National Israel

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

From: cf01@zeus.odyssey.net (Chris Foster)
Subject: part 2 reply to Walter Copes

 CF> To borow your words, 'Simple observation tells us that this
 CF> coming' occurred in 70 AD to the letter of the prediction, i.e.
 CF> not one stone (the historians record and the  archeological
 CF> record agree) was left upon another.  I believe the precision of
 CF> the event is to obvious to discard. Yet this is what you are
 CF> determined to undermine.

     I agree that the temple along with the city of Jerusalem was
destroyed in 70 AD. However, not all things spoken of in the previous
verses had occurred when the events of 70 AD ended. Verse 21 was not
fulfilled. Certainly there was great suffering. However, the suffering
at that point in time pales in comparison to what happened to the Jews
in Europe in World War II. Had the number of Jews killed in then
occurred in 70 AD it would have almost depopulated the world of the
Jewish race. The suffering (not just the ovens) of this century far
exceeds that of the 1st Century in scope.

     The events of verse 29 would certainly leave a historical record.
While it is possible that the burning of Jerusalem would have caused a
large cloud of smoke it too pales in significant compared to the
burning of the oil fields during Desert Storm. Nor is there a record
of astronomical events which would fulfill the sun being darkened and
the moon not shinning. Nor the stars (meteors?, asteroids?) falling to
the earth. This becomes especially telling when all three events were
to occur as a sign.

     The event of verse 30 has yet to occur. Nor were the elect gath-
ered from the four winds.

     We are left with a dilemma. Either verse 34 was a lie because all
the events spoken of did not come to pass before the generation passed
away; verse 34 does apply but only to the destruction of the Jerusalem
and the temple; we have missed it and misapplied the passage in a way
we do to understand at this time.

 CF> If I understand your theory correctly, you will answer the above
 CF> by having the scriptures predict a double fulfillment.

     Rather I would expect a complete fulfillment rather than a par-
tial fulfillment.

 CF> I would simply ask you, The Birth of Jesus Christ as predicted in
 CF> the scriptures, Where is the double fulfillment of those
 CF> predictions?

     There was only one birth. However, there were many prophecies
which says that Jesus would restore the kingdom of David along with
others prophecies. The Jews insisted that ALL the prophecies had to be
fulfilled at the same time thus they missed Messiah. In fact, they
still do not understand that Jesus came first as the Suffering (and
saving) Messiah and **will come again** as the conquering Messiah.
They still insist that both events will be one and the same.

     At this time there is no way I will believe that Jesus came back
as promised as stated in Zechariah 14:3-10. Nor did the events stated
in 14:11-20 occur at any time during the 1st Century either to the
Jewish nation nor to the Church.

 > The multitude of signs given to Israel to stir them to expectancy
 > present a problem for the church which should be looking for Christ
 > and not at the signs to be fulfilled. The fact that no signs are
 > given to the church, but she, rather, is commanded to watch for
 > Christ, precludes her participation in the seventieth week.

 CF> In Matthew, the signs are given to the disciples and they in turn
 CF> address the churches.

     In Matthew 24 the event occurred before the crucifixion and
certainly BEFORE the establishment of the church.

 CF> Where, pray tell, are the predictions written to racial Israel?

     The destruction of Jerusalem, the destruction of the temple, the
abomination of desolation. 24:20 certainly would not apply to the
church.

 CF> Did they not reject Jesus Christ as Messiah?

     They certainly did. However, the crucifixion was still future
when the prophecy of Matthew 24-25 was spoken.

 CF> Why would the Disciples send warning and give signs to racial
 CF> Israel and not address the church with those signs?

     At the time the disciples still expected the kingdom to be re-
stored to Israel. As a matter of fact, some 50 days later they still
expected Jesus to restore the kingdom to Israel. "When they therefore
were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this
time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6). Thus even
**after** the prophecy was spoken and well after the resurrection they
expected the kingdom to be restored. As a matter of fact, I would have
a real problem believing that the disciples had any concept of a New
Testament church prior to the Day of Pentecost.

 CF> Please help me to understand this concept you have about Israel
 CF> being given signs to stir them to expectancy?  Jesus said no sign
 CF> will be given but that of Jonah!

     Matthew 12:39 plus Mark 8:11-12 gives a different picture than
indicated. The sign asked was not for future events of His coming but
rather that He was the Messiah as He claimed. The sign given was not
of the second coming but of the resurrection which would prove His
claim as to His identity.

 > Psalms 118:22 The stone [which] the builders refused (--) is
 > become the head [stone] of the corner.

 CF> You do not believe that Jesus *is* (at this moment) the chief
 CF> cornerstone and that in the plan of God it was always thus?

     He is now but He was not recognized as such until after the
resurrection. He was simply the carpenter's son. There is no scriptur-
al evidence that the people knew Him to be Messiah during His child-
hood. Nor did they even recognized (except for a handful) Him as
Messiah during His ministry. Hindsight is very good. We have the
advantage of history. Those living when Jesus walked the earth did not
have that advantage. They did not believe Him to be a person of great
importance.

 CF> Ephesians 2:20  And *are* (present tense) built upon the
 CF> foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself
 CF> being the chief corner stone;

     Absolutely!! However, during His ministry on this was not the
case. The New Testament church was not yet in existence. It did not
have its existence until after the death of Christ (Eph. 5:25-26),
until after the resurrection of Christ (Rom. 4:25; Col, 3:1-3), until
after the ascension (Eph. 1:19-20), and until after the pouring out of
the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2.)

 > Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given:(--)
 > and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall
 > be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting
 > Father, The Prince of Peace. (Compare Luke 1, 31, 32.)

 CF> I am beginning to see that you are so set on making a difference
 CF> between the Jew and the Gentile that you add gaps at random.

     There was a gap between the time of His birth and His life as a
child and when He became of age and His resurrection and ascension.
Nor was He known as the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace, the
might God, during His Ministry.

 CF> IMHO racial Israel's acceptance or rejection does not make one
 CF> bit of difference to the rightful position of the son.

     I certainly agree with this statement. Nor does the disobedience
of the nation of Israel make one bit of difference in the fact that
God promised the physical descendants the land from the river of Egypt
to the River Euphrates as an everlasting possession. That promise has
yet to be fulfilled. God WILL keep that promise because there was NO
if clause attached to it. God said and therefore it will happen. Nor
will the church fulfill this promise. The promise to the church was
NOT the land between the river of Egypt and the river Euphrates. The
church was given a totally different promise (John 14:1-3).


 > Zechariah 9:9, 10

 CF> You made me dig a little here :-).

     I must have done something right. When we dig we learn. <G>

 CF> The focus indeed changes from the Savior to Israel.  Both
 CF> promises of the King cometh riding upon a colt of an ass and the
 CF> cutting of of the battle against Ephraim and Jerusalem are to
 CF> Israel.  There is but one Israel and all the promises belong to
 CF> her.  How do you explain all the many promises made by God to
 CF> Israel yet the apostles recording them as belonging to the
 CF> Church.  There are a plethora of them but here are a few
 CF> examples.

     I do not make the claim that the Church is not fulfilling many of
the promises made to the nation of Israel. However, there is NOT
promise of the land with definite boundaries as was made to the nation
of Israel. The promise to the church is heavenly not earthly (John
14:1-3).

 CF> Lev 26:3-12 along with Ezekiel 37:21-28 compared with 2 Corinthi-
 CF> ans 6:14-16.

     Ezekiel 37:21-28 And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD;
Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen,
whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring
them into their own land:

     A prophecy to end the dispersion and gather again the physical
descendants of Abraham (nation of Israel).

     22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains
of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be
no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms
any more at all:

     Another promise relating to the LAND. The church is not promised
to live in a land with definite boundaries as is the Nation of Israel.
The promise of the church is heavenly (John 14:1-3). It appears that
the second portion of this prophecy is presently being fulfilled
before our eyes. The process began in 1918. Today there is but one
nation of Israel and it is not divided into two kingdoms. While the
verdict is not yet in the evidence is sure compelling to lead to that
conclusion at this time.

     "And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my
servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell there-
in, even they, and their children, and their children's children for
ever"

     Another promise concerning a land with definite borders. The
church was never promised land with physical borders as was promised
the nation of Israel.

 CF> The prophecy of Lev. and Eze. both promise a time when Israel
 CF> will obey God. God will in return bless Israel by making them his
 CF> people.  He would place a literal temple inside the territory of
 CF> Israel and live there.

     I certainly agree. However, 2 Corinthians 6:16 does not apply the
entire passage from Ezekiel to the church. It clearly omits the land.
Nor is there any mention of being gathered from among the nations to
live upon the mountains of Israel.

 CF> Paul writing to the Gentile Corinthian Christians in Greece,
 CF> quotes these scriptures, He applies them to the Church.  How can
 CF> this be if there is a double Israel? God fulfilled these
 CF> promises, but not in a racial, geographical, material-building
 CF> way as you seem to want.

     Unless God fulfills the promises made literally as promised He
deliberately deceived those to whom the promise was originally made.
God does not deceive. Nor is there any reason for Him to do so. Paul
only cited verse 26 from Ezekiel 37 (in 2 Cor 6:16) and from Isaiah
52:11 (in 2 Cor 6:17). Paul did not mention the land.

 CF> Duet. 30:1-14 compared with Romans 10:6-10

 CF> Either Paul is guilty of distorting the scriptures or He regards
 CF> the Christians to be the True Israel of God.

     If we take the position that the church is recipient of the
promises God made to the nation of Israel then we quite literally have
God cursing His bride (Deuteronomy 28:15-68). I am not aware of any
place in the New Testament where the church is told that there are
curses placed upon it. Paul does let us know that we are to count our
tribulations blessings. But he did not tell us that the bride of
Christ could be cursed of God--chastised but never cursed.

     The quotation of Deuteronomy 30:12-14 emphasizes the availability
of righteousness by faith. Man does not have to search for God's Word
afar off. The Word of God is very near to all. The accessibility of
the message of salvation is stressed. Romans gives the correct inter-
pretation of Deuteronomy 30:12-14 and uses it properly. Whereas Deu-
teronomy 30:12-14 says God's commandment is readily available to
Israel so that they can hear and obey it, the paraphrase in Romans
says Christ is available to all. We maintain our present salvation and
have assurance of future salvation by continuing to confess in word
and deed that Jesus is Lord of our lives.

 CF> Deut. 31:1-6 compared with Hebrews 13:5-6
 CF> This is to show there is no Eternal Security only Eternal
 CF> Salvation.

     I can certainly AMEN that one!!

 CF> If you interpret 'he will not fail thee nor forsake thee'  to
 CF> mean that Israel has Eternal Security, then you might revisit
 CF> John the Baptist's warning...Think not to say within yourselves
 CF> we have Abraham to our Father....' and Deut 31:16-17.

     Romans 11:11 lets us know that God's rejection of the nation of
Israel is not final. Their fallen state is only temporary, not perma-
nent. In fact, the stumbling of Israel has set in motion a series of
events that will lead to Israel's ultimate restoration. Through
Israel's fall salvation came to the Gentiles. Gentile salvation will
provoke the Jews to jealousy so that they will again desire God's
blessings. (This will fulfill Deuteronomy 32:21, quoted in Romans
10:19. Israel's "fullness" is the conversion of a large number of
Jews. It parallels the "fullness of the Gentiles" (11:25). Although
the Jewish fall has brought great blessings to them, they have even
more to gain from a Jewish restoration.

     Romans 11:15-16 restates the thought of verse 12. If God's rejec-
tion of Israel has led to the world being reconciled to Him how much
more will God's eventual acceptance of them mean to the world. Thus
there will be a national restoration of Israel based on their original
holy relationship with God.

     In Romans 11:17 Paul's uses the metaphor of the olive tree to
warn the Gentiles.  Thus the root is original Israel, the branches are
present-day Israelites, the fatness (sap, nourishment) is Israel's
divine blessing, and the wild olive tree (which bears no fruit) is the
Gentile race. God broke off some (most) of the present-day Israelites,
separating them from His sustaining blessings. He grafted in Gentiles,
who had no spiritual inheritance or spiritual fruit in themselves,
putting them on an equal basis with the remnant of the Jews. He there-
by enabled these Gentiles to enjoy the same promises and blessings
first given to the Hebrew patriarchs (And in you all the families of
he earth shall be blessed--Genesis 12:3).

God did not withhold judgment from the people He chose originally, so
He certainly will not spare us if we are disobedient like they were.
God will never sacrifice His holiness for His love.

We know that by graphing in a shoot of higher quality, all the re-
sources of the original tree become available to produce superior
fruit. In Paul's example something inferior was grafted onto something
superior. Wild olive produce no fruit thus it would be foolish to
graft a wild olive shoot to olive tree in the orchard. At best one
will get only shade and the entire purpose is to produce olives. The
Gentiles had nothing to add to Jewish heritage or to God's plan yet
contrary to nature God grafted them in for their own benefit.

     God is able and willing to restore Israel (verse 24) and in fact
there will be a future restoration of Israel. God still has a plan for
the nation of Israel. Paul wanted the church to be aware of this truth
(verse 25). God has hardened Israel in part (11:7). This situation
will continue until the full number of Gentiles has been saved. This
is the time when, in God's plan, the Gentiles have been given suffi-
cient opportunity and God decides to deal with the Jews again on a
national basis which will result in Israel's national salvation. This
verse speaks of national salvation and restoration, not the salvation
of every individual Jew.

     The importance of verse 26 is that it clearly predicts a national
restoration of Israel, which cannot be spiritualized to apply to the
New Testament church. Chapters 9-11 clearly distinguish natural,
national Israel from the Gentiles and from the New Testament church.
The teaching here relates to the salvation of national Israel in the
endtime, as prophesied in Zechariah 12:10 and 13:8-9. It will be
fulfilled literally, and does not apply "spiritually" to the church.

     God never withdraws His gifts or calling (verse 29). He never
changes His mind concerning His plans. Individuals and nations may
disqualify themselves through unbelief and disobedience, thus losing
their spiritual inheritance, but their changed status is never God's
doing. The contextual application of this principle is as follows:
because God once chose the nation of Israel and gave them special
promises, He will always continue to offer those covenant blessings.
They have presently forfeited those gifts through unbelief, but be-
cause of his divine plan He will not give up on them as a nation.


 > Luke 1:31, 32 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and
 > bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. (--) He shall be
 > great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God
 > shall give unto him the throne of his father David.

 CF> Come now let us reason together.  Just when is either statement
 CF> of this prediction not true?  When in your timeline does one not
 CF> apply.  This is a prediction of His position not a timeline!

     He was called Jesus from His birth. However, He was not called
the Son of the Highest, Might God, Prince of Peace, etc. until later
in life. That is a gap between being called Jesus and becoming known
as Messiah.

Walter Copes
The joy of the Lord is my strength
(wcopes@communique.net)
Walter L Copes