Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Interpetation of prophecy


Recommended Posts

  • Members

When reading the description of the temple described in Ezekiel 41-47, this temple is vastly different than previous standing temples. Plus, there are sacrifices offered...

Ezekiel 43:18-27
18 And he said unto me, Son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD; These are the ordinances of the altar in the day when they shall make it, to offer burnt offerings thereon, and to sprinkle blood thereon.
19 And thou shalt give to the priests the Levites that be of the seed of Zadok, which approach unto me, to minister unto me, saith the Lord GOD, a young bullock for a sin offering.
20 And thou shalt take of the blood thereof, and put it on the four horns of it, and on the four corners of the settle, and upon the border round about: thus shalt thou cleanse and purge it.
21 Thou shalt take the bullock also of the sin offering, and he shall burn it in the appointed place of the house, without the sanctuary.
22 And on the second day thou shalt offer a kid of the goats without blemish for a sin offering; and they shall cleanse the altar, as they did cleanse it with the bullock.
23 When thou hast made an end of cleansing it, thou shalt offer a young bullock without blemish, and a ram out of the flock without blemish.
24 And thou shalt offer them before the LORD, and the priests shall cast salt upon them, and they shall offer them up for a burnt offering unto the LORD.
25 Seven days shalt thou prepare every day a goat for a sin offering: they shall also prepare a young bullock, and a ram out of the flock, without blemish.
26 Seven days shall they purge the altar and purify it; and they shall consecrate themselves.
27 And when these days are expired, it shall be, that upon the eighth day, and so forward, the priests shall make your burnt offerings upon the altar, and your peace offerings; and I will accept you, saith the Lord GOD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

When reading the description of the temple described in Ezekiel 41-47, this temple is vastly different than previous standing temples. Plus, there are sacrifices offered...

Ezekiel 43:18-27
18 And he said unto me, Son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD; These are the ordinances of the altar in the day when they shall make it, to offer burnt offerings thereon, and to sprinkle blood thereon.....
....

That is exactly the problem - any future blood sacrifices would be a gross affront to our Saviour & his FINISHED work.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That is exactly the problem - any future blood sacrifices would be a gross affront to our Saviour & his FINISHED work.



Maybe, maybe not. I think Calvinism is a gross affront to Jesus Christ, but you have no problem with it. Either way, you bsically sidestepped the first question in post #6 and completely ignored post #32.

I'm glad you agree that the Ezekiel's temple isn't historical.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Steve,

Isn't the judgment described in Revelation 20:11-15 the Great White Throne Judgment? Only the unsaved are resurrected to this judgment. As far as I know, this is not a "general" judgment. I don't believe this is a judgment to which anyone would be "looking forward"...because this is a judgment of damnation. And I agree, the Tribulation period precedes this judgment. The 1,000 year reign of Christ also precedes this judgment.


Linda
Yes, I agree with you that Revelation 20 is the "Great White Throne Judgment" and I also agree that there will be a resurrection of Israel at the beginning of the 1,000 year reign of Christ. I don't know if Martha understood that distinction in John 11. I know from the Gospel accounts that the Jews believed in a general resurrection and judgment, but it seems as if their understanding of it put those two events together.
Also, the Great White Throne Judgment would include all those who are born during the Kingdom Age, so there will be SOME saved people there, but the vast majority of those at this judgment are the lost from Genesis 4 up to the end of the Kingdom Age.

In Christ,
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I am seeking to establish principles of interpretation of prophecy - reasons for believing as we do.
Replies in blue, in loc.

My "position" is with an open Bible, word studies using Strong - not taking his definitions as definitive, but using the occurences & usage as a guide. If Scripture has to be interpreted, rather than read in a literal sense & understood, we need sound principles for understanding, as Peter wrote:


Why can't we read it in a literal sense and understand it that way?

Peter immediately directs us to a Christ centred interpretation, rather than an Israel centred interpretation, underlined in the next chapter when he quotes Exodus 19 & Hosea:

Jesus Christ is a JEW - the Lion of the tribe of JUDAH, and KING over Israel, sitting on DAVID's Throne in JERUSALEM. We simply cannot overlook the direct references to Israel just because it is an inconvenience.

There are plenty of OT Scriptures prophesying a glorious & eternal future for Israel, which the NT writers apply to all the redeemed, not reserved for national Israel, e.g. Romans & Galatians.

There are a lot of things that I APPLY to my congregation that are not necessarily DOCTRINALLY pointed at them, particularly when I preach or teach from the OT. The NT writers quoted extensively from the OT, as we would expect them to. This does not deny what we believe from a dispensational point of view.



Daniel certainly records the Medes taking the kingdom of Babylon. That is the prophecy in Isa. 13. That is stated by the LORD, & is the simple, literal meaning of the prophecy. Daniel also prophesies a succession of kingdoms. He further prophesies in response to Nebuchadnezzar's dream, his great humbling & reinstatement. That will take us on to Isa. 14. The "extravagant" language of prophecy is not (necessarily) to be understood literally, but to be understood in context. A possible significance of the heavenly signs will be seen in Joshua's victory when the sun stood still. Or that while God looked on Neb. as head of gold he was to an extent ruling in God-given light, but that light would be extinguished (but I don't have to provide a literal interpretation):


37
Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.

38
And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given i
nt
o thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.


The point is, of, course, that the interpertation of Is. 13 is stated. Why look for an interpretation nearly 3,000 years away which would be meaningless to Isaiah & his hearers. Sure Assyria was the immediate threat, but that did not stop other specific references to Babylon. After all, Assyria would be driven back, while Babylon would overwhelm Judah & destroy the temple - a much greater threat. Isaiah later names Cyrus as the man ordering their return from Babylon.

These are only partial fulfillments. Reaching all the way back to Joshua as part of that fulfillment is a huge stretch, and simply doesn't fit the context, which is what you are demanding from us. The verses were not COMPLETELY AND ENTIRELY fulfilled with the Median destruction of Babylon, and you did not answer the issue raised concerning Lucifer in the passage.
The fact that Lucifer is mentioned should alert us to the idea that there is something else being pointed to other than Nebuchadnezzar.


We don't know if Isaiah's prophecies are in chronological order. He prophesied through the reign of Hezekiah who had dealings with the rising power of Babylon. (39) His prophecies make sense in their immediate time context, though many prophecies look on to the Messiah & the eternal kingdom. I don't know how you can claim that prophecies for the next 50-100 years referring to warring nations"were meaningless to the common man in Israel" & yet make sense 2,500 - 3,000 years hence.

The point is that there should have been some OBVIOUS clues to a future fulfillment beyond what they knew from a physical perspective....(i.e. Lucifer...i.e. the Virgin Birth of Isa. 7:14...etc)


Are there any clear references in the OT to Babylon that "CLEARLY pointing to something/somebody else?" Let us assume initially that Isa. 14 is referring to the literal king of Babylon - and compare with his dream in Dan. 4:


10
Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.

11
The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached u
nt
o heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:

16
Let his heart be changed from man's, and let a beast's heart be given u
nt
o him; and let seven times pass over him.


Neb. was humbled - but graciously spared - but soon Belshazzar was humbled & destroyed, & Babylon was never again a power. Babylon's great wickedness & wars against Israel remained legendary, so the NT writers & we can see in Babylon the war of Satan a\against the people of God. It is true that the powers that be are ordained by God. Neb. acknowledged that, but their hearts are satanic, & once they have ruled, they perish as recorded in Isa. 14. We can see Satan destroyed in Isa. 14 - the great power against Israel brought down to the grave.

The problem with putting such prophecy into a distant future "dispensation" is that it is not useful to its immediate hearers, nor people living in the time of Christ, nor even to us. How can we read & profit, unless of course we write best-seller futuristic fiction like Tim & Jerry?

No. The futuristic interpretation robs Scripture of its meaning, & Christians of its real blessings.

Finally, compare Isa. 13 with Psal 137.




16
Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.


8
O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.

9
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.


Brother, this is the ALLEGORICAL method. Overlooking the SPECIFIC wording of the passage, and trying to force generalities into a specific that don't fit. This is why I simply cannot accept the Covenant Theologian's position. It denies a LITERAL interpretation of any passage, and seeks to impose partial fulfillments as complete fulfillments.....it doesn't work!
The view you describe above does not account for LUCIFER in Isaiah 14.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Do you disps read & believe Hebrews?

1:
1
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past u
nt
o the fathers by the prophets,
2
Hath in these last days spoken u
nt
o us by his Son,


2:
3
How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed u
nt
o us by them that heard him;

4
God also bearing them witness, b
ot
h with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?


The teaching of Jesus & his Apostles overrides the writings of Moses & the prophets. OT prophecy was fulfilled in & by Jesus. All the many chapters detailing the OC rituals, the tabernacle & sacrifices, the priesthood, monarchy & everything else OC was completed, perfected, fulfilled, etc, by Jesus.

Jesus is the rebuilt tabernacle of David. Christ himself is the NC temple, built with living stones. There can NEVER be a rebuilt temple of God where acceptable animal sacrifices for sin can again be offered by a human priesthood.

It only works out this way if you DENY a LITERAL interpretation of Scripture! I reject that proposition!


Why indeed? Ezekiel was prophesying from captivity, with the temple in ruins, & its treasures removed. His prophecy is to encourage the faithful who are ina state of abject desolation. They see themselves as dry bones. (37)


Oh, I see - just get rid of the LITERAL interpretation that comes from simply reading the passage, and then spiritualize it all away - or should I say Allegorize?



The LORD sees them according to his eternal purposes in Christ. They will return to the land, they will rebuild the temple, and Messiah will come, all the promises will be fulfilled in him. Ezekiel's temple, like the tabernacle is a picture of the heavenly temple, & perfect worship in Christ, in Spirit & in Truth. There will NEVER be an acceptable man-made temple.

I don't see what your problem is with their being a temple built in Jerusalem for use in the 1,000 year reign of Christ. At the END of that 1,000 years, the entire UNIVERSE is destroyed - including the Ezekiel temple - and an entire new universe is "created" where sin has no place. II Peter. 3:9-13, Revelation 21.
P.S. - THEN it comes to pass as you say, that Jesus Christ becomes the Temple of God (Rev. 21)


There I do agree. But that river is the Holy Spirit flowing freely from the throne of God & the Lamb.




Zec. 14:
8
And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem;


John 4:
14
But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up i
nt
o everlasting life.


Rev. 22:
1
And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.


The connection between John 4 and Zech/Revelation is not the right connection. Zechariah and Revelation are describing specific PHYSICAL events, while John 4 is referring to the new birth. The contexts of these passages are not even remotely related. So there you go, stretching things again to find an allegorical interpretation, instead of "rightly dividing" the word of truth to see the DIFFERENCES between the passages.


Your idea of the state of affairs after Jesus returns is a mockery of the glorious hope we have in Christ.


2 Peter 3:
11
Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

12
Looking for and hasting u
nt
o the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the eleme
nt
s shall melt with ferve
nt
heat?

13
Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

14
Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be dilige
nt
that ye may be found of him in peace, without sp
ot
, and blameless.



Strong words - mockery, anti-semitic, etc.
And it is based upon two faulty assumptions.
1. We do believe in an entirely sin free/Satan free FUTURE, as recorded in Revelation 21-22. How does this "mock" the glorious hope we have in Christ?
2. Your treatment of Scripture is abhorent to me - stretching things to fit that don't fit, overlooking obvious LITERAL references, and allegorizing things instead of simply believing what it says, where it says it, to whom it is said. Not everything in the Bible is directed to NT Christians. In fact, the vast majority of the Bible is directed at Israel. Furthermore, your treatment of Scripture denies several specific promises made to Abraham, the land, and his offspring.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


It only works out this way if you DENY a LITERAL interpretation of Scripture! I reject that proposition!




Oh, I see - just get rid of the LITERAL interpretation that comes from simply reading the passage, and then spiritualize it all away - or should I say Allegorize?




I don't see what your problem is with their being a temple built in Jerusalem for use in the 1,000 year reign of Christ. At the END of that 1,000 years, the entire UNIVERSE is destroyed - including the Ezekiel temple - and an entire new universe is "created" where sin has no place. II Peter. 3:9-13, Revelation 21.
P.S. - THEN it comes to pass as you say, that Jesus Christ becomes the Temple of God (Rev. 21)


The connection between John 4 and Zech/Revelation is not the right connection. Zechariah and Revelation are describing specific PHYSICAL events, while John 4 is referring to the new birth. The contexts of these passages are not even remotely related. So there you go, stretching things again to find an allegorical interpretation, instead of "rightly dividing" the word of truth to see the DIFFERENCES between the passages.



Strong words - mockery, anti-semitic, etc.
And it is based upon two faulty assumptions.
1. We do believe in an entirely sin free/Satan free FUTURE, as recorded in Revelation 21-22. How does this "mock" the glorious hope we have in Christ?
2. Your treatment of Scripture is abhorent to me - stretching things to fit that don't fit, overlooking obvious LITERAL references, and allegorizing things instead of simply believing what it says, where it says it, to whom it is said. Not everything in the Bible is directed to NT Christians. In fact, the vast majority of the Bible is directed at Israel. Furthermore, your treatment of Scripture denies several specific promises made to Abraham, the land, and his offspring.


I am amazed at your continued claim that you read prophecy literally. In Eric's interpretation of Dan 9, he adds to scripture and misquotes it several times to get it to agree with his point pf view. Scripture prophecy is continually interpreted. Try Joseph's interpretation of dreams and Daniels interpretations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


That is exactly the problem - any future blood sacrifices would be a gross affront to our Saviour & his FINISHED work.



The future sacrifices that will be offered in the "Tribulation Temple" will be a gross affront to the finished work of Jesus...

However, let's keep this in mind...

Hebrews 10:4
For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Hebrews 10:11
And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:


All of those sacrifices offered in the Old Testament were a foreshadowing of Christ's ultimate sacrifice of himself...they were not a means of salvation in and of themselves...yet, God required them.

Why?

Hebrews 10:3
But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

Those sacrifices showed the awfulness of sin's consequences. Imagine what that must have been like. Time after time...killing...the blood flowing...time and time again...year after year...killing...the blood flowing.

Just as the law couldn't save...

Galatians 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

...nor could the Old Testament sacrifices take away sin. Yet, God required them.

Now, there will be a future temple during the millennial reign of Jesus Christ on earth (Ezekiel 41-47)...complete with animal sacrifices. Why?

Just as the Old Testament sacrifices showed the awfulness of sin and the consequences of sin...without taking away sin, these future sacrifices will do the same.

Imagine with me a moment...

Jesus is reigning on earth...a time of perfect peace. Yet, he will rule with a rod of iron. No democracy in his kingdom; it will be a Theocracy. Rebellion will be dealt with swiftly.

During Christ's millennial reign, there will be multitudes of people born...with a sin nature...a heart of rebellion. They will hear of Christ's sacrifice for their sin, yet they still have a heart of rebellion. They won't like "the rules". They won't appreciate the perfect world they live in. Just as those of us in America take what we have for granted, these "kingdom citizens" won't appreciate what they have.

However, they will be pointed to those sacrifices taking place at the temple. They will be shown sin's consequences through those sacrifices. Just as the Old Testament sacrifices couldn't take away sin, neither will those; however, they will show their fulfillment in the sacrifice that Jesus made for their sins.

Are future sacrifices an affront to Christ's finished work? Tribulation sacrifices - yes. Millenial sacrifices - NO! They will be a compliment to Christ's finished work by showing what he did to pay for man's sin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I am amazed at your continued claim that you read prophecy literally. In Eric's interpretation of Dan 9, he adds to scripture and misquotes it several times to get it to agree with his point pf view. Scripture prophecy is continually interpreted. Try Joseph's interpretation of dreams and Daniels interpretations.

I am not sure what you are getting at here. Joseph and Daniel received direct revelation about DREAMS directly from the LORD Himself. I make no similar claim, and we are not dealing with DREAMS.
We are now dealing with a WRITTEN BOOK. The Bible gives us the rules for how it is to be interpretted:
1. Rightly Divided - II Timothy 2:15
2. Not privately interpretted - II Peter 1:20-21
3. Comparing Spiritual things with spiritual - I Cor. 2:13
4. Seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit - John 14:26, John 16:13, I Cor. 2:13
And that is just for starters.

Some things the Lord never gives us permission to do:
1. Add to the word of God
2. Subtract from the word of God
3. Change the word of God
4. Allegorize the word of God

All I attempt to do is believe what it says - without changing it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The bible ought to be interpreted according to the intent of the author. Passages which are written in a literal fashion should be interpreted literally. Passages which are written in poetic form are to be interpreted as poetry which represent a literal truth. Symbolic passages are to be interpreted as symbols of something else real. Otherwise you get seven-headed monsters running around, but for some reason dispensationalists allegorize that one and he ends up looking like nicolai carpathia instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sister, you should know that I'm not "leaning" towards Replacement Theology! Just ask Invicta, Ian, and Anime if they think I'm leaning that way. :-)


Thank you for the acknowledgement. I used to be a dispensationalist when I joined this board, but it was hard to remain one when I didn't see it in the bible. As for replacement theology, I can testify to the fact that you indeed do not lean towards it. However, I doubt that Ian, David, or I actually believe there is a replacement. We believe that spiritual Israel has existed from day 1, consisting of all the elect, from Adam to whoever the last person who will be saved by the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ. During the old covenant, established at mt Sinai, and destroyed at Christ's death, most, but not all, of the spiritual Israel was made up of ethnic Israelites. The covenant with Abraham, however, which promised that he would become the father of many nations through the seed (Jesus Christ) was fulfilled in the New covenant, which brought in the gentiles, and made of two, one new man. So, there was nothing to replace, other than the old covenant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think we're starting to get off track. The important thing here to realize is that there is a future physical, earthly, Jewish, Millennial kingdom.

You seem to acknowledge in #32 that Jesus & his Apostles have little to say that can be interpreted as a future millennial kingdom inhabited by a mixed population of believers, unbelievers, resurrected saints, changed saints, unregenerate, Jews & Gentiles, ruled in person by Jesus from Jerusalem, with all the tribes owning territory, & renewed sacrifices for sin.

The King and this future kingdom are the focus of the Old Testament, and the kingdom is also referred to in the New Testament. The physical promises of a land grant and national salvation for the Jews, given to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David are not done away with in the church. Post #32 clearly lays this all out.

I have looked at #32 & note your attempt to "shoe-horn" the millennium into the NT. That's reading in, not literal reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Are all the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Israel’s future restored 1,000 year kingdom symbolic or literal?

Is “Zion” symbolic of the Church rather than the city of Jerusalem?

Is the “desert blooming as a rose” (Isaiah 35) a picture of the present fruitfulness of the gospel rather than a literal future condition on earth during the Millennium?

Is the temple (Ezekiel 40:1-48) a symbolic representation of the church rather than a literal future temple?

Is your interpretation of the book of Revelation totally symbolic? Are the judgments (seals, trumpets and vials) upon the earth, the wars, the Two Witnesses, the sealing of the 144,000 Israelites, the binding of Satan, and the 1,000 year earthly rule of Christ symbolic? Is there anything in the book of Revelation which you would interpret as "literal"?

Did Jesus return in 70AD? Which prophecies were fulfilled in 70AD? Are we living in the Millennium now? And if so, is Satan already bound?

Edited by LindaR
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I hope we all agree that there can be no true temple of God, & if the Jews were to build a temple, it would be built in unbelief & go against the unique once-for-all sacrifice of Christ, & the universality of worship in Spirit & in truth.



The Tribulation period temple will be built by the Jews...they are preparing for it now...they have the implements, the priestly robes, a school for priests, etc...

I agree that this future temple will be built in "unbelief" and go against the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ; however...

Jesus, himself, will build the Millennial Temple...

Zechariah 6:12-13
12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:
13 Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.

____________________________________________________________________________________________



I'm not trying to be argumentative or rude, but I'm interested...

If 70 A.D. is when all was fulfilled, how is this explained (v. 21)?

Matthew 24:15-21
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Was not WW1, WW2, and other wars much worse than what happened in Jerusalem in 70 A.D.? The answer of course is yes. Would not this make Jesus a liar?

Respectfully,
No Nicolaitans

Edited by No Nicolaitans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

We believe that spiritual Israel has existed from day 1, consisting of all the elect, from Adam to whoever the last person who will be saved by the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ.

There is no such thing as "spiritual Israel"....the term is nowhere found or even implied in Scripture. The Apostle Paul called the Body of Christ/the Church, "one new man" (Ephesians 2:15) and saved Gentiles are the "spiritual SEED of Abraham" (Galatians 3:28-29)

Israel is the nation chosen and created by God to preserve His truth in the world and to prepare the way for Christ’s coming. The first mention of Israel is in Genesis 32:28 where God renamed Jacob Israel. Therefore, Israel didn't "exist from day 1 consisting of all the elect, from Adam to whoever the last person saved by the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ." It began with the calling out of Abraham. (Genesis 12:1-3)
During the old covenant, established at mt Sinai, and destroyed at Christ's death, most, but not all, of the spiritual Israel was made up of ethnic Israelites. The covenant with Abraham, however, which promised that he would become the father of many nations through the seed (Jesus Christ) was fulfilled in the New covenant, which brought in the gentiles, and made of two, one new man. So, there was nothing to replace, other than the old covenant.

The Abrahamic Covenant was not fulfilled in the New Covenant. The national physical aspects of the Abrahamic Covenant have not yet been fulfilled. That will happen at the Second Advent of Christ when He sets up His earthly 1,000 year Kingdom in Jerusalem.

Every New Testament believer partakes of the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant through Christ, but there is nowhere in Scripture that states that this covenant has been transferred from national Israel to the church.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...