1948

[_Steve]

Hi Crusader,

First, I thank you for acknowledging my existence in this discussion (though you still have not given any evidence that you have read anything I have posted here).

Second, there is no problem identifying the everlasting covenant. You yourself have said that it is the gospel. I have often said the very same thing (as has Sean) in many previous posts (including my last post, just above), from which, if you had read any of them, you would have known and would not need to ask.

On this point, you agree (as you rarely do) with what the New Testament teaches. I share your opinion. Relish the moment!

Third, I'm not sure why you think the length of time of David's death has any bearing on the interpretation of Ezekiel 37. There are two ways that people I know of have interpreted "David" in this chapter.

One view is that it is literally the historical David, resurrected at the second coming, and reigning afterward. This is how I would expect you to understand it, since most of those who see it this way are dispensationalists, like yourself. However, even if this does refer to David after the resurrection, this tells us nothing about a preterist view of Revelation (since David is not a character portrayed in that book), nor does it help to support belief in a thousand-year reign, since Ezekiel's prophecy speaks of "forever" (Ezek.37:25, 26, 28)— not "a thousand years."

The other view is that which the majority of Christian scholars have always believed (including a number of dispensationalists), namely, that "David" is used by the prophets (e.g., Jeremiah 30:9/ Hosea 3:5) as a name for the Messiah, and is actually a reference to Jesus.

There are several reasons for favoring this view, whether one believes in a future millennium or not. Here are mine:

1. "David" after the death of Jesse's son, became the dynastic name applied to his descendents who succeeded him to the throne. Hence, Rehoboam, David's grandson, is called "David" in 1 Kings 12:16. Since Jesus now occupies the reigning position in the davidic dynasty, by the same token, He is also able to be called "David."

2. All Israel knew that David was a type of the Messiah. The Messiah would be a second David, as far as they were concerned, and the New Testament confirms that this typology is valid (by attributing many of David's sayings to Christ in the Psalms—e.g. Acts 2:25-31/ Heb.2:12/ Heb.10:5-7). Christ Himself confirmed this in citing Psalm 22:1 from the cross.

3. The prophets did not know, of course, what the Messiah's real personal name would be, so they used a number of nicknames—e.g. "Shiloh" (Gen.49:10), "Immanuel" (Isa.7:14), the Branch (multiple times), "Wonderful," "Counselor," "Prince of Peace," "Mighty God," "Everlasting Father" (Isa.9:6), etc. To add "David" to the long list of nicknames would be neither strange nor inappropriate. It would be, in fact, very similar to what Malachi did, when speaking of Christ's forerunner, whose real name was not known to him. Malachi calls him "Elijah" (Mal.4:5/ Matt.11:14; 17:12-13).

Elijah was a type of John the Baptist, because the latter came "in the spirit and power of Elijah" (Luke 1:17). Thus Malachi, in speaking of him, simply calls him "Elijah." This certainly is similar, in principle, to a prophet, when speaking of Jesus, who certainly came "in the spirit and power" of David as his antitype, calling him by David's name for lack of knowing His real identity.

You've been bringing up this "David" thing quite a bit. Whether the first or the second view is correct, I hardly see what David's being dead 400 years has to do with anything. You must think this fact has some negative bearing upon "preterism," "amillennialism," "replacement theology,"—all of which you have an apparent obsession with debunking without attempting to even know what they believe. David has now been dead for 3000 years—but this has no bearing on any of these doctrines. So why bring it up?

I have given you several reasons to see David, in Ezekiel 37, as a reference to Christ. Can you give me any reasons to take it as the literal David, instead?

[Guest]

"And what is meant by the new everlasting covenant?"

I'm glad you asked.

New. "And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood." Luke 22:20

Everlasting. "Now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant," Hebrews 13:20

Covenant. "I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;" Isaiah 42:6

I'll give you another hint. His name is JES_S

Would you like to buy a vowel?

Regards,
JD

[Guest]

Well Steve I didnt feel compelled to answer these questions, you gotta motivate me bro...I mean please..

Steve wrote

"Which of these things happened, either in 1948 or in the half-century since then? You listed:

1.Everlasting covenant of peace is the Gospel.

Have the Jews in Israel embraced the gospel?

2.They will live there forever,which is time without end,that is permanent.

But not in Gaza, apparently.

3.The nations will know or realize that God made them Holy when His
sanctuary is with them forever.

Where is this sanctuary? Could you post a photograph of it? "


Crusader wrote.


If you read Romans 11 you will clearly see that when the times of the gentiles are fulfilled God will remove the blinders off and many Jews will respond to the everlasting covenant.

"25I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
   "The deliverer will come from Zion;
      he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
 27And this is[f] my covenant with them
      when I take away their sins."

Ezekiel goes on to use terms like cleanse them,they will live there forever,I will dwell with them forever they will be My people and I will be their God. David also is placed in this whole scene and is significant in relating it to a time period....that is obviously after the resurrection since David was dead. The main thing is that none of this is possible unless Israel possesed the land....and they do...they started migrating back in the 1800's and actually became recognized in 1948.


As far as the second question...Israel is back in thier land and its the land God promised to them. Israel may trade land for peace and you may see land deals like this to some degree or another but it in no way alters the fact that Israel is back in the land and is in control. Also as Ezekiel and other prophecys long ago fortold Israel isnt forsaken and Gods promises to Israel are still in tact. No amount of replacement theology will ever do away with Israel. The Church didnt replace Israel.

As far as the 3rd question...for that matter where is David...??? Some of these are still in the process of being completed. There are many more that talk about Israel and Gods plan for her. Chuck Smith has said over and over and I think its the most enlightening thing Ive ever heard..."people always confuse the Church and Israel"...

Here are some more Scriptures that talk about Israel and Gods promise to bring them back into the land....

Amos 9:14-15, Deuteronomy 4:25-30, Deuteronomy 30:3-5, Ezekiel 20:34, Ezekiel 34:13, Ezekiel 36:24, Genesis 28:10-15, Isaiah 27:12-13, Isaiah 43:5-6, Jeremiah 23:3-6, Jeremiah 32:36-37, Jeremiah 32:37-41, Zechariah 8:7-8.

So I dont ignore you steve and I read your stuff,but sometimes I really dont know how to respond to such basic questions that are so easliy explained in the text itself..thanks for your long reply..I know your busy.


Maranatha

Crusader

[Guest]

On your mark. Get set.

[_Steve]

Hi Crusader,

Did you read my comments about David? I asked if you could give some reasons for taking David literally, as opposed to seeing David as a reference to the Messiah.

[Guest]

Well Steve I didnt feel compelled to answer these questions, you gotta motivate me bro...I mean please..

Steve wrote

"Which of these things happened, either in 1948 or in the half-century since then? You listed:

1.Everlasting covenant of peace is the Gospel.

Have the Jews in Israel embraced the gospel?

2.They will live there forever,which is time without end,that is permanent.

But not in Gaza, apparently.

3.The nations will know or realize that God made them Holy when His
sanctuary is with them forever.

Where is this sanctuary? Could you post a photograph of it? "


Crusader wrote.


If you read Romans 11 you will clearly see that when the times of the gentiles are fulfilled God will remove the blinders off and many Jews will respond to the everlasting covenant.

"25I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
   "The deliverer will come from Zion;
      he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
 27And this is[f] my covenant with them
      when I take away their sins."

Ezekiel goes on to use terms like cleanse them,they will live there forever,I will dwell with them forever they will be My people and I will be their God. David also is placed in this whole scene and is significant in relating it to a time period....that is obviously after the resurrection since David was dead. The main thing is that none of this is possible unless Israel possesed the land....and they do...they started migrating back in the 1800's and actually became recognized in 1948.


As far as the second question...Israel is back in thier land and its the land God promised to them. Israel may trade land for peace and you may see land deals like this to some degree or another but it in no way alters the fact that Israel is back in the land and is in control. Also as Ezekiel and other prophecys long ago fortold Israel isnt forsaken and Gods promises to Israel are still in tact. No amount of replacement theology will ever do away with Israel. The Church didnt replace Israel.

As far as the 3rd question...for that matter where is David...??? Some of these are still in the process of being completed. There are many more that talk about Israel and Gods plan for her. Chuck Smith has said over and over and I think its the most enlightening thing Ive ever heard..."people always confuse the Church and Israel"...

Here are some more Scriptures that talk about Israel and Gods promise to bring them back into the land....

Amos 9:14-15, Deuteronomy 4:25-30, Deuteronomy 30:3-5, Ezekiel 20:34, Ezekiel 34:13, Ezekiel 36:24, Genesis 28:10-15, Isaiah 27:12-13, Isaiah 43:5-6, Jeremiah 23:3-6, Jeremiah 32:36-37, Jeremiah 32:37-41, Zechariah 8:7-8.

So I dont ignore you steve and I read your stuff,but sometimes I really dont know how to respond to such basic questions that are so easliy explained in the text itself..thanks for your long reply..I know your busy.


Maranatha

Crusader

I'll give you this, of what you did answer you answered well. I don't agree with them, but at least you answered them and gave references and gave some reasoning.

My only comment is an old one, when you say Israel gets confused with the Church, and that the Church hasn't replaced Israel you side-step the real issue. The Church is the believing remnant of Israel with Gentiles grafted in. When a Jew comes to faith, they become part of Christ body.

The promises are re-stated in the new testament as belonging to all who believe. It also states that gentiles are fellow members of Israel. This means quite clearly that any and all passages you can find that relate to Israel in the old testament still apply to believing Jews today, as well as the Gentiles who are grafted in amoung them. Even taking your view of Romans 11, you are still stuck with the fact that Gentiles are members of Israel (Eph 2-3). This was a mystery not revealed in the OT, as Paul says.

The best you can say is that one day the Jews will one day not longer be blinded and share in the blessings God has promised Israel, along with the Gentiles with them.

If you say these OT promises don't apply to "the Church", then you negate the clear teaching of this mystery Paul declared.

One thing I could ask is: What constitutes a Jew?

[Guest]

Did you read my comments about David? I asked if you could give some reasons for taking David literally, as opposed to seeing David as a reference to the Messiah.


Well yes I did...I know the late Dr. Walter Martin,one of my hero's beleived it was literally David....and there are some who beleive it is David but the majority of oppinion is thats its a reference to Christ,that not withstanding...there are so many other strong links to that chapter and Israel that to conceed that one point as to be open to an interpretation, of either persuasion isnt that much of an issue. In light of the fact that you and Sean and others can say that Matthew 24:21 is hyperbole I see it as no real stretch for me to conclude or suggest a literal interptretation of the name " David" , especially since others hold this view.

Crusader

[_Steve]

Crusader,

Appreciate your answer about David. I have a few comments about it.

When I seek a reason to believe a certain interpretation of a biblical passage, I personally place no weight on the matter of which or how many of my favorite teachers hold a given viewpoint...since one of my un-favorite teachers might actually have better grounds for his opinion than my favorite teacher has for his. I am looking for actual grounds for belief in a particular view within the Bible itself.

I accept that Walter Martin's believing in the literalness of David in Ezekiel may be your actual reason for taking it this way, and your saying so was a good and honest answer to my question. I was wondering, though, whether there were any exegetical or textual reasons for favoring that view. Dr. Martin may have been a great scholar (though his special field of expertise was in the study of the cults, not eschatology). However great Dr. Martin may have been, since the majority of equally great scholars have not agreed with his viewpoint about David, it would seem that we must look elsewhere than to the mere opinions of scholars for confirmation. The Bible itself is its own best interpreter.

The question of the use of hyperbole in Matthew 24:21 may remain a disputed point between us, but we can not decide what is true by trading points: "If I let you take this passage as a hyperbole, you must let me take this other passage in the way I prefer—so now the score is even." In my mind, theology is not a game to be won or lost, where the side that collects the most points wins. Rather, theology is a realm of truth to be discovered. If my theology is incorrect, but I win the debate against an incompetent opponent, I have not really won, but lost, personally.

Whether you believe this or not, I am not an ideologue. I don't have a theological agenda driving my argument. It seems as if you do have such an agenda, so you probably assume that I must have one also.

It seems that you are determined to defend the Calvary Chapel end-times ideology at all costs, and so you assume that I am like you, and am determined to defend "replacement theology" or "preterism" at all costs. You are a "crusader" with a cause—namely, to defend Israel and the Holy Land against foes, real or imagined. All scripture must be made to subserve to this goal—whether legitimately or not.

For my part, I have no preference whether replacement theology or dispensationalism proves to be true. Nor do I have any personal preference for the implications of preterism over futurism. I love the Jews as much as you do, and would not be disappointed if the Bible taught precisely what you think it teaches about Israel's future. In fact, in many respects, I would be delighted! I am simply interested in understanding the Bible as it was intended to be understood.

For this reason, I am free and eager to see the very best possible reasons for believing any particular biblical doctrine—whether my own, or one that challenges my own. If the Bible ends up correcting my wrong beliefs, the better for me!

In reading your many posts, my impression is that you have long ago decided what must be "sound doctrine," and you feel that all challenges to your view are threats to truth itself. To change your view is not an option to which you are open—only to be able to convince theological opponents that, somehow or another, every scripture can be made (or made to appear) to conform with your beliefs. This obviously does not allow you to look very objectively at the possibility that you have misunderstood the scriptural teaching. But then, so long as you remain cloistered with like-minded folks at your church, it hardly matters. Right?

[Guest]

No Im not a Crusader for any movement,denomintaion or teacher. If I champion any cause it is a cause for Gods Word alone. I am not here to win an argument or debate for I really feel when someone has made up thier mind and is set its really not winnable. I am here though to present from Scripture what I consider the more plausible argument regarding the end times. I do reject the preterist view but its not based on anything other than, I cant see it in the Bible. I enjoy reading up on it and Ive read Kenneth Gentry debating Thomas Ice and it was good reading. I will keep reading also and have an open heart and mind to anything the Lord has to show me. Although when you put one fact upon another on the scale of truth it clearly tips in favor of a futurist view. I can understand clearly how you make your case for preterism yet I find a much more stronger case for a futurist view. Based on the Church fathers I put the date for the writing of Revelation around 95 A.D. not before 70 A.D. I seriously doubt we are in the millennium and I seriously doubt satans been bound. I reach this view not only from the Scriptural evidence ( which is preeminent) but from what I see around me. When I read Romans 11 just straight through I see a different outcome than a preterist. To me the ones who are marching headlong into a movement with little regard for what the Bible teaches are preterists and to my amazement no amount of reasoning with them from the Sciptures even seems to make a dent on thier willingness to adhere to views that are so radical to the early church and the New Testament. What you have with preterism is Revelation occurring in 70 A.D. and a cosmic time warp theology which places us in this ongoing millennium which really is no millennium at all. Finally it makes the Church into Israel and is replacemet theology at its core. Frankly I see it ripe for a Kingdom now or Dominion theology which truly feels rather than God usher in the fullness of the Kingdom the Church is going to do it. So I am content here Steve to stake my claim on Biblical eschatology from a futurist point of view,quite content actually.



P.S. Its Dr Thomas Ice not Tommy Ice

Maranatha

Crusader

[Guest]

Anyone here see it just the opposite?