Messianic Christians?

[Elin]

Yes, Paul described a new thing, it's called the Church, but that did not make void the Abrahamic Covenant. His promises of the Land to the descendents of Abraham-Isaac and Jacob still hold and will be realized after Jacob's Trouble.
I know it's easy to 'spiritualize' the physical promises found in the OT, but that has never been the way they have been fulfilled in the past and no reason to see a spiritual fulfillment in the future.

Would you please explain what you mean by the boundaries given in the land promise to Abraham, which Scripture states in 1Kgs 4:21, 24-25; cf Josh 21:43-45, were actually possessed under Solomon, is to 'spiritualize' the physical promise of the land.

Do you not believe 1Kgs 4:21, 24-25; Josh 21:43-45?

I don't understand what you are saying.

 

[Elin]

Are there physical blessings of the New Covenant?

Where are they found?

I've already posted all that information here. Down at the bottom of the post is a list of the promises of the New Covenant and the Scripture references.

"The New covenant with Israel promises that God will restore them to their promised land"

I don't see that in Jer 31:31-34, the promise of the new covenant (Heb 8:7-13).

Would you show me where you find it?

 

[Kerry]

Actually the issue is do we take the OT prophecies literally as their fulfillment has thus far been, or do we allegorize and spiritualize the Millenial reign of Christ or worse deny it all together.

Often times and more than not the OT prophecies had double meaning. One for the immediate or near future and one for the last days.

 

[Linda70]

I don't see that in Jer 31:31-34, the promise of the new covenant (Heb 8:7-13).

Would you show me where you find it?

What exactly are you looking for? Cherry picking out verses on a topic that is so vast is nearly impossible and it is very a poor method to study the Scriptures.

Are you trying to "prove" that God really didn't promise to restore the nation of Israel their promised land? That promise has already been PARTIALLY fulfilled in 1948. It's found in Ezekiel's "dry bones" prophecy in chapter 37. Israel is back in their land...in unbelief.

Do you believe that the Church has replaced Israel and that the New Covenant will be fulfilled in the Church? If you do believe that, then for me to try to respond to your question by posting verses will be of no avail because you will only try to refute and reject those verses. If you honestly want answers, then begin your own study, beginning with God's call of Abraham in Genesis 12.

 

[crossnote]

Would you please explain what you mean by the boundaries given in the land promise to Abraham, which Scripture states in 1Kgs 4:21, 24-25; cf Josh 21:43-45, were actually possessed under Solomon, is to 'spiritualize' the physical promise of the land.

Do you not believe 1Kgs 4:21, 24-25; Josh 21:43-45?

I don't understand what you are saying.

The spiritualizing by certain groups comes in later prophecies where the promise to the land and it's hope continues after Solomon.

 

[MidniteWelder]

Hey guy, where ya' been?

Good to hear from you.


In regard to God's covenant, unconditional means a unilateral covenant which has no conditions which
the other party must perform, which can break the covenant by non-compliance.
God himself does all the performing, meets all the conditions himself,
as in the land covenant, which could not be broken.

In the New Covenant, salvation from God's wrath (Ro 5:9) is not by anything anyone performs.
It is all by what God himself has done in providing a propitiary sacrifice (Ro 3:25) to pay the penalty
for the sin of those who believe in Jesus Christ.

Even the faith required for the covenant is a gift of God (Php 1:29; 2Pe 1:1; Ac 18:27; Ro 12:3).


Actually, works of obedience are not a condition of the covenant, they are a result of the covenant.

The gift of saving faith always results in obedience.
And that is what Jesus is describing, a true love and true faith, which obeys.

Any "love" and "faith" which does not obey is counterfeit (1Jn 2:19; Lk 8:13; Mt 7:21-23), and does not save.
It is a false claim of love or faith.


I hope you understand from the above that it means there are no conditions required to perform in order to enter the covenant.

Hi I've been around, likely later than normal due to work.
I appreciate your taking the time.
so is another way to put what you're saying (sorry I sometimes put things into my own words, kind of like when you order a package and it gets delivered and you inventory it then sort it and categorize and then assemble so you understand every part)
That our obedience is by default as a result of our Love for God.
Similar to mirroring marriage that the faithful bride will inherently follow her husband out of love forsaken all others because there would be no thought to do otherwise.

Like the wise and foolish virgins.
The foolish virgins were too busy serving others or themselves to be prepared and therefore did not enter the banquet which is just as foolish in that sense as being unfaithful even if saying they love the bridegroom.
This would be similar to those who say they love the Lord but idolize and serve themselves over God or worse do things that are told one does not inherit the kingdom such as lying, adultery, idolatry, homosexuality etc.

I suppose part of my inability with seeing that these appear as conditions to being able to enter the kingdom is partly because of the warning between the wise and foolish virgins.
Just like God may wake us up in the morning, but we still have to force ourselves out of bed.
Paul said its not enough to just compete but to run the race to win.
This takes some of our own effort in cooperation with the Lord doesnt it?
not that we're competing against one another of course but against the enemy to win for God.

One problem I notice is Gods word being watered down, compromised due to the unfaithful ones crying out accept me as I am but don't wish to hear Gods word.
Who are we as Gods people unless we uphold his integrity.
I understand hating the sin and loving the sinner concept
The fact that we should have compassion for them and pray for them but how much sin do we accept with the sinner?
I feel the church has become rather complacent.
Are the ones saying Lord Lord but turning around to do abominable things a direct infiltration of the church?

Not that the law saves but We didn't know sin until our sin was exposed to us.
We see this happen even in the forums...someone asks a question and we as Gods people go to his word to reflect and point out the very principles we hold that have been taught to us by the schoolmaster.

It reminds me of back in school when the straight "A" students got teased and put down for being supposedly smarter.
(although this may have been simply due to those students fully applying themselves)
Only to result in some of those same students to later become complacent and slack off simply to make the less fortunate feel better with their insecurities.
This would be likened to the compromising Christian.
This to me seems like enabling the needy which doesn't seem like productive behavior.
So who wins there?
It doesn't seem like a noble sacrifice to diminish at ones own expense what God has made a person in order to cater to the insecurities of another.
For example as meek and humble as Christ was, I didn't notice him diminish who he was just to make others feel better for their own incapabilities.
It's almost as if some people expect others to diminish their own progress in the Lord simply because the less fortunate don't believe it is possible to get straight "A"s taught by the schoolmaster.
I don't believe we should be so humble as to diminish who we are and what God has created us to be.
That very thing to be is to glorify him.
Is it to his glory to become complacent so as not to offend the ones who do what is not inheritable to the kingdom?
I mean let us suggest we don't have any requirements, yet there are still things which keep a person from entering the kingdom.
The trouble also

Is it not more offensive to God for his own people to allow things such as laws accepting homosexual marriage.
Not trying to make this a political thing but just using this as an example of how passive the church has become.
And we're tolerating it.
Because God is going to sort it all out in the end?
How many times did Jesus say repent or go and sin no more.
He wouldn't have asked were it not possible through God.
So many times we hear one must accept Christ.
Yet I feel it's more than just accepting him because he's already called.
If Repent means to turn then this means a change in the way one lives their life.
Christ is all about change in a person.
Look at how he changed Saul to Paul.
I bet that was pretty scary for Paul getting blinded like that.
Some may suggest God used a scare tactic.
hey if it's God then whatever works, he knows what method is necessary for each individual.
And Paul definitely made a change in his way of life turning from the old way.
I would feel almost deceptive if I told a person they could go to heaven and not have to change a bit.
Then let them discover on their own Christ is going to start changing them.

So whats my point other than that I find it hard not to see there are certain conditions which must be met to enter the kingdom, and if they get pushed under the rug and not passed on with Christs love are we doing our full duty or contributing to complacency and enabling behavior to the ones suggesting I want in but I don't want to hear Gods word.
Or even those who will say Lord Lord and repent to God but will go so far as to use scripture to justify my sins against God.

Somewhere I read about food sacrificed to idols.
We don't live on bread alone.
so what other thing do we live by except the very word of God and if this is sacrificed in favor of idolizing the heathen(catering to their wants instead of Gods)...then what is happening here in our time.

we're told what credit is it to us to only love those who love us back

Yet I see a thing happening in the world...something worse than only loving those who love you back
worse than shunning the sinner and holding the righteous club.

"enabling the needy and shunning the Godly."
It's as though people aren't just loving the sinner and hating the sin
But instead loving the sinner and forgetting the sin.
and then ridiculing the Godly in the mean time.

And when Gods word is opened up we hear things like, How do you know God is right, who are you to judge, what makes you so righteous?
But who should be the ones to point these things out?
Who is the authority
Should it be the counterfeit heathen who has infiltrated the church to say let me try, I can lead only to result in the blind leading the blind where they walk around holding hands expecting one of them to haphazardly fall upward out of the pit?
Or rather Gods own people to keep preaching the full gospel including where Jesus said to keep his commandments
and not removing the things which God doesn't tolerate.

[FONT=&quot]1Co 6:9[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1Co 6:10[/FONT][FONT=&quot] nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. [/FONT]



[FONT=&quot]Gal 5:19[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Gal 5:20[/FONT][FONT=&quot] idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Gal 5:21[/FONT][FONT=&quot] envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.[/FONT]



[FONT=&quot]Eph 5:5[/FONT][FONT=&quot] For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.[/FONT]



[FONT=&quot]Rev 21:8[/FONT][FONT=&quot] “But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” [/FONT]



I didn't see Christ compromising God's word while initiating the new covenant.
which is another reason I like what you say, because I don't see you doing that neither.
It's just the way the world is going I wouldn't want to see the term "unconditional" come to a point where people think they can do whatever they want as long as they say Lord Lord and think it's all good, ya know what i mean?

I've taken what you have pointed out under advisement,
I'm just still at odds with the unconditional part unless Christs church can remain a radiant one without blemish or wrinkle.
What part do we fulfill in that?

God Bless,
Midnite

 

[Elin]

Hi I've been around, likely later than normal due to work.
I appreciate your taking the time.
so is another way to put what you're saying (sorry I sometimes put things into my own words, kind of like when you order a package and it gets delivered and you inventory it then sort it and categorize and then assemble so you understand every part)

Yeah, I fondly remember that about you.

The issue is cause or result.

Is our obedience the cause of salvation, or is it the result of salvation.

And that's not just semantics.

Since rebirth and saving faith will result in obedience,
we can say that where there is no obedience, there is no rebirth and saving faith.
There may be claims to such, but there is no evidence of such.

That is what we see in Mt 7:21-23, where they even worked miracles, but did not have saving faith.
For God uses whatever instrument he chooses to accomplish his good purposes,
as he used a donkey to warn Balaam,
the lies of a harlot to save his spies,
the miracles of Pharoah's court magicians, etc.

So when Jesus says that only those who obey enter the kingdom,
he is not saying that obedience is the cause of entrance into the kingdom,
he is saying disobedience manifests a counterfeit faith, as in Mt 7:21-23, which does not save,
and disobedience means that there is no sanctification process at work in them.

So the NT is replete with commands to obey, but not because it is the cause of salvation,
but because it is the sanctification process that follows salvation.
Instruction is needed to engage in the sanctification process which transforms us into the
image of Christ.

And where there is no obedience to these commands, we know there is no sanctification
taking place because there is only counterfeit faith, not true faith.

Hope this helps.

 

[MsSpratt]

Here's what I said:


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

The New Covenant is God's promise to give free blessing to men through Jesus Christ (Jeremiah 31:1-33; Hebrews 8:7-13; 10:9-22). It was given to the nation Israel (Jeremiah 31:1-34), but Christians also share in the spiritual aspects of the New covenant through Christ (Hebrews 8:7-13). The New covenant with Israel promises that God will restore them to their promised land and give them a new heart to obey Him. This will happen when Jesus returns from Heaven (Romans 11:25-27; Zechariah 13).

The New Covenant was made with the nation of Israel (Jeremiah 31:31).
It will replace the Mosaic covenant (Jeremiah 31:32; Hebrews 10:8-9).
It promises regeneration and cleansing from sin (Jeremiah 31:33-34).
It reaffirms Israel's national security and future kingdom (Jeremiah 31:35-37).
It promises Israel's possession of the land (Jeremiah 32:37,41-44).
It is eternal (Jeremiah 32:40).
It promises God's blessing upon the land (Ezekiel 36:29-30).

hi Linda
i looked at these links last night and today

Premillennialism in the Old Testament, Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum
The Abrahamic Covenant

so things make a little more sense now but they still don't make total sense.
this one by Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum says

First: there are the unfulfilled promises of the Jewish covenants, promises that can only be fulfilled in a Messianic Kingdom. Second: there are the unfulfilled prophecies of the Jewish prophets. There are numerous prophecies of the Old Testament that speak of the coming of the Messiah Who will reign on David's Throne, and rule over a peaceful Kingdom. There is a great amount of material in the Old Testament on the Messianic Kingdom, and the belief in a Messianic Kingdom rests on the basis of a literal interpretation of this massive material.


is he saying that the Old Testament parts that speak of the coming of the Messiah aren't fulfilled yet? i get that it says Jesus will rule on David's throne. but how come the old testament doesn't say anything about the time since Jesus came until today?



The only real contribution that the Book of Revelation makes to the knowledge of the Kingdom is to disclose just how long the Messianic Kingdom will last--namely one thousand years--for which the term Millennium is used. This is the one key truth concerning the Kingdom that was not revealed in the Old Testament.

However, there were two things about the Messianic Kingdom which were not revealed in the Old Testament. The first was the length of the Messianic Kingdom.

It is eternal (Jeremiah 32:40).

he said "the Messianic Kingdom will last--namely one thousand years"
that's not eternal. or is it? is that symbolic? what happens after that messianic kingdom? he says the kingdom comes to an end! and leads into an eternal order.


A second thing that was unknown from the Old Testament prophets was the circumstances by which the Kingdom would come to an end and how this would lead into the Eternal Order. This is also revealed by the Book of Revelation. These two items are all that Revelation 20 added to the knowledge of the Messianic Kingdom.

we were talking yesterdsay about the difference between the abraham covenant and the new covenant Jesus gave. Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum explains it like this,


The first of these is the Abrahamic Covenant, which promised an eternal Seed developing into a nation that will possess the Promised Land with some definite borders. While that nation--the Jews--continues to exist, never in Jewish history have they possessed all of the Promised Land. For this promise to be fulfilled, there must be a future Kingdom. Besides, the possession of the Land was not merely promised to Abraham's seed, but to Abraham personally when God said, to you will I give it, and to your seed for ever (Gen. 13:15). For God to fulfill His promise to Abraham (as well as to Isaac and Jacob), there must be a future Kingdom.

The second covenant is the Palestinian Covenant, or Land Covenant, that spoke of a worldwide regathering of the Jews and repossession of the Land following their dispersion. While the dispersion has already occurred and is in effect today, the regathering and repossession of the Land still awaits fulfillment in the future. This, too, requires a future Kingdom.


so i get all that. but he said,


The Davidic Covenant is the third covenant, and it promised four eternal things: an eternal house (dynasty), an eternal throne, an eternal kingdom, and one eternal Person. The Dynasty became eternal because it culminated in a Person Who is Himself eternal: Jesus the Messiah. For that reason the Throne and Kingdom will be eternal as well. But Jesus has never yet sat on the Throne of David ruling over a Kingdom of Israel. The reestablishment of the Davidic Throne and Messiah's rule over the Kingdom still awaits a future fulfillment. It requires a future kingdom.


after he already said


The only real contribution that the Book of Revelation makes to the knowledge of the Kingdom is to disclose just how long the Messianic Kingdom will last--namely one thousand years--for which the term Millennium is used. This is the one key truth concerning the Kingdom that was not revealed in the Old Testament.


how can it be eternal but only last for one thousand years?


a little bit more along he writes,

B. The Jewish Branch of Government
1. David: The King and Prince
The absolute monarchy of the Messiah will extend to Israel as well as to the Gentile nations. But directly under the Messianic King, having authority over all Israel, will be the resurrected David, who is given both titles of king and prince. He will be a king because he will rule over Israel, but he will be a prince in that he will be under the authority of the Messiah. Just as all the Gentile nations will have kings, so will Israel. The difference is that the Gentile kings will all have their natural bodies, while David will have his resurrected body.


"the Gentile kings will all have their natural bodies, while David will have his resurrected body."

where can i find that part (he doesn't say).
i might ask more later on this. the other link made a bit more sense. but the thing is, yesterday you said gentiles, or the church gets spiritual blessings in the new covenant, but you seemed to say israel hasn't even gotten the new covenant yet. is that what you meant, that they have to wait for it after Jesus comes?

 

[Elin]

---

P.S.

Let me clarify my previous post (which is below), and to which I've also made a few changes for clarification.

The NT emphatically presents that salvation is not based on works (obedience), but faith only.

The NT is likewise emphatic about the importance of obedience to Christ's commands.

Now our understanding of these two principles must not set them against one another,
but must maintain their emphasis as presented.

We must not make works (obedience) necessary for salvation, and
we must not make obedience to Christ's commands unnecessary.

That is what I am presenting in my post following,
an understanding which maintains the emphasis of the prinicples,
and at the same time, does not set them one against the other.

Yeah, I fondly remember that about you.

The issue is cause or result.

Is our obedience the cause of salvation, or is it the result of salvation.

And that's not just semantics.

Since rebirth and saving faith will result in obedience,
we can say that where there is no obedience, there is no rebirth and saving faith.
There may be claims to such, but there is no evidence of such.

That is what we see in Mt 7:21-23, where they even worked miracles, but did not have saving faith.
For God uses whatever instrument he chooses to accomplish his good purposes,
as he used a donkey to warn Balaam,
the lies of a harlot to save his spies,
the miracles of Pharoah's court magicians, and he used
the wicked of Mt 7:21-23 to work miracles in his name.
(My suggestion is because all they were really interested in was the power to work miracles,
rather than's God himself and his salvation, he in judgment on their lust for power, gave them
exactly what they wanted, which power did not save.)

So in light of the emphatic teaching of the NT that salvation is by faith alone, not by works (obedience),
when Jesus says that only those who obey enter the kingdom,
he is not saying that obedience is the cause of entrance into the kingdom,
he is saying that only true faith enters the kingdom, which is shown by its obedience.
Disobedience manifests a counterfeit faith, as in Mt 7:21-23, which does not save.

The NT is replete with commands to obey, but not because it is the cause of salvation,
but because it is the sanctification process that necessarily must follow salvation.
It is the process by which the Holy Spirit transforms us into the image of Christ.

So where there is no obedience to the NT commands, we know there is no sanctification
taking place, because there is only counterfeit faith, not true faith.
And only true faith saves.

Hope this helps.

 

[Linda70]

Jeremiah 32:40 is speaking of the New Covenant, not the Millennial Kingdom

Jeremiah 32:40 And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.

The Millennial Kingdom is the glorious earthly kingdom Jesus Christ will establish upon His return, the kingdom foretold by Old Testament prophets. Christ's kingdom will not end at the conclusion of the 1,000 years, but will continue forever (Isaiah 9:7). The Millennial reign is only one phase to Christ's eternal rule. There are plenty of OT Scripture references concerning the Millennial Kingdom and Christ's eternal rule.

The New Covenant will be fulfilled in the NATION of Israel at the Second Coming of Christ.

 

[MsSpratt]

Jeremiah 32:40 is speaking of the New Covenant, not the Millennial Kingdom

hi Linda. thanks for writing back. i'm sorry to be thick-headed. i still don't get it.
did israel take part in the new covenant or not, i guess is what i'm asking.

Jeremiah 32:40 And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.

The Millennial Kingdom is the glorious earthly kingdom Jesus Christ will establish upon His return, the kingdom foretold by Old Testament prophets. Christ's kingdom will not end at the conclusion of the 1,000 years, but will continue forever (Isaiah 9:7). The Millennial reign is only one phase to Christ's eternal rule. There are plenty of OT Scripture references concerning the Millennial Kingdom and Christ's eternal rule.

The New Covenant will be fulfilled in the NATION of Israel at the Second Coming of Christ.[/QUOTE]

[h=3]Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum said this in his writing,[/h]The Gentiles will not only conduct the Jews back to the Land of Israel, but they will be possessed by Israel. They will become servants to Israel. Similar passages are found in Isaiah 49:22-23 and 61:6-7.

Premillennialism in the Old Testament, Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum

gentiles will be possessed (owned) by israel? gentiles will be servants to israel? what?
gentile christians? owned by jewish christians? slaves? that's pretty much what he said.

i need to see where that is, in the new testament.

it doesn't say that at all! i didn't sign up for that!
basically, for example, since you said you are jewish, but a saved person, when we are in the kingdom, your gentile brothers and sisters in Christ will be your possessions? they will serve you?

is that really what the bible says? do you believe that?


27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.


He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.


For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility,

 

[MsSpratt]

The New Covenant will be fulfilled in the NATION of Israel at the Second Coming of Christ.

Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.


but you say it really means here, for the time being, we are all one, but in the kingdom things are different? gentiles become the possession of israel? where can i read about that?

this is not what i see at all when i read about Jesus.


He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

it says right there the gentiles get the blessing given to abraham. and it actually says the jews were redeemed for that purpose! anyways, some things i am reading are very unsettling. not from the God i know. goodnight.

 

[Elin]

Would you please explain what you mean by the boundaries given in the land promise to Abraham, which Scripture states in 1Kgs 4:21, 24-25; cf Josh 21:43-45, were actually possessed under Solomon, is to 'spiritualize' the physical promise of the land.

Do you not believe 1Kgs 4:21, 24-25; Josh 21:43-45?

I don't understand what you are saying.

The spiritualizing by certain groups comes in later prophecies where the promise to the land and it's hope continues after Solomon.

But that doesn't answer my question about the fulfillment of 1Kgs 4:21, 24-25 (cf. Josh 21:43-45) under Solomon.

So there is a second land promise to Abraham after its fulfillment under Solomon?

Please show me where to find the repeat promise after Solomon of the land specified in the promise to Abraham, that I may examine it.

Thanks.

 

[Elin]

Are there physical blessings of the New Covenant?

Where are they found?

I've already posted all that information here. Down at the bottom of the post is a list of the promises of the New Covenant and the Scripture references.

"The New covenant with Israel promises that God will restore them to their promised land"

I don't see that in Jer 31:31-34, the promise of the new covenant (Heb 8:7-13).

Would you show me where you find it?

What exactly are you looking for?

Was I not clear?

I am looking in Jer 31:31-34, the New Covenant promise (Heb 8:7-13),
for the promise to restore Israel to the land, as you said there was.
Where is it?

Cherry picking out verses on a topic that is so vast is nearly impossible and it is very a poor method to study the Scriptures.

My question is limited to only the four verses (vv. 31-34) of Jer 31 which are the promise of the New Covenant.

So you are saying it is impossible to show such a verse in the promise of the New Covenant.

That answers my question; i.e.,
there is no promise of restoration to the land in the New Covenant promise.

And promises of restoration to the land were fulfilled in their return from exile in Babylon,
when the walls and Temple were rebuilt, and worship was re-established in the Temple (Ne 12:43).

Do you believe that the Church has replaced Israel and that the New Covenant will be fulfilled in the Church? If you do believe that, then for me to try to respond to your question by posting verses will be of no avail because you will only try to refute and reject those verses. If you honestly want answers, then begin your own study, beginning with God's call of Abraham in Genesis 12.

My sister in Christ,

I believe that no more than the flower replaces its plant,
does the NT people of God (church) "replace" the OT people of God.

And I believe the NT when it presents Jesus as inaugurating the New Covenant
in his blood (Lk 22:20; 2Co 3:16), of which he is the Mediator (Heb 8:6, 9:15) for all his people.

I believe God has only one people, composed of both OT and NT saints.
I believe all God's people are now on the same footing--salvation is by faith alone in Jesus Christ.

 

[crossnote]

But that doesn't answer my question about the fulfillment of 1Kgs 4:21, 24-25 (cf. Josh 21:43-45) under Solomon.

So there is a second land promise to Abraham after its fulfillment under Solomon?

Please show me where to find the repeat promise after Solomon of the land specified in the promise to Abraham, that I may examine it.

Thanks.

I'm saying if it was fulfilled in Solomon's day why was their later expectation for it in the Prophets?

 

[crossnote]

Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.


but you say it really means here, for the time being, we are all one, but in the kingdom things are different? gentiles become the possession of israel? where can i read about that?

this is not what i see at all when i read about Jesus.


He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

it says right there the gentiles get the blessing given to abraham. and it actually says the jews were redeemed for that purpose! anyways, some things i am reading are very unsettling. not from the God i know. goodnight.

You may be mixing the gentiles in the Church age with Gentiles in the Millenium. I think Fruchtenbaum is referring to the Tribulational Gentiles (those who made it through) not those in the Church where they have equal status.

 

[Linda70]

But that doesn't answer my question about the fulfillment of 1Kgs 4:21, 24-25 (cf. Josh 21:43-45) under Solomon.

So there is a second land promise to Abraham after its fulfillment under Solomon?

Please show me where to find the repeat promise after Solomon of the land specified in the promise to Abraham, that I may examine it.

Thanks.

The teaching that the land promise was fulfilled in Joshua 21:43-45 is a Reformed/Calvinism teaching. Are you a Calvinist?

What About the Land Promises to Israel? by Thomas Ice

 

[crossnote]

The teaching that the land promise was fulfilled in Joshua 21:43-45 is a Reformed/Calvinism teaching. Are you a Calvinist?

What About the Land Promises to Israel? by Thomas Ice

Nice article by Ice. My point to Erin is made at the third paragraph before the conclusion.

 

[Linda70]

Was I not clear?

I am looking in Jer 31:31-34, the New Covenant promise (Heb 8:7-13),
for the promise to restore Israel to the land, as you said there was.
Where is it?


My question is limited to only the four verses (vv. 31-34) of Jer 31 which are the promise of the New Covenant.

So you are saying it is impossible to show such a verse in the promise of the New Covenant.

That answers my question; i.e.,
there is no promise of restoration to the land in the New Covenant promise.

And promises of restoration to the land were fulfilled in their return from exile in Babylon,
when the walls and Temple were rebuilt, and worship was re-established in the Temple (Ne 12:43).


My sister in Christ,

I believe that no more than the flower replaces its plant,
does the NT people of God (church) "replace" the OT people of God.

And I believe the NT when it presents Jesus as inaugurating the New Covenant
in his blood (Lk 22:20; 2Co 3:16), of which he is the Mediator (Heb 8:6, 9:15) for all his people.

I believe God has only one people, composed of both OT and NT saints.
I believe all God's people are now on the same footing--salvation is by faith alone in Jesus Christ.

Elin,

Your response has answered my questions about the direction to which this discussion is leading. It is a typical "Reformed" response. Honestly, are you really interested in what dispensationalism teaches about the nation of Israel, Israel's future restoration, and the fulfillment of the New Covenant in the nation of Israel (and not the Church)...or are you simply attempting to "shake me off" my dispensational "rock"? Reformed or Covenant theology teaches that there is only ONE people of God and that the Church has replaced Israel and all God's promises which God made to the nation of Israel have been or will be fulfilled in the Church. IOW, there is no more nation of Israel in God's plan. This contradicts Romans 11:1.

Romans 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

 

[Elin]

Would you please explain what you mean by the boundaries given in the land promise to Abraham, which Scripture states in 1Kgs 4:21, 24-25; cf Josh 21:43-45, were
actually possessed under Solomon, is to 'spiritualize' the physical promise of the land.

Do you not believe 1Kgs 4:21, 24-25; Josh 21:43-45?

I don't understand what you are saying.

The spiritualizing by certain groups comes in later prophecies where the promise to the land and it's hope continues after Solomon.

But that doesn't answer my question about the fulfillment of 1Kgs 4:21, 24-25 (cf. Josh 21:43-45) under Solomon.

So there is a second land promise to Abraham after its fulfillment under Solomon?

Please show me where to find the repeat promise after Solomon of the land specified in the promise to Abraham, that I may examine it.

Thanks.

I'm saying if it was fulfilled in Solomon's day why was their later expectation for it in the Prophets?

So you don't believe 1Kgs 4:21, 24-25 and Josh 21:43-45?

I'm thinking this whole notion is not in agreement with the whole counsel of God,
starting with Josh 21:43-45; 1Kgs 4:21, 24-25; Ne 12:43, and
extending to foundational doctrine of the NT regarding the New Covenant
made in the blood of Jesus Christ (Lk 22:20; 2Co 3:6), of which
Christ is the Mediator (Heb 8:6, 9:15) for all his people.