Is Prophecy Being Fulfilled in the Dispensation of Grace?

[Clete]

God hates divorce according to Malachi 2:16

For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the Lord of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.

That much is not in dispute. The point is, however, that divorce is not inherently evil. God cannot rightly regulate something that is inherently evil. God, for example, doesn't ever say that rape is bad except for such and such a reason. There are good reasons for divorce to the point even that it is evil for someone NOT to divorce under certain circumstances. That doesn't change the fact that God isn't a fan of a proceeding that will be painful and that is happening because of pain that has already been inflicted. Divorce is an unpleasant thing to be sure but it hasn't ever been absolutely prohibited.

 

[Right Divider]

Paul uses the analogy of Israel being dead.

Rom 11:15 (AKJV/PCE)​

(11:15) 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?​

 

[glorydaz]

Jesus did NOT change the law, Glorydaz!

It has NEVER been required by the law to remain married to an adulterer or to an abusive spouse or to a spouse to rejects their faith and walks away from God.

There was NO LAW before Moses. You understand that, right? It is a central aspect of the gospel!

There was a law before Moses. The law began in the garden, when God gave the command not to eat of the tree.
And it was written in the very conscience of man, as Paul tells us in Romans 1:19-20 and Romans 2:14-15. The important part of that verse in Matt. 19:6 is what it was in the beginning. Before Moses ever wrote the law it existed.

Romans 4:15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.​

​

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)​

​

18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.​

​

20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.​

So, no! Jesus was not suggesting that divorce was ever categorically prohibited nor was He changing the law. Jesus was outsmarting those trying to trap him.

He was clarifying that it was the law of God before any law was written down. He explains, at the same time, that the reason writs of divorcement was allowed was because of the hardness of their heart. In the garden, God made His case and Jesus agreed. one flesh Gen. 2:24. Matt. 19:4-6

There is a section of Bob Enyart's book, "The Plot", that you might appreciate. It talks specifically about how Israel is the Bride of Christ and goes into how God divorced Israel and intends to remarry her. I strongly recommend you give it a read....

The Plot excerpt on the bride

I’ll check it out. Thanks.

 

[glorydaz]

That much is not in dispute. The point is, however, that divorce is not inherently evil. God cannot rightly regulate something that is inherently evil. God, for example, doesn't ever say that rape is bad except for such and such a reason. There are good reasons for divorce to the point even that it is evil for someone NOT to divorce under certain circumstances. That doesn't change the fact that God isn't a fan of a proceeding that will be painful and that is happening because of pain that has already been inflicted. Divorce is an unpleasant thing to be sure but it hasn't ever been absolutely prohibited.

Oh, I have no qualms with any of that. God hates all sin, and it seems like most things are a sin. The whole point of the law was to lead us to Christ.

Why I pointed it out was to show that God did not actually divorce Israel. He used that threat through a prophet to scare Israel into obeying, but He did that kind of stuff quite often. When all is said and done He denies ever having done so, and demands proof.

Isaiah 50:1. Thus saith the Lord, Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.

 

[glorydaz]

Paul uses the analogy of Israel being dead.

Rom 11:15 (AKJV/PCE)​

(11:15) 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?​

No, for we are all dead in sins until we accept the gift of salvation, but Paul says God has given them a spirit of slumber.

They were scattered, having stumbled so that we gentiles could squeeze through hopefully making them jealous. Can’t make them jealous if they’re dead. Hey, he might even be referring to the dry bones prophecy.

 

[Right Divider]

No, for we are all dead in sins until we accept the gift of salvation, but Paul says God has given them a spirit of slumber.

Quote?

They were scattered, having stumbled so that we gentiles could squeeze through hopefully making them jealous. Can’t make them jealous if they’re dead. Hey, he might even be referring to the dry bones pprophecy.

They were scattered many times.

You can see what you want to see...

 

[Bladerunner]

Saying it doesn't make it so.

The nation exists today in name only and the reestablishment of David's throne doesn't appear to be anywhere on the horizon.

How can you say that? Israel does everything and in most cases more than the majority of nations around the globe? they are a nation that is hated by most of the world. It has been prophesied that the whole world will come to hate Israel....there are only two or three countries that do not hate them and in the case of United States, that is changing very fast.

You don't really believe that God is going to bring Adam or any of these other people back to life during the Millennium, do you?

It is what the Bible say He will do....He can do it or is it your opinion He cannot.

Based on what?

Oh, I don;t know, the raising of Jesus Christ from the Grave...raising Lazarus from the Grave, saving the daughter of the Roman Soldier?????they believed, why can't you.

David is Jesus' Earthly super-great grandfather.

Yet, Jesus made him in his mother's womb.

There are 41 generations between David and Jesus on Mary's side which means that the genetic material shared would be approximately 0.0000000000455%, or less than one trillionth of a percent.

Really, I see your genectics are a little different than mine...

Nearly everyone alive today with some roots in regions tied to David’s descendants (ancient Israel, Europe, the Middle East) could share a similar amount of genetic material with David.

Oh, so most people of the world have the Jewish gene in them????surprise to hear you say that...but you are right....we also have two Uncles that were on Noah's ark....and one was Black....so we all have that gene as well.

Put another way...

God is the Father of Jesus


I can't figure out what I said that would have prompted the above.

God is the father of Jesus the Man...Jesus is fully man and fully GOD.

How do you come to the conclusion that the fullness of the Gentiles equates to Jesus destroying the armies of the world?

What does the fullness of the gentiles mean.....Until Israel/Jerusalem are no longer trampled over, ruled over by gentiles the prophecy will continue. Jesus destroys all the armies of the world that are sent up against Him in the Battle of Armageddon leaving no gentiles to trample or rule over Israel/Jeruslaem...Right not Israel still has gentile is the west banks rule by gentiles, the Dome of the Rock and the Islamic church on the rock are ruled by Jordan at this time.

I never said I quit believing in them. I certainly came to understand that what passes for eschatology in most circles today is largely false teaching because it is mostly just television preachers trying to sell books where they've recorded the things that they want to see in the scriptures. It really is almost entirely an exercise in eisegetical theology where just about anything you want to believe can be seen if you look hard enough, even a resurrected mortal Abraham isn't out of the question.

OK, Jesus is going to rapture His church saints that are alive and raise from the dead the church saints that are asleep. All of the tribulation saints have died during Daniel's 70th week yet, He raises them up and redeems them to heaven. What of the OT Saints that believed from back then. They do not fit in Jesus' church nor do they fit in the tribulation saints category. All the remnant of Israel that is left (Rev 12) are feed and watered for 3.5 years by GOD and at the beginning of the Millennium are given the "New Covenant" and allowed to live during the next 1,000 years as mortals in Israel. How hard is it to realize the the Jew had rather have a grape vine and fig tree in His own land on earth in place of a spot in heaven...So GOD will place them in the land He gave them and by them, I mean, the Remnant of Israel and the OT Saints. All of these will live during the millennium as mortals.....The Gentiles that were judged in the sheep and Goat judgement will also be allow to enter the millennium. However, the New Covenant will not be given to them as the Remnant of Israel was. They will have 100 years to convert to the "Everlasting Gospel" or be thrown into the lake of fire. their children will have the same 100 years. At the end of the millennium, all that will be left will be believers who appears to populate the New Earth.

I know that we are different in our opinions. that is ok,,,,have a Blessed evening and thanks for the conversation.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Oh, so most people of the world have the Jewish gene in them????

Jewish? No, not necessarily.

But we ARE all descended from Abraham, genetically. Israel, not likely, but Abraham yes.

 

[glorydaz]

Quote?

Romans 11:8

They were scattered many times.

You can see what you want to see...

And you can ignore what you want.

 

[glorydaz]

Jewish? No, not necessarily.

But we ARE all descended from Abraham, genetically. Israel, not likely, but Abraham yes.

What? No way.

 

[glorydaz]

What we’re seeing with this denial of the nation of Israel is replacement theology.

The church has replaced Israel. The Biblical nation of Israel doesn’t exist, until they magically appear in the Kingdom. Of course that doesn’t explain the need for a third temple, does it? Someone needs to go over there and tell those Sabbath keeping imposters to ship out.

Sorry guys, but this may be a fatal flaw that comes with a misunderstanding of the Apostle Paul. He confuses a lot of people.

 

[glorydaz]

Jews are even better than Catholics about marrying in their faith. There are Jews everywhere, and their bloodline is exceedingly pure.

 

[Right Divider]

Jewish? No, not necessarily.

But we ARE all descended from Abraham, genetically. Israel, not likely, but Abraham yes.

We are all descendants of Noah, genetically.

 

[Idolater]

We are all descendants of Noah, genetically.

And Mrs. Noah.

 

[Bladerunner]

Jewish? No, not necessarily.

But we ARE all descended from Abraham, genetically. Israel, not likely, but Abraham yes.

Genetically Israel YES for before Abraham, there were only Gentiles. Israel was taken out of Gentile genetics...Rem only the name of the people was changed to separate them from Gentiles. no special genetics involved but rather breeding within the majority of all tribes. tribes had to marry those within the same tribes to preserve inheritance. Yet there is still a multitude of gentiles marriages involved actually creating a different type people if we were to go by the rules of the past.

Yes, we all have gene traits that can come through at any time. Genetics is an awesome study...We are of Adam as our ancestors.

 

[JudgeRightly]

What? No way.

We are all descendants of Noah, genetically.

To quote @Stripe: Everyone is descended from Abraham

Humans Are All More Closely Related Than We Commonly Think

Humanity’s most recent common ancestor and so-called genetic isopoint illustrate the surprising connections among our family trees

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[Clete]

There was a law before Moses.

No, Glorydaz, there was not. There has been one law - one. Not two or three or four. ONE!

The law began in the garden, when God gave the command not to eat of the tree.

Yes, and the law of Moses is the fruit of that tree!

And it was written in the very conscience of man, as Paul tells us in Romans 1:19-20 and Romans 2:14-15. The important part of that verse in Matt. 19:6 is what it was in the beginning. Before Moses ever wrote the law it existed.

No, it didn't. Not in the way you mean it.

Morality has existed the whole time but that existed even before the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

You're turning the law into something it is not. The law is a list of rules, or more precisely, it is a set of rules that has been listed. It isn't some nebulous thing where people just intuitively figure it out for themselves. So much so that the dispensation of conscience that you allude to has as it's primary historical lesson that men need the law to govern their evil passion. When people are left to figure it out on their own, the result is that God gets really mad and wipes out the whole population of humans shy of one single family.

He was clarifying that it was the law of God before any law was written down.

No. That's your doctrine, not Jesus'. Jesus was not altering the law. Right and wrong DO NOT change. If divorce had ever been categorically immoral then it would still be so and it would be categorically immoral to regulate it as God has done.

He explains, at the same time, that the reason writs of divorcement was allowed was because of the hardness of their heart. In the garden, God made His case and Jesus agreed. one flesh Gen. 2:24. Matt. 19:4-6

The practice was different, the law was not because there was no law before Moses!

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses,....​

I cannot see any way for it to be any clearer than that. Paul, just as explicitly as can be, says that there was no law between Adam and Moses.

I’ll check it out. Thanks.

It really will be worth your while. There's no one who examines all the available biblical material like Bob Enyart.

 

[Clete]

Oh, I have no qualms with any of that. God hates all sin, and it seems like most things are a sin. The whole point of the law was to lead us to Christ.

Why I pointed it out was to show that God did not actually divorce Israel.

Except that He absolutely did do so!

Jeremiah 3:8 Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also.​

He used that threat through a prophet to scare Israel into obeying, but He did that kind of stuff quite often. When all is said and done He denies ever having done so, and demands proof.

Isaiah 50:1. Thus saith the Lord, Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.

It would help a lot if you'd use a bible that is translated into a modern version of English but regardless, the passage says that "your mother [Israel] is put away." The dispute here isn't about whether she's been put away but about who caused it to happen. The point of that verse is that it was Israel that left God, not God who left Israel.

Also, at this point the "Israel" being discussed is what was "Judah" (the term "Judah" is where the term "Jew" comes from, by the way.) So, in keeping with what is said in Jeremiah 3:8, Judah wasn't much better than the northern kingdom of Israel and as a result they had been sent off into captivity and separated from the temple and thereby from the presence of God and any ability to practice most of the tenets of their covenant. They had been "put away", but with no formal divorce decree such as had been given to "Israel" (the northern kingdom).

The point here being that since what was Judah (the southern kingdom), is now referred to as "Israel", which used to be what the northern kingdom was called, if you don't keep track of that then you can be lead to believe that no divorce had ever occurred between God and Israel at all, which is not the case. God did divorce Israel (the northern kingdom), but not Judah (the southern kingdom) which later came to called "Israel" and was merely "put away". See?

​

 

[JudgeRightly]

You know that Jesus often spoke of more than one time or place during the same speech?

Could you provide an example? (Besides the "example" I address next)

Take for instance tear this down and in three days build it up again.

Yeah, no, sorry, Jesus was, as explained immediately after that sentence, speaking of His body, not the actual temple.

He was using veiled language to hide His intentions.

It has nothing to do with the temple being destroyed 37+ years later.

I believe we’re seeing that here, just as it is in Matthew 24.

You can state what you believe all you like. It doesn't change the fact that Scripture doesn't talk about it being a "future generation."

Scripture says "THIS GENERATION."
Scripture says "I will return before you make it through all the cities of Israel."
Scripture says "If I will that John remains, what is it to you?"

AND MORE!

The more I reread what you have posted, I’m seeing replacement theology to some degree.

I address this below.

This idea that Israel is “cut off” is error.

Now you're denying Paul's words. Speaking of Israel, he says:

I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness! For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; For this is My covenant with them,When I take away their sins.” Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.

Bible Gateway passage: Romans 11:11-32 - New King James Version

Israel’s Rejection Not Final - I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their...

www.biblegateway.com

He states quite clearly that they were cut off!

They merely stumbled.

Then why does Paul say they have fallen? That they were broken off?

That allowed us to leap to the forefront,

Whatever that's supposed to mean...

BUT Israel is and always will be God’s chosen people.

No one has said otherwise!

What we, and specifically, what I have said, is that Israel CURRENTLY holds NO SPECIAL STATUS as God's people. They are currently on the level of all other Gentile nations.

He sent the Romans in 70 AD to destroy the temple,

Saying it doesn't make it so, GD.

and scattered His people.

Which were already scattered...

Now, in these final hours, He has caused the land to bloom and bear fruit.

Doubtful.

The Jews are returning to the land.

If they are, it's at a glacial pace...

They have become a nation in 1948.

So what?

They are Jews.

No one said otherwise.

Still God’s people,

They hold no special status as God's people currently.

and more Godly than many believers.

I don't think we're speaking about the same group of people.

Israel is FAR from Godly.

They aren’t out worshipping golden calves,

The golden calves have been replaced with other things.

they are peace loving, God fearing people.

You need to take whatever glasses you have on off, because they are FAR from God-fearing.

They worship their laws. Not literally, of course, but they do prioritize obedience to their laws over love of God.

They are a fallen nation, in rebellion against their God.

They have been being prepared for what is to come.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

They have never been cut off,

You go against Paul's words.

and we’re here to witness this final chapter before we’re taken up.

Let us know when it's the last few sentences.

What we’re seeing with this denial of the nation of Israel is replacement theology.

As far as I'm aware, no one here thinks the Body of Christ has replaced (ie, permanently taken the place of) Israel as God's chosen people.

That would indeed be folly.

No! What we're saying is that Israel's program has been put on hold for the time being, and that once God is done working with the Gentiles, He will return to working directly with Israel.

The church has replaced Israel.

Replacement theology is the belief that Israel is permanently done for, that God will never return to working with them again, and that the Body of Christ has taken its place.

I am not a subscriber to that belief, nor is RD, nor is Clete.

With that being said...

The Body of Christ and the "covenant" of grace is currently God's focus, and not Israel and her New Covenant, so in a sense, the BoC has "replaced" Israel, temporarily.

But God WILL return to working with Israel again, as Paul states clearly in Romans 11.

The Biblical nation of Israel doesn’t exist, until they magically appear in the Kingdom.

There's no magic involved, GD.

The Body of Christ will be caught up. Then God will gather all the Hebrews to their land, from across the world.

The Body of Christ has not been caught up yet. Thus, God has not started gathering Israel.

Of course that doesn’t explain the need for a third temple, does it?

Not sure if you're aware of this, but the site of the Jerusalem temple is currently occupied by an Islamic Mosque, called the "Dome of the Rock."

There isn't a Jewish temple there.

Until that mosque is gone, I wouldn't be too concerned with Christ's return happening in the next few years.

Not to say it won't happen at any point in the near future, just that it's kind of hard to build a temple there when the space is occupied by something else.

Someone needs to go over there and tell those Sabbath keeping imposters to ship out.

Someone needs to go over there and tell those muslim occupiers to ship out.

Sorry guys, but this may be a fatal flaw

The fatal flaw is in your interpretation of scripture.

that comes with a misunderstanding of the Apostle Paul. He confuses a lot of people.

God is not the author of confusion.

You are clearly confused.

It's not Paul's fault.

It's due to a lack of right division.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Genetically Israel YES for before Abraham, there were only Gentiles.

To quote @Stripe: Everyone is descended from Abraham

Humans Are All More Closely Related Than We Commonly Think

Humanity’s most recent common ancestor and so-called genetic isopoint illustrate the surprising connections among our family trees

www.scientificamerican.com

Israel was taken out of Gentile genetics...Rem only the name of the people was changed to separate them from Gentiles.

What are you talking about?

Israel is the name God gave Jacob, and it's the name of his descendants.

This is called "eponymy."

What I'm talking about, however, has very little to do specifically with Israel.

See the link in my quoted post above.

no special genetics involved but rather breeding within the majority of all tribes. tribes had to marry those within the same tribes to preserve inheritance. Yet there is still a multitude of gentiles marriages involved actually creating a different type people if we were to go by the rules of the past.

Yes, we all have gene traits that can come through at any time. Genetics is an awesome study...We are of Adam as our ancestors.

You've completely missed the point I was making.

Which is that we are all descended from Abraham. He is indeed the "father of many nations."