ECT The Future Redemption of What Dispensationalism Considers To Be Israel

[northwye]

“Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people, even a marvelous work and a wonder…Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not?” Isaiah 29:14, 16.

Isaiah 29: 14, 16 is pointing to Jeremiah 18: "Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.
3. Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels.
4. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.
5. Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
6. O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel."

Israel was to be remade by Jesus Christ when he appeared the first time in human flesh.

“Behold ye among the heathen, and regard, and wonder marvelously: for I will work a work in your days, which ye will not believe, though it be told you” Habakkuk 1:5

Luke 1: 68-69; "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,
69. And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;"

Christ already redeemed his people Israel. It turned out, as Paul says in Romans 11: 1-5, that Christ redeemed Israel in redeeming a remnant of Old Covenant Israel.

But false prophets in what dispensationalism calls the church have been teaching that the redemption of Israel, by which they mean Israel defined by the physical bloodline,is to happen sometime in the future.

The redemption of Israel already happened when God turned things upside down as he said he was to do in II Kings 21: 13. God translated or transformed Israel into a Spiritual House (I Peter 2: 5, 9).

“But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming” (Acts 13:45).

"Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
2. And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
3. Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
4. And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.
5. But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.
6. And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;" Acts 17: 1-6

Remember that II Kings 21: 13 is a prophecy which says "And I will stretch over Jerusalem the line of Samaria, and the plummet of the house of Ahab: and I will wipe Jerusalem as a man wipeth a dish, wiping it, and turning it upside down."

But II Kings 21: 13, Isaiah 29: 16, Jeremiah 18: 1-6,Habakkuk 1:5, Luke 1: 68-69 and Romans 11: 1-5 in this context of adding scripture together to arrive at truth, following Isaiah 28: 10 is not part of dispensationalist doctrine.

 

[Interplanner]

Several good points.

 

[Interplanner]

Spiritual is a dirty word in 2P2P-speak.

 

[Truster]

Hebrew has no future tense. The auxiliary verbs were added by translators.This is one of the reasons James Strong described all translators as traitors.

 

[Interplanner]

Hebrew has no future tense. The auxiliary verbs were added by translators.This is one of the reasons James Strong described all translators as traitors.

You have to start somewhere, and context calls for tenses when communicating. There is no way that Hebrew with its high moral order of 10 commands cannot have tenses while communicating. If someone steals your horse, it will be in the past tense by context. You do not go to a judge and complain about things that are going to happen next week.

 

[Clete]

“Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people, even a marvelous work and a wonder…Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not?” Isaiah 29:14, 16.

Isaiah 29: 14, 16 is pointing to Jeremiah 18: "Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.
3. Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels.
4. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.
5. Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
6. O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel."

Israel was to be remade by Jesus Christ when he appeared the first time in human flesh.

“Behold ye among the heathen, and regard, and wonder marvelously: for I will work a work in your days, which ye will not believe, though it be told you” Habakkuk 1:5

Luke 1: 68-69; "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,
69. And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;"

Christ already redeemed his people Israel. It turned out, as Paul says in Romans 11: 1-5, that Christ redeemed Israel in redeeming a remnant of Old Covenant Israel.

But false prophets in what dispensationalism calls the church have been teaching that the redemption of Israel, by which they mean Israel defined by the physical bloodline,is to happen sometime in the future.

The redemption of Israel already happened when God turned things upside down as he said he was to do in II Kings 21: 13. God translated or transformed Israel into a Spiritual House (I Peter 2: 5, 9).

“But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming” (Acts 13:45).

"Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
2. And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
3. Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
4. And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.
5. But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.
6. And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;" Acts 17: 1-6

Remember that II Kings 21: 13 is a prophecy which says "And I will stretch over Jerusalem the line of Samaria, and the plummet of the house of Ahab: and I will wipe Jerusalem as a man wipeth a dish, wiping it, and turning it upside down."

But II Kings 21: 13, Isaiah 29: 16, Jeremiah 18: 1-6,Habakkuk 1:5, Luke 1: 68-69 and Romans 11: 1-5 in this context of adding scripture together to arrive at truth, following Isaiah 28: 10 is not part of dispensationalist doctrine.

I give you credit for having made an argument at least. The baseless accusation against dispensationalists in the last sentence displays, in my view, a lack of confidence in the verasity of your own argument but nobody's perfect.

First of all, dispensationalism does not deny that God saved a remnant of Israel during the first century. As your argument proves little more than this, there is no contradiction. In addition, the text of scripture explicitly says that Israel was cut off and that God will turn to Israel again (Romans 9-11). Dispensationalism is notorious for taking the bible at face value like that.

But the real problem with your argument has to do with the actual form of the argument. You've made an error that causes it to fail on a conceptual level. Dispensationalism IS NOT predicated on what will or will not happen to Israel in the future. In other words, if (and it's a BIG IF) dispensationalists are wrong in regards to Israel's future, it does no harm to the premises upon which dispensationalism itself is rationally based. Put another way, your argument is a sort of convoluted example of a question-begging fallacy. What you've done is take a conclusion that is based on several premises that dispensationalists hold and attacked that conclusion based on a different set of premises. You've basically laid out a presentation of your doctrine and then stated that since your doctrine comes to a different conclusion concerning Israel's future than dispensationalism does, dispensationalism is, therefore, false. That is not a rational way of arguing. If you want to be convincing you have to demonstrate one of two things; either that the dispensational conclusions concerning Israel do not follow the premises upon which they are based or that one or more of the premises are false.

Otherwise, in order for your direct attack of the conclusion itself to work, you'd have to prove that God turning again to Israel is rationally (conceptually) impossible, which you'd be hard pressed to do since Paul says that He (God), after having cut Israel off, is able to "graft them back in again", which is why I brought that point up first.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Truster]

I didn't mention past tense. I repeat, Hebrew has no future tense.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Christ already redeemed his people Israel. It turned out, as Paul says in Romans 11: 1-5, that Christ redeemed Israel in redeeming a remnant of Old Covenant Israel.

Later in the same chapter Paul says that "All Israel will be saved" (Ro.11:26).

The following prophecy describes that happening, and the ones who will be saved will be the physical descendants of Israel:

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more" (Jer.31:31-34).​

We can see that the "fathers" of those who will belong to the house of Israel and the house of Judah in the future are those who broke the LORD's covenant. It was the physical descendants of Israel who did that. Therefore, since their fathers are the physical descendants of Israel then all those of both houses will also be the physical descendants of Israel.

And all of them, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, will have their sins forgiven and be saved. Since this has never happened in the past we know for a fact that the fulfillment of this prophecy remains in the future.

 

[Tambora]

I didn't mention past tense. I repeat, Hebrew has no future tense.

Greek does.
Check the Septuagint.

But I must warn you that even in the Greek, tenses do not always represent what the message in conveying.
For we have verses that say that we are already saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved.
How can all of them be true at the same time?
Because of what is referred to as: prophetic language that can be spoken of as already done, being done now, and will be done.
In other words, it speaks of it as a surety, to be counted on as if it is a done deal.
We find this type of language throughout scripture, as in saved before the foundation of the world and will be saved if one endures till the end.
Past - Future (it can be referenced either way because it is a surety).

So, even knowing the tense of the words cannot always be used to show the actual timing of the event, but is meant to express a surety.
Long story short, focusing on verb tenses isn't always going to give you the total message and cannot always be used to specifically pinpoint WHEN the event takes place.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Spiritual is a dirty word in 2P2P-speak.

Not if it is used the way the Bible uses it, as opposed to your commentaries.

 

[Tambora]

What you've done is take a conclusion that is based on several premises that dispensationalists hold and attacked that conclusion based on a different set of premises.

Well said.

 

[Clete]

Well said.

It's astonishing how often this error is made. Not just about issues of doctrine but in nearly every aspect of life. It's nuts how often advertisers do this. People miss it because of confirmation bias mainly but there is a rampant general lack of disciplined thinking skills born out of our totally failed public education system, which teaches you to question everything but fails to give you the tools with which to evaluated the answers you get. Seminaries I think might be worse, though. They, generally speaking, are endoctrination centers where you go to learn how to make confirmation bias your whole mode of thinking.

 

[Danoh]

Clete said...

What you've done is take a conclusion that is based on several premises that dispensationalists hold and attacked that conclusion based on a different set of premises. You've basically laid out a presentation of your doctrine and then stated that since your doctrine comes to a different conclusion concerning Israel's future than dispensationalism does, dispensationalism is, therefore, false.

Well said.

Clete's point there, Tam; and yours about the need to be careful not to over rely on the Greek over Scripture's overall narrative - are - along with, I'll add; the equal need for caution on an over reliance on basic elementary school English - are also violations found within Dispensationalism and its various strains.

It is why there are now different Mid-Acts camps.

While, intolerance for having such things pointed out is why there are divisions within most of the various camps.

It is as if such live only for proving wrong and or mocking anyone who does not hold their view.

Where is the joy in that?

Where is the iron sharpeneth iron in that?

Where is the further, proper growth in spiritual understanding in that?

MAD is NOT some sort of a club, or cult and thus, should not be acting like one.

You both made very good points...

Points we would each do well to consider often reflecting on...often, and as to each our own...possible violation of same.

 

[Tambora]

You both made very good points...

We know.

 

[Danoh]

It's astonishing how often this error is made. Not just about issues of doctrine but in nearly every aspect of life. It's nuts how often advertisers do this. People miss it because of confirmation bias mainly but there is a rampant general lack of disciplined thinking skills born out of our totally failed public education system, which teaches you to question everything but fails to give you the tools with which to evaluated the answers you get. Seminaries I think might be worse, though. They, generally speaking, are endoctrination centers where you go to learn how to make confirmation bias your whole mode of thinking.

Yep - it is the exact same indoctrination method used within the world of secular philosophy.

No surprise there.

Not given the obvious heavy influence of Greek philosophy on the Church that the Apostle Paul was already writing against way back in the 1st Century.

Paul obviously having been well versed in the wisdom of the Greeks, etc., he'd been able to see, not only its' obvious problems, but its' potential to creep in unawares, into the study of the things of God.

At the same time; a secular education, hand in hand with learning from within a ministry the teachings of which are solidly grounded in the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of The Mystery, ground one well, in being able to see what has the potential to creep in, where, when, how, and why.

In fact, I'd prefer that over some supposed Christian Seminary, or what have you.

The typical Seminary is nothing more than a kool-aide, long since spiked with the reasoning of men and labelled "Bible Based."

People like Interplanner - there is not much hope for a recovery from that for such; given his forty plus years in that mess.

Such can no longer even discern how off they have ended up.

Of course, to constantly insult the guy, (and vice-versa) only reveals the mark of another self-delusion on the part of those who do.

Calling such out; challenging them, is not the same thing as a fool merely rationalizing his ever glorying in his flesh, at such a blinded individual's further expense.

2 Timothy 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 2:26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

 

[Danoh]

We know.

Lol - never mind.

 

[Interplanner]

Well said.

So what? its premises are wrong. They are not in the NT, they are in how Judaism did the OT, AKA the veil.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

So what? its premises are wrong. They are not in the NT, they are in how Judaism did the OT, AKA the veil.

Back to the drawing board for you.

 

[Clete]

Clete said...

What you've done is take a conclusion that is based on several premises that dispensationalists hold and attacked that conclusion based on a different set of premises. You've basically laid out a presentation of your doctrine and then stated that since your doctrine comes to a different conclusion concerning Israel's future than dispensationalism does, dispensationalism is, therefore, false.



Clete's point there, Tam; and yours about the need to be careful not to over rely on the Greek over Scripture's overall narrative - are - along with, I'll add; the equal need for caution on an over reliance on basic elementary school English - are also violations found within Dispensationalism and its various strains.

It is why there are now different Mid-Acts camps.

While, intolerance for having such things pointed out is why there are divisions within most of the various camps.

It is as if such live only for proving wrong and or mocking anyone who does not hold their view.

Where is the joy in that?

Where is the iron sharpeneth iron in that?

Where is the further, proper growth in spiritual understanding in that?

MAD is NOT some sort of a club, or cult and thus, should not be acting like one.

You both made very good points...

Points we would each do well to consider often reflecting on...often, and as to each our own...possible violation of same.

Any sort of sharpening requires friction and when referring to human relations, friction means conflict and disagreement. How then does the fact some disagreements exist withing dispensational circles imply anything other than that dispensational iron is in the process of being sharpened?

It is group-think and the wisdom of crowds (a.k.a. human wisdom) where all the dull blades exist and where iron sharpening is effectively prohibited. Have a student at a Church of Christ Seminary try to disagree with their professor about using a piano during worship services and watch what happens. He'll be made to conform or be booted. And I'm certain that there are dispensational seminaries that would do similarly, the point being that the problem is with seminaries not with one doctrinal system or another.

The simple fact is that people today are taught what to think but not how to think and, as a result, well-meaning and intelligent people make arguments like those made in the OP and others are convinced by them. Confirmation bias and group-think (i.e. social acceptance) are the brass rings in most everyone's nose. The collection of objective evidence and rigorous, disciplined adherence to objective rules of thinking be damned - unless of course, such leads to a conclusion that agrees with what one already believes.

It seems most everyone begins with the conclusion and then goes premise hunting to support the conclusion. This is precisely what leads to the sort of argument presented in the OP but in a broader sense, it is what people do with nearly everything they believe is true. People grow up in a Baptist church and go to a Baptist seminary to learn all the Baptist hermeneutics that support that doctrinal system. Rare indeed is the young person to whom it occurs to question the hermeneutic and rarer than that is the one willing to do so and rarer still the one with the skills to do so rightly.

I've kept these comments focused on doctrine but, as I said, it affects everything people think they know. Everything from doctrine to how the economy works to whether Trump is a racist to whether the Earth is round and orbits the Sun. How do you know what you think you know? That is the first question and it's answer the foundation to everything that comes after. If you've never answered it with any clarity, you don't really know anything, even if what you think you know happens to be correct. Yours is the house built on sand.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Danoh]

Yep - as one man once noted "before one sits down to think on a thing; they might do well to first think on where it is they are going to think on it from."

It might have been Benjamin Franklin.

But that kind of minute distinction is not only an important one; but one that has fascinated me most of my life.

At the same time, over time it becomes automatic to think on things from there as a principle itself - "by reason of use."

Or as a TV script writer once had one of his brilliant characters put it - "it's an intuitive synthesis of established ____ principles."

You get curious about those kinds of things and how you might make them yours, and eventually...you do.

As another writer once observed at the beginning of what turned out one heck of a fascinating read - "the more astute reader will be able to observe much more than what has been presented in the pages this book."

Such an individual will see more in a thing then the average person.

The result being that when such an individual makes one observation or another; the less astute conclude "too much TV; too much reading; too much this; that; the other."

Such have remained stuck in thinking "about" a thing.

In other words, in rendering their conclusions "about" from within their own vacuum somewhere, on the other side of its' window.

Such continue to not only not think ON a thing, but to not first think ON where they are actually looking at another's assertions from, to begin with.

Result?

Their "glorying is not good."

Or as Paul put it, as an aspect of a failure in the above and one of its' various results...

2 Corinthians 10:12 For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.

Such are ever so caught up in their supposed sense of knowing what's what; that they remain not only ever unable to see how little they actually know; but ever remain unable to properly discern those higher, much finer things that differ between things.

Those finer differences...that differ.

At the same time, though the tendency is to automatically write such off for what appears their stupidity; to do so, is to have failed to apply the above that one might then enable oneself to learn even from another's seeming, if not actual; cluelessness.

Spoiler

Any sort of sharpening requires friction and when referring to human relations, friction means conflict and disagreement. How then does the fact some disagreements exist withing dispensational circles imply anything other than that dispensational iron is in the process of being sharpened?

It is group-think and the wisdom of crowds (a.k.a. human wisdom) where all the dull blades exist and where iron sharpening is effectively prohibited. Have a student at a Church of Christ Seminary try to disagree with their professor about using a piano during worship services and watch what happens. He'll be made to conform or be booted. And I'm certain that there are dispensational seminaries that would do similarly, the point being that the problem is with seminaries not with one doctrinal system or another.

The simple fact is that people today are taught what to think but not how to think and, as a result, well-meaning and intelligent people make arguments like those made in the OP and others are convinced by them. Confirmation bias and group-think (i.e. social acceptance) are the brass rings in most everyone's nose. The collection of objective evidence and rigorous, disciplined adherence to objective rules of thinking be damned - unless of course, such leads to a conclusion that agrees with what one already believes.

It seems most everyone begins with the conclusion and then goes premise hunting to support the conclusion. This is precisely what leads to the sort of argument presented in the OP but in a broader sense, it is what people do with nearly everything they believe is true. People grow up in a Baptist church and go to a Baptist seminary to learn all the Baptist hermeneutics that support that doctrinal system. Rare indeed is the young person to whom it occurs to question the hermeneutic and rarer than that is the one willing to do so and rarer still the one with the skills to do so rightly.

I've kept these comments focused on doctrine but, as I said, it affects everything people think they know. Everything from doctrine to how the economy works to whether Trump is a racist to whether the Earth is round and orbits the Sun. How do you know what you think you know? That is the first question and it's answer the foundation to everything that comes after. If you've never answered it with any clarity, you don't really know anything, even if what you think you know happens to be correct. Yours is the house built on sand.

Resting in Him,
Clete