Replacement theology? Yes or No.

[Churchgoer]

There you go @2ndTimeIsTheCharm : try and conjure up a rebuttal. We are waiting.....

“Ezekiel 37 is saying God will restore whoever He will restore” is not an interpretation of Ezekiel 37. It is a substitution of a vague theological statement for what the text explicitly says.

Of course God is sovereign and may save or restore whomever He chooses. But Ezekiel 37 is not asking the abstract question, “Whom is God capable of restoring?” It identifies a particular people, a particular national dispersion, a particular land, a particular covenant history, and a particular future restoration.

1. God explicitly identifies the dry bones​

There is no ambiguity whatsoever:


Not “whoever believes.”

Not “all humanity.”

Not “the Church.”

Not “whoever God decides to restore.”

The whole house of Israel.

God then quotes their national lament:


The vision is therefore interpreted for us by God Himself. The interpreter does not have permission to erase the inspired identification and replace it with an unspecified population.

2. God says He will bring THEM into THEIR land​

Immediately afterward:


And again:


Whose land?

The text answers that later in the same prophecy:


This is devastating to the “whoever” interpretation.

God does not say:

“I will put whoever I restore somewhere.”

He says that Israel will be restored to the land given to Jacob, the land in which their fathers lived.

Every noun restricts the referent.

3. The two-stick prophecy makes the identity even more explicit​

Beginning in verse 16, God names the parties:


and:


Then God explains the symbolism:


Again, this is not generic restoration.

It is:

the children of Israel
→ dispersed among the nations
→ gathered from those nations
→ brought into their own land.

One has to repeatedly delete phrases from the passage to make it mean “whoever God restores.”

4. They become ONE NATION​

God continues:


Notice the categories:

• one nation
• in the land
• upon the mountains of Israel
• reunited from Judah and Ephraim
• under one king.

This is the reversal of the historic division of Israel following Solomon.

The prophecy presupposes the actual history of Judah and Israel and promises their future reunification.

“Whoever God restores” explains none of that.

5. The restoration includes spiritual regeneration​

Dispensational interpretation does not reduce Ezekiel 37 to a secular political return.

God promises national restoration and spiritual regeneration:


Likewise:


This corresponds directly with Ezekiel 36:


followed by:


The sequence is unmistakable:

Israel scattered → Israel regathered → Israel cleansed → Israel spiritually renewed.

The restoration is neither merely political nor merely allegorical.

It is both national and spiritual.

6. The Davidic King identifies the prophetic framework​

Ezekiel continues:


And:


This connects the prophecy with the Davidic covenant and the Messianic kingdom.

Compare:

Jeremiah 23:5–6 — a righteous Branch of David reigns as King, while Judah is saved and Israel dwells safely.

Jeremiah 30:9 — Israel will “serve the LORD their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up unto them.”

Hosea 3:5 — “the children of Israel shall return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king.”

The prophets repeatedly combine:

Israel’s national restoration + Israel’s conversion + Davidic/Messianic rule.

That is exactly Ezekiel 37.

7. The covenant is made with the same people​

God says:


Who are “them”?

Grammar does not permit us to suddenly replace the antecedent.

“Them” refers to the same people described throughout the passage:

• Israel
• Judah
• Ephraim
• the children of Israel
• those scattered among the nations
• those returned to their land
• those dwelling in Jacob’s inheritance.

One cannot follow Israel through twenty verses and then suddenly make “them” mean an unidentified group simply because one's theological system requires it.

8. God places His sanctuary among THEM​

The chapter closes:


And then:


The final verse once again names the people:

ISRAEL.

And it distinguishes Israel from the nations observing what God has done.

That distinction becomes extremely difficult to explain if Israel has somehow ceased to mean Israel.

9. The surrounding chapters destroy the generic interpretation​

Ezekiel 36–39 forms a connected restoration complex.

Ezekiel 36:


Ezekiel 36:10:


Ezekiel 36:28:


Ezekiel 37:


Ezekiel 37:21:


Ezekiel 37:25:


Ezekiel 39:25:


Ezekiel 39:28:


This is sustained, repetitive identification.

The reader does not have to guess who is being discussed.

You just can't accept Jesus is the father of all believers. You don't want anyone to be in the family of God.

You only want an ethnic kingdom, using Jesus as a tool to reach your goal.

Very sad. Very twisted.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

Are you calling all the murdering, robbery, pagan worship beautiful? Now you are really twisting scripture teaching.
Thou shall not murder.....

“These six things doth the LORD hate: Yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, Feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, And he that soweth discord among brethren.”
‭‭Proverbs‬ ‭6:16-19‬ ‭KJV‬‬

 

[Pilgrimshope]

That's because you put your nose right at the elephant s leg. Yes you saw a small picture of the leg skin.

Step back and read the entire Bible, one story. Not about your one ethnic group.

That’s the thing the whole story explains itself

 

[Beekeeper]

Matthew 24’s all‑nations mission,

Matthew 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come

I hope I am not popping any bubbles, but "all nations" were also in Jerusalem.

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

 

[cv5]

Matthew 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come

I hope I am not popping any bubbles, but "all nations" were also in Jerusalem.

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

Your views on Acts 2 have already been thoroughly debunked. Doubling down (waaaaay down) is hardly praiseworthy.

Post in thread 'Replacement theology? Yes or No.'

Saturday at 11:30 AM

Saying “you fail to comprehend Peter and James” is not an argument; it’s just a way of avoiding the fact that Acts 2 and Acts 15 explicitly apply Israel’s restoration promises to the ingathering of Gentiles, not to a postponed national resurrection.
Peter quotes Joel and says the Spirit’s outpouring is happening now, not after a future geopolitical revival; James quotes Amos and says the rebuilding of David’s fallen tent is Christ’s present work, not a millennial reconstruction of ethnic Israel.
You keep accusing others of “amillennial filters,” but you’re refusing to let the apostles...

• cv5

 

[cv5]

You just can't accept Jesus is the father of all believers. You don't want anyone to be in the family of God.

You only want an ethnic kingdom, using Jesus as a tool to reach your goal.

Very sad. Very twisted.

These passages thrill my soul. I never tire of pondering their grace and glory.

And you? They also warm your heart like they do mine?

[Act 7:13 KJV] 13 And at the second [time] Joseph was made known to his brethren; and Joseph's kindred was made known unto Pharaoh.

[Gen 45:1, 5, 7-8, 15 KJV]
1 Then Joseph could not refrain himself before all them that stood by him; and he cried, Cause every man to go out from me. And there stood no man with him, while Joseph made himself known unto his brethren. ...

5 Now therefore be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither: for God did send me before you to preserve life. ...

7 And God sent me before you to preserve you a posterity in the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance.

8 So now [it was] not you [that] sent me hither, but God: and he hath made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house, and a ruler throughout all the land of Egypt. ...

15 Moreover he kissed all his brethren, and wept upon them: and after that his brethren talked with him.

 

[Beekeeper]

Your views on Acts 2 have already been thoroughly debunked. Doubling down (waaaaay down) is hardly praiseworthy.

Post in thread 'Replacement theology? Yes or No.'

Saturday at 11:30 AM

Saying “you fail to comprehend Peter and James” is not an argument; it’s just a way of avoiding the fact that Acts 2 and Acts 15 explicitly apply Israel’s restoration promises to the ingathering of Gentiles, not to a postponed national resurrection.
Peter quotes Joel and says the Spirit’s outpouring is happening now, not after a future geopolitical revival; James quotes Amos and says the rebuilding of David’s fallen tent is Christ’s present work, not a millennial reconstruction of ethnic Israel.
You keep accusing others of “amillennial filters,” but you’re refusing to let the apostles...

• cv5

You just havn't yet noticed that I absolutely ROASTED you.

 

[Beekeeper]

The first new earth, to be manifested right after the Tribulation ends, will still be having deaths taking place in it...
Many men will live to be 1000 years old for the duration of the Millennium.
But, not all.

​

“Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man
who does not live out his years; the one who dies at a hundred will be thought a
mere child; the one who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed. Isaiah 65:20​

For the Millennium, life on earth will have been transformed.
Isaiah says, "The lion will eat grass like the lamb."

Isaiah 11:6-9

The wolf will live with the lamb,​

the leopard will lie down with the goat,​

the calf and the lion and the yearling together;​

and a little child will lead them.​

The cow will feed with the bear,​

their young will lie down together,​

and the lion will eat straw like the ox.​

The infant will play near the cobra’s den,​

and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.​

They will neither harm nor destroy​

on all my holy mountain,​

for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord​

as the waters cover the sea.​

​

But that is not the second new earth.
The second new earth will be replacing the first new earth, which will be first destroyed, as read in 2 Peter 3:10-12.

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens ​

shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, ​

the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.​

​

Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye ​

to be in all holy conversation and godliness,​

​

Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire ​

shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?​

​

The second new earth shall be an entirely newly created world after the first is burned up.
Not simply being a transformed world as in the first new heavens and new earth.
For the first new heavens and earth will be destroyed by nuclear fusion down to the atomic level.

The new earths are somewhat like what we have become as Christians.

The first new earth?
We are now a new creation in Christ.
We were transformed into a new creation and are being transformed progressively more and more by grace and truth.

But?

The second new earth is also like the Christian.
For we will become a second, entirely new creation once we are in our resurrection body!

Two new creations in Christ!

Grace and peace!

"The new earths are somewhat like what we have become as Christians"

That is an interesting thought.
I think of those animals going full vegan in Isaiah 11 and see parallels to that in the early church, but trying to compare it to what I have seen in the professing Christian church of our time, I can't help thinking of the negatives.
There is no doubt much division among these congregations, racism in some, love of war in others.
I have seen many people afraid to ask questions and express doubts about things that are taught and done, yet dutifully keep attending church, slowly getting their faith demolished.

From the beginning I have had a sense that the words of the Bible are true and in a completely different category from all other written words, and I am determined not to have my faith weakened through this type of "political correctness".
I hope I do not annoy you by asking questions or demanding and presenting evidence.
I will respect you and your thoughts too, whether they are the same or different to mine.

Regarding Isaiah 11 I have heard 3 different approaches to interpreting it, based on v.11 where "Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people"
The questions are: What happened in those 2 times? and When did it happen?


The first answer I have heard is that the first time is the restoration after the Babylonian captivity, and the second time is in a new millennial age.
That would make v.1-5 about Jesus, the first person that would spring to most NT minds, and the peaceful animals UN-metaphoric literal creatures.
I think this is not far from the view that you expressed.

Second answer is first time Babylon, and second time Pentecost, referring to Acts 2, where 3000 Jewish men coming from many different countries were saved.
V.1-5 is still about Jesus, but the animals become metaphors for the different types of people who become brethren within the church.
I have considered this one, but it kind of seems a bit off, 3000 being such a small number.
V. 14 makes it starts to seem even more odd, as we read about them fighting Philistines and doing stuff that the Israelites did when they arrived from Egypt.
Then we get to V.15 and read about them crossing a big river miraculously, a bit like the Israelites crossing the red sea.
How does that fit in?

The third answer is that the first time was when the Israelites first entered the Holy land, and the second time when they came back from Babylon.
For this one the branch out of the root of Jesse must be the actual king David, and the animals metaphor for the unity he brings within the house of Israel.
V.10 would probably refer to Solomon's kingdom, when the Israel reached the height of it's glory, also among the Gentiles.

The second temple restoration also came with spiritual revival and peace between former warring tribes, explaining v.13.
Babylon was an empire, not just one country, and the Israelites were dispersed into the countries that Babylon controlled so they could not form a unified group (referring to v.11)
There are also those similarities to the first entry into the promised land in vs.14 and 15.
Vs 15 an 16 are particularly interesting though, because coming back from Babylon the Israelites needed to make a long journey along the wrong side of the Euphrates river, and these verses suggest that God performed a miracle that enabled them to cross the river into the Holy land.

I lean towards this third answer, because Isaiah lived during the 8th century BC, and this is the event that happened soonest afterwards that matches his words.

Wishing the grace of God to you, and an enlightening spiritual adventure!

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

There you go @2ndTimeIsTheCharm : try and conjure up a rebuttal. We are waiting.....

What are you even blabbering about? I'm not on their side when it comes to Israel.


But keep making a fool of yourself boasting and puffing yourself up. It's free entertainment.

 

[Churchgoer]

These passages thrill my soul. I never tire of pondering their grace and glory.

And you? They also warm your heart like they do mine?

[Act 7:13 KJV] 13 And at the second [time] Joseph was made known to his brethren; and Joseph's kindred was made known unto Pharaoh.

[Gen 45:1, 5, 7-8, 15 KJV]
1 Then Joseph could not refrain himself before all them that stood by him; and he cried, Cause every man to go out from me. And there stood no man with him, while Joseph made himself known unto his brethren. ...

5 Now therefore be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither: for God did send me before you to preserve life. ...

7 And God sent me before you to preserve you a posterity in the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance.

8 So now [it was] not you [that] sent me hither, but God: and he hath made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house, and a ruler throughout all the land of Egypt. ...

15 Moreover he kissed all his brethren, and wept upon them: and after that his brethren talked with him.

Brothers repent, sin no more.
Brothers meant it evil, God meant it good.
Do not repeat as older days.
God call us to be Holy, to sin no more. Think about it.

 

[cv5]

You just havn't yet noticed that I absolutely ROASTED you.

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

No, you roasted yourself. As always.
Sigh.....

 

[cv5]

What are you even blabbering about? I'm not on their side when it comes to Israel.


But keep making a fool of yourself boasting and puffing yourself up. It's free entertainment.

Well, you are halfway there. One heresy to go!
Just keep working on it buddy, you will get there eventually......

 

[Genez]

"The new earths are somewhat like what we have become as Christians"

That is an interesting thought.
I think of those animals going full vegan in Isaiah 11 and see parallels to that in the early church, but trying to compare it to what I have seen in the professing Christian church of our time, I can't help thinking of the negatives.
There is no doubt much division among these congregations, racism in some, love of war in others.
I have seen many people afraid to ask questions and express doubts about things that are taught and done, yet dutifully keep attending church, slowly getting their faith demolished.

From the beginning I have had a sense that the words of the Bible are true and in a completely different category from all other written words, and I am determined not to have my faith weakened through this type of "political correctness".
I hope I do not annoy you by asking questions or demanding and presenting evidence.
I will respect you and your thoughts too, whether they are the same or different to mine.

Regarding Isaiah 11 I have heard 3 different approaches to interpreting it, based on v.11 where "Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people"
The questions are: What happened in those 2 times? and When did it happen?


The first answer I have heard is that the first time is the restoration after the Babylonian captivity, and the second time is in a new millennial age.
That would make v.1-5 about Jesus, the first person that would spring to most NT minds, and the peaceful animals UN-metaphoric literal creatures.
I think this is not far from the view that you expressed.

Second answer is first time Babylon, and second time Pentecost, referring to Acts 2, where 3000 Jewish men coming from many different countries were saved.
V.1-5 is still about Jesus, but the animals become metaphors for the different types of people who become brethren within the church.
I have considered this one, but it kind of seems a bit off, 3000 being such a small number.
V. 14 makes it starts to seem even more odd, as we read about them fighting Philistines and doing stuff that the Israelites did when they arrived from Egypt.
Then we get to V.15 and read about them crossing a big river miraculously, a bit like the Israelites crossing the red sea.
How does that fit in?

The third answer is that the first time was when the Israelites first entered the Holy land, and the second time when they came back from Babylon.
For this one the branch out of the root of Jesse must be the actual king David, and the animals metaphor for the unity he brings within the house of Israel.
V.10 would probably refer to Solomon's kingdom, when the Israel reached the height of it's glory, also among the Gentiles.

The second temple restoration also came with spiritual revival and peace between former warring tribes, explaining v.13.
Babylon was an empire, not just one country, and the Israelites were dispersed into the countries that Babylon controlled so they could not form a unified group (referring to v.11)
There are also those similarities to the first entry into the promised land in vs.14 and 15.
Vs 15 an 16 are particularly interesting though, because coming back from Babylon the Israelites needed to make a long journey along the wrong side of the Euphrates river, and these verses suggest that God performed a miracle that enabled them to cross the river into the Holy land.

I lean towards this third answer, because Isaiah lived during the 8th century BC, and this is the event that happened soonest afterwards that matches his words.

Wishing the grace of God to you, and an enlightening spiritual adventure!

I try to avoid commenting on issues I have no prior knowledge of.
And I hate treating possible explanations like picking an hors d'oeuvre off a tray.

 

[God-fearing]

Matthew 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come

I hope I am not popping any bubbles, but "all nations" were also in Jerusalem.

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

Keep reaching you'll hit your goal of embarrassment.
So your take is if I went to another country from the place I live I'm considered a nation? Really?
Act 2:5 says out of every nation not a nation. A little short handed on that reach.

 

[HeIsHere]

It's obvious to anyone and everyone that you definitely do NOT know "the clear and precise words of Christ Jesus".

Such as these statements that you have NEVER been able to properly harmonize with your failed preterist dogma.

Mat 17:11
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.

Luk 13:35
Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Luk 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.

Mat 26:29
But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Luk 22:16
For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

Yup I believe all that too!

I already gave the correct understanding of the time of Gentiles.

>>>>>>> Learn that AD 70 was the Covenantal verdict from God Himself pronouncing judgement on Jerusalem...... also learn that is was the end of Age of the Sacrifices and Temple and the ushering in of the Age of the Christ in believers as the New Temple.

There is no point in discussing anything else because your hermeneutic is wrong and you push aside the the very words of Jesus.

 

[cv5]

Yup I believe all that too!

I already gave the correct understanding of the time of Gentiles.

>>>>>>> Learn that AD 70 was the Covenantal verdict from God Himself pronouncing judgement on Jerusalem...... also learn that is was the end of Age of the Sacrifices and Temple and the ushering in of the Age of the Christ in believers as the New Temple.

There is no point in discussing anything else because your hermeneutic is wrong and you push aside the the very words of Jesus.

Aaaahhhhmmm here let me ask you this: do actually have a full Bible in front of you?
You know.....66 books 40 authors? I mean the whole compendium?
Because you rarely if ever quote it (most glaringly failing to harmonize the OT and the Nation Israel).
And you definitely do not use it in a manner where you understand it properly.

Calling AD 70 a “covenantal verdict” does not answer the passages cited. It simply changes the subject.

Yes, AD 70 was a terrible judgment upon Jerusalem. Jesus explicitly predicted the destruction of the Temple (Matt. 23:37–24:2; Luke 19:41–44; 21:20–24).

But the issue is whether AD 70 terminated God's covenantal purposes for national Israel.

Jesus' own words say otherwise.

The crucial word repeatedly being ignored is:

UNTIL.

“Until” establishes a condition continuing to a terminus, after which something changes.

1. Elijah still has a future role​

“Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.”
— Matt. 17:11

Jesus deliberately says both:

“Elijah truly SHALL first come”

and then:

“Elijah IS come already.”

John the Baptist came “in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17), fulfilling an Elijah-like ministry at Christ's first advent. Yet Jesus still speaks prospectively of Elijah coming and restoring all things.

That harmonizes naturally with Malachi 4:5–6:

“I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD.”

Simply declaring everything exhausted in the first century does not resolve Christ's own wording.

2. “You shall not see Me UNTIL…”​

“Behold, your house is left unto you desolate… Ye shall not see me, UNTIL the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.”
— Luke 13:35

Notice the sequence:

desolation → absence → UNTIL → Israel welcomes Messiah.

That is not permanent rejection.

It is judgment followed by restoration.

Jesus echoes Psalm 118:26, while Zechariah describes precisely such a future national recognition:

“They shall look upon me whom they have pierced…”
— Zech. 12:10

Then comes cleansing:

“In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David…”
— Zech. 13:1

Then Messiah comes and reigns:

“His feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives…”
— Zech. 14:4

“The LORD shall be king over all the earth.”
— Zech. 14:9

AD 70 fits the desolation.

It does not cancel what Jesus says comes after UNTIL.

3. Jerusalem is trodden down “UNTIL…”​

“Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, UNTIL the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.”
— Luke 21:24

Again the sequence is obvious:

Jerusalem under Gentile domination → UNTIL → Gentile times fulfilled.

If Jerusalem were to remain covenantally irrelevant forever, “until” would be a remarkably strange word to use.

Christ anticipates a terminus to the period He is describing.

This harmonizes perfectly with Daniel, where Gentile world dominion eventually gives way to the kingdom of God (Dan. 2:34–35, 44; 7:13–14, 27).

Calling AD 70 a “covenantal verdict” does nothing to erase Christ's UNTIL.

4. Christ Himself anticipates a future Kingdom banquet​

“I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, UNTIL that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.”
— Matt. 26:29

And:

“I will not any more eat thereof, UNTIL it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”
— Luke 22:16

Again:

present absence → UNTIL → future fulfillment in the Kingdom.

Jesus anticipates a future day in which He again eats and drinks with His disciples in the Kingdom.

Compare:

“Many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.”
— Matt. 8:11

That is future Kingdom language, not merely AD 70.

AD 70 did not inaugurate the New Covenant​

The claim that AD 70 was “the end of the Age of Sacrifices and Temple and the ushering in of the Age of Christ” is chronologically backwards.

The Mosaic sacrifices were rendered obsolete by Christ's sacrifice, not by Titus destroying Jerusalem.

Christ said before the Cross:

“This cup is the new testament in my blood.”
— Luke 22:20

Hebrews grounds everything in Christ's death and priesthood:

“By one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”
— Heb. 10:14

The veil was torn at Christ's death.

Furthermore, believers were already called God's temple before AD 70:

“Ye are the temple of God.”
— 1 Cor. 3:16

Therefore AD 70 could not have “ushered in” a reality Paul was already teaching years earlier.

AD 70 was judgment, not the inauguration of the New Covenant.

The Church as God's temple does not cancel Israel​

This is another non sequitur.

Scripture can teach simultaneously that Christ is the true Temple, believers are indwelt by the Spirit, and Israel still possesses irrevocable national covenant promises.

Paul says:

“Hath God cast away his people? God forbid.”
— Rom. 11:1

Then he gives exactly the same temporal structure as Jesus:

“Blindness in part is happened to Israel, UNTIL the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved.”
— Rom. 11:25–26

Again:

Israel presently blinded → Gentile period → UNTIL → Israel's salvation.

And Paul explains why:

“For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.”
— Rom. 11:29

The prophets teach the same sequence​

The restoration of Israel is not some isolated dispensational invention.

Deuteronomy 30:1–6 — Israel scattered, then regathered and spiritually renewed.

Jeremiah 31:35–37 — Israel's continuing national identity guaranteed.

Jeremiah 32:37–42 — Israel regathered and planted securely.

Ezekiel 36:24–28 — Israel gathered from the nations, cleansed and regenerated.

Ezekiel 37:21–28 — Israel reunited, restored to the land and ruled by David's greater Son.

Hosea 3:4–5 — Israel remains “many days” without king or sacrifice, and afterward returns.

Zechariah 12–14 — Jerusalem suffers, Israel recognizes the pierced Messiah, is cleansed, and the LORD comes to reign.

The prophetic pattern is consistent:

rebellion → judgment → dispersion → prolonged chastening → repentance → restoration → Messiah's reign.

AD 70 fits perfectly within the judgment portion of that sequence.

It does not erase everything that follows.

So merely repeating:

“AD 70 was the covenantal verdict”

is not exegesis.

It assumes covenantal termination and then forces every passage through that assumption.

And refusing to discuss the passages because “your hermeneutic is wrong” simply avoids the very texts requiring explanation.

Jesus said:

UNTIL Israel welcomes Me.

UNTIL the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

UNTIL the Kingdom meal is fulfilled.

Paul said:

UNTIL the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.

You cannot make those temporal markers disappear by attaching the label “covenantal verdict” to AD 70.

AD 70 was indeed judgment.

But the same prophets who predicted Israel's judgment also predicted Israel's restoration.

A hermeneutic that literalizes the judgment while spiritualizing away the restoration is not allowing Christ—or the prophets—to finish their sentences.

 

[cv5]

I already gave the correct understanding of the time of Gentiles.

The biblical sequence is:
rebellion → judgment → prolonged dispersion/chastening under Gentile domination → appointed terminus → repentance → restoration → Messiah's reign.

And Scripture directly links Israel's chastening to the Times of the Gentiles.

Hosea: “many days” before restoration​

Hosea 3:4–5 is explicit:

“For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice… Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king…”

The sequence is unmistakable:

national disruption → many days → afterward → return to the LORD and Davidic Messiah.

Israel's abnormal condition is therefore neither brief nor permanent. It is a lengthy prophetic interval with a defined end.

Moses predicted dispersion followed by restoration​

Deuteronomy 28:64:

“The LORD shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other…”

Then Deuteronomy 30:1–6 says that after this dispersion Israel will return to the LORD and be gathered again from the nations.

So the pattern already exists in the Torah:

apostasy → curse → dispersion among Gentile nations → repentance → regathering.

The long wandering is part of the prophecy itself.

Isaiah asks: “How long?”​

Isaiah 6:11:

“Then said I, Lord, how long?”

God's answer describes continuing devastation and removal from the land.

That question alone establishes that Israel's judicial blindness and chastening have a duration.

It is not merely a single historical event. It is a condition that persists until God's appointed purpose is completed.

Micah: “given up UNTIL”​

Micah 5:3 says:

“Therefore will he give them up, until the time…”

This is crucial.

Israel is given up, but only until an appointed terminus.

Then Messiah appears as Israel's Shepherd and ruler (Mic. 5:2–4).

So once again:

Messiah → Israel given up → prolonged interval → UNTIL → restoration under Messiah.

Jeremiah: chastened, but not destroyed​

Jeremiah 30:11:

“Though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee: but I will correct thee in measure…”

That is prolonged covenant chastening in one verse.

Israel is:

scattered,
disciplined,
but not annihilated.

The discipline has a limit.

Jesus directly identifies this interval with Gentile domination​

Now consider Luke 21:24:

“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.”

This is the key connection.

Jesus joins together:

Israel's defeat
→ dispersion among the nations
→ Jerusalem under Gentile domination
→ the Times of the Gentiles
→ UNTIL their fulfillment

The Times of the Gentiles therefore correspond directly to Israel's period of chastening.

They are two sides of the same prophetic reality:

Gentile ascendancy corresponds to Israel's humiliation.

As Gentile domination continues, Israel remains dispersed, partially blinded, and nationally chastened.

When the Times of the Gentiles are fulfilled, that condition reaches its appointed terminus.

That is exactly why Luke 21:24 says Jerusalem is trodden down UNTIL those times are completed.

The end of Gentile domination and the end of Israel's prolonged chastening are prophetically linked.

Daniel provides the OT foundation​

This concept did not originate in Luke.

Daniel repeatedly portrays a period in which Gentile kingdoms dominate history while Israel remains subject to foreign powers.

Daniel 2 presents successive Gentile kingdoms culminating in the destruction of Gentile world power by the Kingdom established by God.

Daniel 7 likewise depicts Gentile beasts exercising dominion until:

“the kingdom and dominion… shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High.”
— Daniel 7:27

Thus the prophetic movement is:

Gentile dominion → appointed end → divine Kingdom.

Luke 21:24 uses precisely this framework.

Jesus: Israel's desolation lasts “UNTIL”​

Luke 13:35:

“Behold, your house is left unto you desolate… Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.”

Again:

desolation → prolonged absence → UNTIL → Israel welcomes Messiah.

That is not permanent rejection.

It is temporary chastening followed by recognition and restoration.

This parallels Hosea exactly:

many days → afterward Israel returns.

Paul makes the connection unmistakable​

Romans 11:25:

“Blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.”

Notice how closely this parallels Luke 21:24:

Luke 21: Jerusalem under Gentile domination UNTIL the Times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Romans 11: Israel partially blinded UNTIL the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.

In both passages:

Israel's present abnormal condition exists during a Gentile interval.

And in both passages that interval has an UNTIL.

Then Paul says:

“And so all Israel shall be saved.”

And grounds this in covenant:

“For this is my covenant unto them…”

followed by:

“For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.”
— Romans 11:26–29

Thus the terminus of the Gentile period corresponds to the terminus of Israel's judicial hardening.

The two are prophetically synchronized.

The complete prophetic pattern​

Put the passages together:

Deuteronomy 28–30: dispersion among nations → repentance → restoration.

Isaiah 6: judicial blindness continues for an appointed duration.

Hosea 3: many days without normal national life → afterward Israel returns.

Micah 5: Israel is given up UNTIL the appointed time.

Jeremiah 30: scattered and chastened, but not destroyed.

Daniel 2 & 7: Gentile dominion continues until God's Kingdom replaces it.

Luke 13: Israel's house desolate UNTIL Israel welcomes Messiah.

Luke 21: Jerusalem under Gentile domination UNTIL the Times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Romans 11: Israel partially blinded UNTIL the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.

This produces one coherent sequence:

ISRAEL'S REBELLION
→ DIVINE JUDGMENT
→ DISPERSION AND PROLONGED CHASTENING
→ GENTILE DOMINATION / TIMES OF THE GENTILES
→ APPOINTED TERMINUS
→ END OF ISRAEL'S NATIONAL HARDENING
→ REPENTANCE AND RESTORATION
→ MESSIAH'S KINGDOM

That is why AD 70 cannot be treated as the final covenantal verdict upon Israel.

AD 70 belongs to the judgment and dispersion side of the prophecy.

Jesus explicitly says that after Jerusalem falls there follows a period of captivity among the nations and Gentile domination UNTIL its appointed completion.

The remarkable point is therefore this:

The lengthy chastening of Israel and the Times of the Gentiles run concurrently.

As Israel is humbled, Gentile dominion continues.

When the Times of the Gentiles reach their terminus, Israel's prolonged national chastening reaches its terminus also, leading into the prophetic sequence of repentance, restoration, and Messiah's reign.

So the centuries-long interval is not evidence against Israel's future restoration.

That interval is itself exactly what Moses, the Prophets, Jesus, and Paul predicted.

 

[Beekeeper]

Keep reaching you'll hit your goal of embarrassment.
So your take is if I went to another country from the place I live I'm considered a nation? Really?
Act 2:5 says out of every nation not a nation. A little short handed on that reach.

No I do not think that.
We all understand that the gospel reached the other nations quickly.
The 3000 converted Jewish men in Acts 2 would have have helped with that, because although they were converted in Jerusalem, they lived in many different countries.
No doubt they also had families.
Embarrassment is ok, but I don't think I should be embarrassed about making that point.

 

[cv5]

What are you even blabbering about? I'm not on their side when it comes to Israel.


But keep making a fool of yourself boasting and puffing yourself up. It's free entertainment.

Here you go my friend. The harpazo is.......absolutely inevitable, encoded in Scripture in both plain language, patterns and types.
Admittedly, I still cannot understand your choice to deny and ignore the obvious.
I mean the harpazo is indeed boilerplate Biblical doctrine, and has never been disproven, nor can it be.

The 12 Steps of the Hebrew Wedding Pattern

Shiddukh (שִׁדּוּךְ) – Arrangement / Match

The match is arranged between families.

Example often cited: the bride chosen for Isaac in Genesis 24.

Mohar (מֹהַר) – Bride Price

The groom pays the price for the bride.

Example: Jacob serving years to obtain Rachel.

Ketubah (כְּתוּבָּה) – Marriage Covenant / Contract

A written covenant agreement defining obligations.

Parallels this with the covenant given in Exodus 19–24.

Kiddushin / Erusin (קִדּוּשִׁין / אֵרוּסִין) – Betrothal

The bride becomes set apart for the groom.

The couple is legally bound though not yet living together.

Kos HaBrit (כּוֹס הַבְּרִית) – Cup of the Covenant

The covenant is sealed by sharing the cup.

Acceptance of the marriage agreement.

Mattan (מַתָּן) – Gifts to the Bride

The groom gives bridal gifts demonstrating commitment and provision.

Mikveh (מִקְוֶה) – Ritual Immersion

The bride undergoes ceremonial purification.

Symbol of cleansing and preparation.

Hachanat HaKallah (הֲכָנַת הַכַּלָּה) – Preparation of the Bride

The kallah (bride) prepares herself during the betrothal period.

She must remain ready for the groom.

Teruʿat HaShofar / HaKri'ah (תְּרוּעַת הַשּׁוֹפָר) – Announcement of the Groom

The groom’s arrival is announced with a shout or trumpet.

The bridal party prepares.

Nissuin (נִישּׂוּאִין) – Taking the Bride

The groom comes suddenly and takes the bride to the father’s house.

This completes the marriage legally.

Chuppah (חֻפָּה) – Bridal Chamber / Canopy

The couple enters the chuppah, symbolizing the consummation and union.
Traditionally associated with a seven-day bridal chamber period.

Seudat Nissuin (סְעוּדַת נִישּׂוּאִין) – Wedding Feast

The marriage supper or celebratory banquet with guests.

Condensed List

Shiddukh – match arrangement

Mohar – bride price

Ketubah – marriage covenant

Kiddushin / Erusin – betrothal

Kos HaBrit – covenant cup

Mattan – bridal gifts

Mikveh – ritual immersion

Hachanat HaKallah – bride preparation

Teruʿat HaShofar – announcement

Nissuin – taking the bride

Chuppah – bridal chamber

Seudat Nissuin – wedding feast

 

[Beekeeper]

I try to avoid commenting on issues I have no prior knowledge of.
And I hate treating possible explanations like picking an hors d'oeuvre off a tray.

No problem.

I like to look at what others have thought about a passage before making up my mind.

Putting the fulfillment into the future is easy, because it allows a lot of flexibility,
but if we find that an old prophesy has come to pass after it was spoken, that is a powerful testimony for the word of God.
I would think it a bad idea to brush it aside.