What throne? your joking right? on davids throne,
Temple? I don't know what it will be called. but they will NOT be sacrificing animals in it..
where is that described in scripture?
the place Jesus will sit on David's Throne?
What throne? your joking right? on davids throne,
Temple? I don't know what it will be called. but they will NOT be sacrificing animals in it..
And the land is completely theres and not mixed with gentiles?
wow, when did this happen?
The fourth kingdom Rome was one kingdom until it fell.yet again you totally misrepresent what I said.. I was talking about the gentile kingdoms.. you know. they iron and clay??
they are back in the land?
they are living in peace?
they have no enemies?
And the land is completely theres and not mixed with gentiles?
wow, when did this happen?
Actually it is the 6th.. there are two roman kingdoms. Iron (4) and Iron/clay (5)
It's one beast and one kingdom.
Each beast is one kingdom.
Daniel interprets the iron and clay of the fourth kingdom in 2:43.[/B][/COLOR]
My mistake.1. the promise given david was made AFTER the passage you posted. The passage you posted was fulfilled before david was even born. So how can this passage prove the davidic covenant was fulfilled?
This is addressed in the thread "The Land Promise" which I just opened.2. God said his promise was eternal in nature. since when does an eternal promise stop?
The kingdom that was a mixture of iron and clay was the apostate Roman/Jewish Hellenized kingdom of Israel, which Jesus did destroy. It has happened.
The final of that kingdom was not yet in power yet.. Thus it was yet to come.
while your right, this kingdom is the one destroyed by Christ. and his kingdom.. You have failed to prove it has appeared yet.
What throne? your joking right? on davids throne,
The final of that kingdom was not yet in power yet.. Thus it was yet to come.
while your right, this kingdom is the one destroyed by Christ. and his kingdom.. You have failed to prove it has appeared yet.
Oh wait, You can;t so you symbolize it (rolls eyes)
The final of that kingdom was not yet in power yet.. Thus it was yet to come.
while your right, this kingdom is the one destroyed by Christ. and his kingdom.. You have failed to prove it has appeared yet.
Oh wait, You can;t so you symbolize it (rolls eyes)
The Scriptures are not talking about Jesus sitting on the literal, physical throne that David sat on. Jesus sitting on David's throne means the same thing that Jesus meant when he said that the Pharisees "sit in Moses' seat." He didn't mean they literally sat on some physical chair Moses once sat on. It means they occupied the seat or position of authority that Moses had. And that's what it means that Jesus will sit on the throne of David, meaning he occupires the seat or position of authority that David did, the authority of King.
In Christ,
Pilgrimer
In chapters 9-11 Paul is justifying God's righteousness in the rejection of Israel.But I don't think the blindness of Israel was a judgment. It was done so that God's purposes according to election might stand. In other words, they were blinded by the glory of the Law so that they would be forced to exercise faith for salvation. The only thing that can open their eyes to what the Law and prophets were testifying to is the Gospel. If they believe the Gospel then their blindness is taken away.
The judgment on unbelieving Israel (the Old Covenant older brothers) was to be cast out, disinherited, like Ishmael/Esau of old, while the younger brother (the New Covenant Jews) became the heirs, like Isaac/Jacob.
It was also foreshadowed in the wilderness journeying. Those Jews who had no faith did not enter the promised land but perished in the wilderness.
So the judgment isn't blindness, the judgment is being cast out and disinherited because they refuse the light of the Gospel which is able to remove the veil from their hearts so they can see.
Let me restate the bolded text above.In chapters 9-11 Paul is justifying God's righteousness in the rejection of Israel.
In chp 9-10 Paul makes it clear that the basis for Israel's rejection is her unbelief (vv.30-32),
He gives the principle governing Israel's salvation: only the remnant will be saved (9:28).
He explains her unbelief is disobedience (9:30-32).
She failed to obey her own God-given law, which in reality was pointing to Christ.
So in rejecting Christ, they disobeyed God's law.
They did not fail to pursue righteousness, but failed to pursue it by faith instead of works.
Israel pursued the right thing, but in the wrong way.
She stumbled over the stumbling stone of faith in Jesus as the way of righteousness,
she rejected God's way of righteousness and, therefore, was rejected by God.
In chp 11, Paul explains that their rejection is not total, and not final.
There has always been a remnant in Israel chosen by grace (11:5),
and so it is at the present.
But because the majority of Israel was disobedient and refused the way of faith (9:31-32),
God made them impervious to spiritual truth--a judicial hardening of Israel (11:7-8).
The Greek word translated "blindness" in Ro11:25 is porosis, which means "harden."
Note that Paul states Israel is hardened until, not Israel is hardened because, for the sake of, the Gentiles coming in.
So Paul does not explain the reason for Israel's hardening as the means of the Gentiles coming in.
He explains the reason for hardening is her disobedience, of her unbelief, which rejected faith (in Jesus) as the means of righteousness, preferring works instead.
And then as shown throughout the OT, God's punishment fits the crime, according to his law of retaliation (Lev 24:18-21).
Israel did not want faith as the means of righteousness, so God in judgment gave them what they wanted, no faith.
Paul presents Israel's hardening as a judicial hardening.
Let me restate the bolded text above.
"So Paul does not explain the reason for Israel's hardening is that God's purpose in election might stand."
1) That locates unbelieving Israel's rejection in God's sovereign choice of election, rather than in their unbelief of their disobedience, as presented by Paul.
2) And that equates unbelieving Israel to Ishmael and Esau who were not rejected because of unbelief, but because of God's sovereign choice in election, and whose rejection from the people of God was final.
Paul does not present Israel's hardening as final.
This explanation of Israel's hardening is not in agreement with what Paul presents regarding it.
But that's just the point. The Old Covenant contained earthly blessings that were not in and of themselves salvic but were types and shadows and figures of the New Covenant and it's spiritual blessings which are salvic. The Law symbolized how salvation would be made, but could not provide it.
In Christ,
Pilgrimer
Are you sure about that?
"God sent Abraham to this land where you are now living.
He gave him no inheritance (actual possession) there, not even a foot of ground."
God promised Canaan to the partriarchs, but none of them ever actually possessed it.
So sayeth Stephen (Ac 7:3-5).
Where in Scripture do you find the patriarchs living in the land?
Their descendants in the time of Joshua possessed it, but the patriarchs, to whom it was promised personally, never actually possessed even a foot of ground there.
1Peter 1: 10 As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful search and inquiry, 11 seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow. 12 It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things into which angels long to look.
Hosea 12:10 I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets.
Eze 17:2 Son of man, put forth a riddle, and speak a parable unto the house of Israel;