also clear that he refered to Eze's new covenant passages in Jn 3 which echoes other places in Eze (like chpt. 36 w/ 37 and the dry bones). Reading the Bible canonically and w/ TIS and w/ Jesus as the heart of fulfillment makes this easy.

Second, what remaining 7 years? Aren't you imposing your interpretation of the NT BACK on the OT?!?! Isn't that what you accuse us of doing? Taken simply, it seems that all 70 7's were completed. I feel like the cross work of Jesus did:
"to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place."

 

Why couldn't this have been fulfilled with the return from the Babylonian captivity and the decrees of Cyrus?

See http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1880083&postcount=139

 

webdog, you run the risk of making Biblical sense which is not going to be well received here these days. As C4K has stated, the current modern state of Israel may or may not be prophecy fufilled but we do know that at some point all Israel will be saved.

 

And there we have the dividing line between covenant and dispensational theology. As a dispy, I view all Scripture to be inspired and useful and I take Jesus at his word that every jot or one tittle will come to pass. Covenant theology want to revise the OT with it's view of the NT.

 

It wasn't a permanent return of the Nation.

Later to come were the Romans (AD70 sack of the Temple).

Then the Arab conquests (AD670-740).

There were Jews in the land but the nation was destroyed.

Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.​

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should beignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.​

HankD​

 

You have it backwards my friend. I was pointing out a dispo doing what you accuse us of. Plus, I interpret the NT based on the OT. I see the NT as continuing and fulfilling and finishing the redemptive story of the OT. Jesus' ministry finds an obvious continuity w/ Israel's mission and the apostles have a definite continuity w/ Jesus' ministry. Therefore, there is continuity between the OT and NT, Jesus being the apex and link of that continuity.

 

I don't recollect anyone saying Israel after the flesh is insignificant, they're saying:

....it is not the children of the flesh that are children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for a seed. Ro 9:8

Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. Gal 4:28

And if ye are Christ`s, then are ye Abraham`s seed, heirs according to promise. Gal 3:29

for we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh: Phil 3:3

As far as the 'pink sky' goes, it was 'that generation' of apostate Judaism that failed to discern what was about to come upon them.

 

All of this I know including your attempt (my friend) to use reverse psy-ops. The reformed camp reads the OT based on their NT understanding (continuity). The dispy camp read the entire Bible as the Word of God (discontinuity). I'm in the discontinuity camp, I do not believe we are in the same camp (my friend) on this issue.

 

You should re-read what I wrote. I never said that we were in the same camp. I'm saying that one of your dispie friends was doing what you accuse us of doing -- interpreting the OT based on NT revelation. I.e. he was talking about a delay of the last heptad in Daniel 9. But that is only based on your understanding of NT ecclesiology. So that was a dispo reading back into the NT.

As for me... I read the NT as a continuation of the OT. Your understanding of Amillism is based on its 1950's form. It has changed much in the last 20 years. Due to intertextuality and canonical/synthetic hermeneutics, we can truly speak of seeing the NT being shaped by the OT. You can refer to G. K. Beale's new NT biblical theology book to see this. You have no idea what we believe. You seem to barely know what your own believe in the broad spectrum of dispensationalism (exhibited on other threads).

And your false piety that the "dispy camp read the entire Bible as the word of God" as if the reformed camp doesn't is offensive. That and you misrepresent me as I read the NT based on the OT understanding (continuity). I.e. I read the OT as if it is Christian Scripture as much as the NT. Thus I read it as the word of God. Record set straight.