ECT Yet Future?

[turbosixx]

That prophecy has not yet been fulfilled. The words "their fathers" refers to the fathers of those who will make up the house of Israel and the house of Judah. And the "fathers" are the ones who broke the covenant and they were the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. So those who will make up the house of Israel and Judah will also be the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

And all of them, from the least of them to the greatest of them, will know the LORD and have their sins forgiven and be saved (Jer.31:34). Since that has never happened in the past then we know that it will happen in the future.

Ok

 

[Interplanner]

Ok

Jerry is mistaken on who participates in the new covenant. It's Christ the representative. That is why Hebrews explodes right out of the start saying he is the heir of ALL THINGS. We as believers who are in Christ get to enjoy all he inherited for us.

Paul quoting Isaiah already told us that the things promised to David were transferred to Christ.

Hebrews and rom 4 tell us that the world to come is what we will receive. The NHNE.

Conversely, NOWHERE is the NT 'hung-up' on the kind of failed post-exilic promise that Jerry supposes. There is no place in the NT that is concerned. Instead, the gospel starts, and comforts Israel, in the post-exilic visions Isaiah had. Haggai remarks: see this post-exilic temple? Isn't it a pittance compared to what we had? But does that mean he thought another super-temple was coming? Like Herod's? No, if you mean the literalism of Jerry; yes, if you mean the new meaning in Christ in Eph 2B and Jn 1 etc. Or Rev 21 where Christ is the temple of the NHNE.

To be emphatic about this, Christ announced that Herod's would be flattened. And it was.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry is mistaken on who participates in the new covenant. It's Christ the representative.

I wouldn't expect you to believe the truth that it will be both the house of Israel and the house of Judah who will participate in the New Covenant:

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah...And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more" (Jer.31:31-34).​

The truth is not in you because you put more faith in what some men say about the Scriptures than you do in what the Scriptures actually say.

 

[northwye]

"Can you really not understand the the LORD's words here are about a whole race?:

"For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth" (Deut.7:6).

Can you not even understand that the following passage is speaking about a whole race?:

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah...And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more" (Jer.31:31-34)."

Saying this is saying that dispensationalism - or Christian Zionism, or separation theology - is Talmudic Judaism, that is, dispensationalism defined by the doctrine of race has the same starting assumption as Talmudic Judaism.. Talmudic Judaism makes race the central thing in its religion.

 

[Danoh]

Gerstner writes...

Dispensational Divisions

A central proof-text of dispensational theology is 2 Timothy 2:15.

Here the Apostle Paul exhorts Timothy:

“Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (KJV).

C. I. Scofield’s first book had the final phrase of this verse as its title.

From the beginnings of the movement, this verse has been interpreted by dispensationalists as meaning that the Bible is presented in various sharply-divided parts or “dispensations.”

Correct interpretation of the Bible, they say, involves the correct separation of these dispensations from one another.

In itself, this is not an erroneous opinion.

Paul’s word oikonomia means administration and implies a discerning or distinguishing of the
differences in the various periods of biblical revelation.

The church has always so understood it through the ages.

What, then, is peculiar about the dispensational understanding of the matter?

It is not in seeing different stages of unfolding revelation but in the way those stages are understood.

Unlike traditional interpreters, dispensationalists “divide” these sections sharply such that they virtually conflict with one another rather than unfold from one another.

Biblical revelation is developmental, one stage unfolding naturally from another just as the blossom unfolds from the bud of a flower.

For dispensationalists, however, these periods are sharply divided from one another rather than integrated with one another.

They conflict rather than harmonize.

Even the word divide is a sharper term than Paul’s original requires but the dispensationalists have made it sharper still.

It is a veritable scissor separation of one part from another.

- p. 92, John H. Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, 3rd Ed. 2009.

That right there is a description of the "one size fits all" that all who are opposed to Dispensationalism view Scripture from, thus, their every opposition to Dispensationalism.

Their every assertion is based on this view of theirs - of a "one size fits all" throughout Scripture.

Its' source ever the same - the reasoning of men INTO a thing.

Fact of the matter is that that "which was spoken since the world began" is not the same as that "which was kept secret since the world began"

One is, and belongs to...

Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

And the other is...

Romans 16:24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: 16:27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.

One was spoken since the world began and awaits the Lord's return for its' completion.

The other was kept secrect since the world began, but now is made manifest, and is thus what now stablishes one in the things of the Lord.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Jerry is mistaken on who participates in the new covenant. It's Christ the representative. That is why Hebrews explodes right out of the start saying he is the heir of ALL THINGS. We as believers who are in Christ get to enjoy all he inherited for us.

Paul quoting Isaiah already told us that the things promised to David were transferred to Christ.

Hebrews and rom 4 tell us that the world to come is what we will receive. The NHNE.

Conversely, NOWHERE is the NT 'hung-up' on the kind of failed post-exilic promise that Jerry supposes. There is no place in the NT that is concerned. Instead, the gospel starts, and comforts Israel, in the post-exilic visions Isaiah had. Haggai remarks: see this post-exilic temple? Isn't it a pittance compared to what we had? But does that mean he thought another super-temple was coming? Like Herod's? No, if you mean the literalism of Jerry; yes, if you mean the new meaning in Christ in Eph 2B and Jn 1 etc. Or Rev 21 where Christ is the temple of the NHNE.

To be emphatic about this, Christ announced that Herod's would be flattened. And it was.

:chuckle:

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

"Can you really not understand the the LORD's words here are about a whole race?:

"For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth" (Deut.7:6).

Can you not even understand that the following passage is speaking about a whole race?:

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah...And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more" (Jer.31:31-34)."

Saying this is saying that dispensationalism - or Christian Zionism, or separation theology - is Talmudic Judaism, that is, dispensationalism defined by the doctrine of race has the same starting assumption as Talmudic Judaism.. Talmudic Judaism makes race the central thing in its religion.

:jawdrop:

 

[DAN P]

In part of the following, the Apostle Paul is quoting two of Israel's Prophets.

Some assert it is yet future, others assert its' yet future was only yet future to the Prophets who originally wrote it.

Meaning, one cannot go by "the Greek" Grammar - case, mood, tense, voice, and so on - alone.

Romans 11:25 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. 11:26 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: 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Overall narrative and scope...governs.

In Rom 11:26 there 5 verbs and 3 of those verbs are in the Greek FUTURE TENSE , so verse 26 it yet FUTURE !!

Those 3 verbs are , SHALL BE SAVED , THERE SHALL COME , and SHALL TURN AWAY are those 3 future verbs that are YET TO HAPPEN !!

dan p

 

[Danoh]

In Rom 11:26 there 5 verbs and 3 of those verbs are in the Greek FUTURE TENSE , so verse 26 it yet FUTURE !!

Those 3 verbs are , SHALL BE SAVED , THERE SHALL COME , and SHALL TURN AWAY are those 3 future verbs that are YET TO HAPPEN !!

dan p

The point is that Paul is quoting them as written by those Prophets.

And when they were written by those Prophets, they were written as yet future about Israel to them.

In this, the Greek alone does not help.

Because he is quoting what was yet future to them.

Meaning, some other means of determining Paul's intended use is needed, other than relying on the Greek alone, if one is going to arrive at whether Paul was simply quoting what was yet future about Israel to those Prophets, or what was yet future about Israel, to Paul as well.

 

[DAN P]

It was future to Isaiah; present to Paul. There are too many places that say the new covenant is in action already.

Hi and where is your PROOF ??

Explain what TESTAMENT / DIATHEKE reall means ??

You should know , when you claim you are a GREEK scholar ??

dan p

 

[DAN P]

The point is that Paul is quoting them as written by those Prophets.

And when they were written by those Prophets, they were written as yet future about Israel to them.

In this, the Greek alone does not help.

Because he is quoting what was yet future to them.

Meaning, some other means of determining Paul's intended use is needed, other than relying on the Greek alone, if one is going to arrive at whether Paul was simply quoting what was yet future about Israel to those Prophets, or what was yet future about Israel, to Paul as well.

Hi and what Rom 11:26 is correct , so I am moving on !!

If not FUTURE , then when do you say when it will HAPPEN ??

dan p

 

[turbosixx]

You need to be discerning because he says BOTH. Here Paul says BOTH that they have fallen and yet God forbid that they should fall.

Rom 11:11-12 (AKJV/PCE)​

(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. (11:12) Now if the fall of them [be] the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? ​

He also says that they are cast away and not cast away.

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? ​

To understand why Paul could say BOTH, it is because it is temporary.

I try to be discerning and that is one of the reasons I talk to people like yourself.

Gentiles were always allowed to join with Israel. That is nothing new.

True, but what is new is that it is now for them. Before it wasn't for them and they were not included. Also, what is new is that both can now have their sins forgiven.

Note that this scripture does NOT say that we need to be a part of Israel. God's household includes BOTH Israel and the body of Christ. Earthly and heavenly.

I agree. This is how I understand it. God's household under the old covenant were the Jews. In that verse he says the Gentiles were "separate from Christ and excluded from the commonwealth of Israel". Christ was with the Hebrews in the OT.
1 Cor. 10:3 and all ate the same spiritual food; 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.
But now the Gentiles have been brought near, near to what? I understand it to be Christ and those in Christ who are now God's people which were the Jews but now they have fellow citizens. Paul follows up those comments with a picture to help us understand the concept, the olive tree. The Jews are the natural branches who have had Christ all along and the Gentiles are the wild branches that have been grafted in.

The Jews that were broken off due to unbelief will also be grafted back in if they accept Jesus. That's what is temporary. Paul says he wants to make them jealous so he can save some.

I don't see how they can still be God's people. For 2,000 years, a Jew is lost without Jesus and is basically crucifying him again by denying he is the Christ. That's as long as they were God's people in the OT.

 

[Interplanner]

I try to be discerning and that is one of the reasons I talk to people like yourself.


True, but what is new is that it is now for them. Before it wasn't for them and they were not included. Also, what is new is that both can now have their sins forgiven.



I agree. This is how I understand it. God's household under the old covenant were the Jews. In that verse he says the Gentiles were "separate from Christ and excluded from the commonwealth of Israel". Christ was with the Hebrews in the OT.
1 Cor. 10:3 and all ate the same spiritual food; 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.
But now the Gentiles have been brought near, near to what? I understand it to be Christ and those in Christ who are now God's people which were the Jews but now they have fellow citizens. Paul follows up those comments with a picture to help us understand the concept, the olive tree. The Jews are the natural branches who have had Christ all along and the Gentiles are the wild branches that have been grafted in.

The Jews that were broken off due to unbelief will also be grafted back in if they accept Jesus. That's what is temporary. Paul says he wants to make them jealous so he can save some.

I don't see how they can still be God's people. For 2,000 years, a Jew is lost without Jesus and is basically crucifying him again by denying he is the Christ. That's as long as they were God's people in the OT.

All of RD's remarks here are wrong.

To understand why Paul could say BOTH, it is because it is temporary.

This is not the case. He can say both things about Israel because it is ALWAYS based on faith vs unbelief. That is the point of Rom 9-11 and that concluding line 'In this way, all Israel...' is the capstone repeat of it. 'in this way' means that Israel will be that way--partly blind, not automatic--and all of the real Israel will be saved.

At the end of time all the nations believers will be "in" but Rom 11 does not say any kind of monarchy/restoration thing about Israel. All of the true Israel is justified from sins (has sins taken away in the previous Isaiah verse) but not a restoration of a monarchy.

RD is the exact opposite of Eph 2 which is why he spends no time there. It is not earth vs heaven, program vs program, but unity in one and that is now.

RD is totally arrogant about his 'plain language' expertise, but when it crosses the purpose of two separate programs, when the old covenant is referred to as old and over with, it (Eph 2) is no longer plain language.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

All of RD's remarks here are wrong.
RD is totally arrogant

The irony...

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

All of RD's remarks here are wrong.

To understand why Paul could say BOTH, it is because it is temporary.

This is not the case. He can say both things about Israel because it is ALWAYS based on faith vs unbelief. That is the point of Rom 9-11 and that concluding line 'In this way, all Israel...' is the capstone repeat of it. 'in this way' means that Israel will be that way--partly blind, not automatic--and all of the real Israel will be saved.

At the end of time all the nations believers will be "in" but Rom 11 does not say any kind of monarchy/restoration thing about Israel. All of the true Israel is justified from sins (has sins taken away in the previous Isaiah verse) but not a restoration of a monarchy.

RD is the exact opposite of Eph 2 which is why he spends no time there. It is not earth vs heaven, program vs program, but unity in one and that is now.

RD is totally arrogant about his 'plain language' expertise, but when it crosses the purpose of two separate programs, when the old covenant is referred to as old and over with, it (Eph 2) is no longer plain language.

When we fail to interp in the light of the NHNE event, we superimpose our own thoughts and import our own ideas into the sacred text, counteracting the balance of human/divine which is why godly commentaries are of paramount importance. They keep us from lighting off the camel with both feet and allow us to straddle with one foot on the camel, and one foot on the ground, keeping balance, and keeping focus, and propping up imaginations as opposed to casting them down. Agreed?

 

[Right Divider]

I try to be discerning and that is one of the reasons I talk to people like yourself.

I appreciate your attempt to learn and your tone.

True, but what is new is that it is now for them. Before it wasn't for them and they were not included.

That is incorrect. Gentiles have always been allowed to join with Israel, just like I said before.

Exod 12:48-49 (AKJV/PCE)​

(12:48) And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. (12:49) One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you. ​

This was always true and it's not new.

Also, what is new is that both can now have their sins forgiven.

That is not new either, it is just that God method for doing so is now revealed.

I agree. This is how I understand it. God's household under the old covenant were the Jews. In that verse he says the Gentiles were "separate from Christ and excluded from the commonwealth of Israel". Christ was with the Hebrews in the OT.
1 Cor. 10:3 and all ate the same spiritual food; 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.
But now the Gentiles have been brought near, near to what? I understand it to be Christ and those in Christ who are now God's people which were the Jews but now they have fellow citizens. Paul follows up those comments with a picture to help us understand the concept, the olive tree. The Jews are the natural branches who have had Christ all along and the Gentiles are the wild branches that have been grafted in.

I understand your confusion. Churchianity has been pounding these ideas into peoples heads for a long time.

Near to what? Near to God, not Israel.
Fellow citizens of what? God's household, not Israel.

Israel is currently cast away..... why would you want to be grafted into that?

The body of Christ is different; we have our conversation in heaven. Israel was told to pray for a kingdom on the earth.

The Jews that were broken off due to unbelief will also be grafted back in if they accept Jesus. That's what is temporary. Paul says he wants to make them jealous so he can save some.

The olive tree analogy is not about salvation from sin, it is about service to God. The body of Christ receive God's grace freely without the need for the nation of Israel and their covenants.

I don't see how they can still be God's people. For 2,000 years, a Jew is lost without Jesus and is basically crucifying him again by denying he is the Christ. That's as long as they were God's people in the OT.

God has temporarily cast them away (set them aside) and is freely offering His grace to ALL without distinction. That offer of free grace with end one day and God will restore Israel to their place as the head of the nations.

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? ​

 

[Interplanner]

I appreciate your attempt to learn and your tone.


That is incorrect. Gentiles have always been allowed to join with Israel, just like I said before.

Exod 12:48-49 (AKJV/PCE)​

(12:48) And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. (12:49) One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you. ​

This was always true and it's not new.


That is not new either, it is just that God method for doing so is now revealed.


I understand your confusion. Churchianity has been pounding these ideas into peoples heads for a long time.

Near to what? Near to God, not Israel.
Fellow citizens of what? God's household, not Israel.

Israel is currently cast away..... why would you want to be grafted into that?

The body of Christ is different; we have our conversation in heaven. Israel was told to pray for a kingdom on the earth.


The olive tree analogy is not about salvation from sin, it is about service to God. The body of Christ receive God's grace freely without the need for the nation of Israel and their covenants.


God has temporarily cast them away (set them aside) and is freely offering His grace to ALL without distinction. That offer of free grace with end one day and God will restore Israel to their place as the head of the nations.

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? ​

That was being applied to mission work. If they believe and work like Paul, many more people in the world would believe the Gospel.

There is no idea in the NT that Israel will be made head of the nations; Christ already is. All blessings on this side of Christ are for all believers. There is not another program running in the background and on which there is unfinished business. Otherwise it would have been mentioned at rom 11:30.

 

[Right Divider]

That was being applied to mission work. If they believe and work like Paul, many more people in the world would believe the Gospel.

Does your grammar scholarship require you to Capitalize certain words without a grammatical rule for doing so?

There is no idea in the NT that Israel will be made head of the nations; Christ already is. All blessings on this side of Christ are for all believers. There is not another program running in the background and on which there is unfinished business. Otherwise it would have been mentioned at rom 11:30.

Gods capital city has the names of the apostles of Israel on it.... hard to follow for you, isn't it?

Rev 21:14 (AKJV/PCE)​

(21:14) And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. ​

​

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

There is no idea in the NT that Israel will be made head of the nations; Christ already is.

Made up.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Otherwise it would have been mentioned at rom 11:30.

So, if God doesn't say things exactly where YOU think he should have said them, then they've been voided?
Brilliant.