tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034932256870184515.comments2023-10-02T22:27:44.618-04:00AgainstDispensationalism.comNiceneCouncil.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03520465956622728760noreply@blogger.comBlogger391125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034932256870184515.post-83404074936557390622011-08-23T19:52:33.598-04:002011-08-23T19:52:33.598-04:00Hi Dr. Gentry, thanks for your great blog and all ...Hi Dr. Gentry, thanks for your great blog and all these useful resources on understanding the problems with dispensationalism. I did have one question that I haven't seen addressed elsewhere on the site. How do you deal with Romans 11:25-32? This is one of the few passages that seems to back up the dispie ideas, but while I suspect I'm reading it wrong I can't find much of anything offering a non-dispensational interpretation of this passage. Any help would be much appreciated, thank you!Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02129703136605609644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034932256870184515.post-29252383978605726532011-08-02T21:17:18.645-04:002011-08-02T21:17:18.645-04:00Wow! An oasis... After years of struggling with ...Wow! An oasis... After years of struggling with intense guilt and feelings that I was literally "mad" because I could not 'get' the dispensationalist view I find this blog. THANK YOU...<br /><br />One small comment...<br /><br />If Messiah was cut off "in the midst of the week", perhaps there is a gap (of a generation maybe as someone said above?) of sorts? In other words, in the middle of the 70th week?<br /><br />Just a thought...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034932256870184515.post-37077219841363244362011-07-28T12:32:49.810-04:002011-07-28T12:32:49.810-04:00Revelation 13:5-6 seem to relate to the events lea...Revelation 13:5-6 seem to relate to the events leading up to the future abomination of desolation, foreshadowed in history by the actions of Antiochus Epiphanes (Daniel 11:31; 12:11) and mentioned by Jesus (Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14). Not only does the beast blaspheme, but also those who worship him speak blasphemies: “who is like the beast?" This attribution rightly belongs to God alone (Ex. 15:11; Ps. 35:10; Ps. 89:8; Ps. 113:5; Jer. 49:19; 50:44). <br />This passage also gives us a key piece of information concerning the timing of the ascendancy of the Antichrist: his power is granted for 42 months (for 3 1/2 360-day years). This would appear to correspond to the last half of the 70th week of Daniel (Dan. 9:24-27 cf. Dan. 7:25). <br /><br />At the midpoint of the Tribulation when the two witnesses have been testifying for 3 1/2 years (Rev. 11:3), the Antichrist arises from the abyss to overthrow them (Rev. 11:7). He then "sits as God in the temple of God showing himself that he is God" (2Th. 2:4). <br /><br />Since he is a very busy man and lacks omnipresence, some believe that he will set up the image referred to in Revelation 13:15 which will remain in the Holy Place thereafter. This act of entering the Holy Place and setting up the image is most likely what Jesus had in mind as the abomination of desolation that signals Jews to flee Jerusalem in haste because of the latter half of the Tribulation period is characterized by the severe persecution of the Jews (cf. Revelation 12:13-17).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034932256870184515.post-75727078034322255272011-07-24T17:24:58.553-04:002011-07-24T17:24:58.553-04:00Sandi,
The term "national Israel" doesn&...Sandi,<br />The term "national Israel" doesn't appear in the bible. It is a term you dispensationalists have invented to suit your carnal interpretations. The term Israel takes on different meanings in the bible depending on context; but dispensationalists can only fixate on "national Israel". You quoted Romans 11:26 out of context. The full context is that all Israel will be saved <i>as it is written: the Deliverer will come out of Zion and will turn Jacob away from ungodliness, for this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins</i> (Matthew 26:28).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034932256870184515.post-83584678175601802602011-07-21T10:56:13.624-04:002011-07-21T10:56:13.624-04:00Joe:
Thanks for your comment. Good thought, but un...Joe:<br />Thanks for your comment. Good thought, but unfortunately it is mistaken. <br /><br />It is mistaken both theologically and exegetically. That is, it is mistaken in terms of what dispensationalists themselves teach (theologically) and in terms of what the Zechariah 13 passage itself states (exegetically).<br /><br />Walvoord in his <i>Prophecy Knowledge Handbook</i> (p. 332) states: “It was prophesied that two-thirds of Israel in the land will perish.” <br /><br />Zechariah 13 is dealing with “Jerusalem” (Zech 13:1) and “the land” (Zech 13:2). In fact, the very verse in question (Zech 13:8) expressly declares: “And it will come about <b>in all the land</b>," Declares the Lord, "That two parts in it will be cut off and perish; But the third will be left in it.”<br /><br />Ken GentryNiceneCouncil.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03520465956622728760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034932256870184515.post-37531022862787790232011-07-21T10:02:25.651-04:002011-07-21T10:02:25.651-04:00In addition to this, I see an issue with regard to...In addition to this, I see an issue with regard to the term 'replacement theology'. For those who believe in a premillenial eschatology, when the remaining 1/3rd of jews recieve Christ after the rapture, won't that mean that they become Christians? <br /><br />So, according to Dispensationalism:<br /><br />The Jews rejected Christ, then the Christians replaced them whilst the Jews were set aside, then the Christians all get raptured and then, after most of them are wiped out, the Jews become Christians? Right? <br /><br />I dunno. My understanding from Romans is that we as believers are all grafted into the olive tree, both Jew and Gentile under the New Covenant in Christ. If anyone can be accused of 'replacement theology' it's the dispensationalists.<br /><br />Just a thought..... <br /><br />SteveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034932256870184515.post-86662457816389691462011-07-21T04:16:08.242-04:002011-07-21T04:16:08.242-04:00Hi Sandi,
Sorry, I'm a little pressed for ti...Hi Sandi, <br /><br />Sorry, I'm a little pressed for time but in response to one part of your reply.<br /><br />You plucked Romans 11:26 and quoted 'All Israel will be saved'. I'm sorry to say, you are being rather specious here. If you read Romans in it's entirety and even go back to chapters 9 and 10 and look what Paul is explaining, he doesn't make the statement that 'All Israel will be saved' He explains election by grace and says 'and so' using the term kai houtos. Paul was explaining how a remnant of national Israel would be saved from the first century onwards 'until the fullness of the gentiles come in'. The word 'until' is key here. 'Achris hou' is given a temporal flavour as is 'kai houtus', but if we compare it's usage in other scripture, we arrive at a very different interpretation. <br /><br />Acts 22:4 “I persecuted the followers of this Way to (achris hou) their death,"<br /><br />Hebrews 4:12 “For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any<br />double--edged sword, it penetrates even to (achris hou) dividing soul and spirit,"<br /><br />1 Corinthians 11:26 “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you<br />proclaim the Lord’s death until (achris hou) he comes.” <br /><br />The phrase 'until' doesn't suggest that anything is going to happen 'after' the fullness of the gentiles come in, it says this is what will happen up to that point in time. <br /><br />The reason I've taken pains to point this out is because of your comment: 'You fail to “rightly divide” the “whole counsel” of God and should therefore be ashamed, as 2 Timothy 2:15 says, because you have not studied to show yourself approved unto God.'<br /><br />Quite a damning statement and I'm calling you out on exactly that charge. You haven't studied that verse in context and it's hard to believe you've even read the entire chapter to arrive at your interpretation. You've just done a copypasta because that verse says what you want it to say. <br /><br />The dipensational framework actually allegorises and bends scripture to what the reader wants to hear, whereas the historical / grammatical / linguistic exegesis considers the writing in it's correct context, studies the language in was written in at the time it was written.<br /><br />Take Ezekiel 38, Matthew 24 or Revelation 20 and put them in a literal context. It's not possible and causes huge problems for dispensationalists. <br /><br /><br /><br />Blessings<br /><br />SteveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034932256870184515.post-15710151372312612292011-07-20T17:38:52.243-04:002011-07-20T17:38:52.243-04:00Dr. Gentry,
I see your point. But if anti-semitis...Dr. Gentry,<br /><br />I see your point. But if anti-semitism and persecution of Jews becomes a major problem again in the future, does it matter where they are living? When Hitler persecuted them, there was no "Israel" and most Jews were scattered throughout Europe in numerous countries. Yet look what Hitler managed to do. I have read statistics that almost two-thirds of Jews died in the holocaust, which occurred only decades ago. <br /><br />So, as I see it, whether the majority of Jews live in Palestine or if most live scattered all over the world, if a world-wide movement against them occurs again, it won't matter where they are living. <br /><br />JoeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034932256870184515.post-85770554401124403162011-07-18T21:31:03.628-04:002011-07-18T21:31:03.628-04:00It seems that dispensationalists pick and choose t...It seems that dispensationalists pick and choose their intrepretations of Scripture on the basis of what fits their views rather than what a Scripture (taken in its relationship to other passages and context) actually is saying. Seems very out of place with anything orthodox.Lennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034932256870184515.post-12015199330437808702011-07-18T17:29:35.770-04:002011-07-18T17:29:35.770-04:00A comment to Leanna and Dr. Gentry...
In Old Test...A comment to Leanna and Dr. Gentry...<br /><br />In Old Testament times, an animal sacrifice NEVER had the power to take away our sins, correct? Then why did God require animal sacrifices at all? If believing there will not be animal sacrifices in the future because Christ fulfilled the necessary sacrifice that truly takes away sin, then it would seem to me, that ALL future OR PAST animal sacrifices were and are really unnecessary. But we know that God DID require animal sacrifices, even though HE KNEW they can't truly cover and cleanse us of our sins. HE KNEW in Old Testament times that Christ was coming to die and be the One true Sacrifice. My point? It wasn't blasphemy to have ineffective animal sacrifices during the Old Testament times while looking forward to the coming true Sacrifice. I don't see it as blasphemy to conduct animal sacrifices in the future to look back at the One true Sacrifice. Both sides look to Christ. One looks forward the other looks back. I see no "insult" to the "Spirit of Grace." <br /><br />JoeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034932256870184515.post-65561072677961714982011-07-15T07:43:49.273-04:002011-07-15T07:43:49.273-04:00The first paragraph is a simplistic and historica...The first paragraph is a simplistic and historically inaccurate statement. Theology may have been viewed as the "Queen of Sciences" but it also was the major reason why men who preached the Gospel like Wesley and Whitfield in the 18th Century (and held the "reformed" view of prophecy) were forced out of mainstream churches to preach in open fields. It is why Scotland saw many reformed preachers persecuted and martyred for their faith in Christ.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034932256870184515.post-56833279007664035852011-07-14T23:07:21.649-04:002011-07-14T23:07:21.649-04:00Sandi, the section of Ezechiel that you quoted als...Sandi, the section of Ezechiel that you quoted also states very specifically that there will be sin offerings offered in the temple. It also mentions "the prince," who likewise will be offering sacrifices.<br /><br />How in the world can your understanding possibly square with the traditional Christian understanding that Christ's sacrifice is the ultimate sacrifice of the New Testament and can never be supplanted?<br /><br />Hebrews 10:17-18 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.<br /><br />That portion of Ezechiel also mentions that "the prince" has sons. Do you take that literally? Who is this prince? Some claim He is Christ; others say he is not.<br /><br />But that begs the question. If the prince is not Christ, then why in the world would there be a prince in Israel when Christ has returned and is ruling?<br /><br />And if the prince IS Christ, how can He have sons?<br /><br />You state that we must take the Bible literally. How can a person take the sections, literally, of Ezechiel you alluded to without doing violence to other parts of the Bible?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034932256870184515.post-30291415015248048312011-07-14T10:31:42.476-04:002011-07-14T10:31:42.476-04:00I have some major issues with the first paragraph ...I have some major issues with the first paragraph of this blog which nearly stopped me reading the remainder. Theology may have been viewed as the "Queen of Sciences" but it also was the major reason why men who preached the Gospel like Wesley and Whitfield in the 18th Century (and held the "reformed" view of prophecy) were forced out of mainstream churches to preach in open fields. It is why Scotland saw many reformed preachers persecuted and martyred for their faith in Christ. This is a simplistic and historically inaccurate statement. In addition, the charge against dispensational theology would require that it is also held to blame for the Dark Ages and Inquisition when the Roman Catholic church used the reformed view of prophecy as the foundation of their actions and when there was no dispensational theology. <br /><br />Sadly, this is blatant, untrue propaganda. I was hoping to find something which has puzzled me for as long as I can remember: how can "Israel" in one verse be the historical nation, but in the next verse it suddenly becomes the church? <br /><br />PS: While reading the remainder of the article, I found a number of significant grammatical errors (i.e. I aw them in a quick read, not in a detailed review). This suggests a laxity in reviewing the details which could also imply a similar shortcoming in theological detail?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034932256870184515.post-86703200854369446102011-07-14T04:04:56.531-04:002011-07-14T04:04:56.531-04:00Anonymous, I have absolutely no argument with what...Anonymous, I have absolutely no argument with what 1 Peter 2:4-10 teaches: Christ is the living stone (v.4) who is building up a spiritual house with living stones which are believers in Jesus Christ (v. 5). He is the prophesied “precious cornerstone” (Messiah) of Isaiah 28:16 (v.6) who has become a stumbling block to both Jew and Gentile (1 Cor. 1:23) who reject Him (v.7-8). Believers are a royal priesthood offering spiritual sacrifices which are acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. The Body of Christ is God’s special possession, having been called out of darkness and into light (v.9). Believers in Jesus Christ who make up His Body are now the people of God and have received mercy. <br /><br />But before you say, “see, v. 10 says that the Church is now the people of God”, notice that it does not say anything about national Israel not being God’s people again sometime in the future. This passage does not prove or abrogate the fact that national Israel, although cast aside for the moment, will in the future be restored, just as the OT teaches (the whole book of Hosea for starters). It is the clear and undeniable teaching of the entire Bible that national Israel will be restored as God’s people, having recognized her Messiah at His 2nd coming and entering into the millennial kingdom in which Jesus will rule from Jerusalem, on the throne of His father David and thus fulfilling OT prophecy. <br /><br />The angel Gabriel confirmed God’s promise of 2 Samuel 7:12-16 to Mary when he told her in Luke 1:32-33 that “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.” Jesus now sits at the right hand of the throne of God, not of David; do not confuse the two. Jesus reigning from Jerusalem from the throne of David is yet to come. The apostle Paul himself confirms that the complete and final fulfillment will take place when “the Deliverer will come out of Zion” and “turn away ungodliness from Jacob” and “all Israel will be saved.” (Romans 11:26).” Again, if this is not true, then Jesus Christ is not the Messiah, throw away your Bible.<br /><br />You fail to “rightly divide” the “whole counsel” of God and should therefore be ashamed, as 2 Timothy 2:15 says, because you have not studied to show yourself approved unto God. <br /><br />Understanding that Israel and the Body of Christ are separate and distinct entities is the key to understanding the prophetic word. If you do not understand this, then you end up spiritualising and allegorizing Scripture to fit what you believe, which is what you have done. As bible teacher Jacob Prasch so rightly says, “a text out of context, in isolation from its co-text, is a pretext”. And guess what, it’s the unmistakable signature of Satan too. That’s right. Satan took scripture out of context when he tempted Eve and he even tried it with Jesus. Christian cults exist because they have taken scriptures out of context, in isolation from their co-text.<br /><br />If I were you, I would seriously rethink my beliefs and I would take Paul’s admonition to heart: Examine yourselves to see if you are in the faith as you do not want to be guilty of having fulfilled this scripture:<br /><br />For the time will come when THEY WILL NOT ENDURE SOUND DOCTRINE; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves TEACHERS IN ACCORDANCE TO THEIR OWN DESIRES, and will TURN AWAY THEIR EARS FROM THE TRUTH AND WILL TURN ASIDE TO MYTHS ~ 2 Timothy 4:3,4Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034932256870184515.post-2149851905651651582011-07-11T14:49:08.605-04:002011-07-11T14:49:08.605-04:00I think the "law" of first mention is qu...I think the "law" of first mention is quite valid if properly applied. For example, the law doesn't work for the cited example of Cain offering a vegetable offering because that story has nothing to do with offering vegetables to God. It's critical message is that sinful man has no access to a holy God apart from death. Abel understood this and obeyed by placing his faith in the death of a vicarious sacrifice. Cain, however, disobeyed by offering the fruit of his own work. Since there is no release from sin without death, Cain yet abode in death. A just man will live (ie, escape the second death) through faith (in the vicarious death of the son of God), but whoever does the works of the flesh abides in death. <br /><br />This is a wonderful first example that appears in other forms throughout scripture. It's actually not the very first example, though, as God's slaying of an animal to provide a covering for Adam('s sin) is the first example.<br /><br />So this "law" is really quite valid if its central focus is the redemptive work of Christ.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034932256870184515.post-63345567900372551152011-07-11T13:41:53.001-04:002011-07-11T13:41:53.001-04:00Interesting thoughts, dispensationalism isn't ...Interesting thoughts, dispensationalism isn't hard to cast doubt upon, however your style is bias and history questionable at best. For one thing, William Miller and the Great disappointment of 1844 took place decades before the organization of the Seventh-day Adventist church.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034932256870184515.post-66739431114173061432011-07-10T09:05:47.414-04:002011-07-10T09:05:47.414-04:00Interesting.
I had heard of the "principle o...Interesting.<br /><br />I had heard of the "principle of first mention", but did not realize it was a dispensational distinctive.<br /><br />On "literal interpretation" Vern Poythress has an interesting chapter <a href="http://www.frame-poythress.org/Poythress_books/bdisp/bd8.html" rel="nofollow">on his website</a>, on the diffuculties of meaning of "literal".<br /><br />And, Berkhof again, Principles of Biblical Interpretation, under the heading "Internal helps for determining whether the figurative or literal sense is intended", "<i>There is an old and oft-repeated hermenutical rule, that the words should be understood in their literal sense, unless such literal interpretation involves a manifest contradiction or absurdity. If should be observed, however, that in practice this becomes merely an appeal to every man's rational judgment. <b>What seems absurd or improbable to one, may be regarded as perfectly simple and self-consistent by another.</b></i>" p85lee n. fieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01652025469454858807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034932256870184515.post-3511479417221572672011-07-09T08:04:04.187-04:002011-07-09T08:04:04.187-04:00"C.I. Scofield went so far as to say, “Unless..."C.I. Scofield went so far as to say, “Unless one interprets each passage of Scripture dispensationally, one is in a hopeless quandary and can never expect to understand the Bible.”"<br /><br />If Scofield had been more honest he would have written this:<br /><br /><i>“Unless I interpret each passage of Scripture dispensationally, I am in a hopeless quandary and can never expect to understand the Bible.”</i><br /><br />Yes Cyrus, without the holy spirit it is impossible to understand the Bible. Godless men who embrace the <i>idea</i> of godliness (not godliness itself) have to justify themselves somehow. <br /><br />Isn't it interesting how ignorant people try to appear authoritative by projecting their own blindness on to ever one else.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034932256870184515.post-86771452475692089492011-07-09T07:43:35.397-04:002011-07-09T07:43:35.397-04:00"Understanding the time in which something wa..."Understanding the time in which something was written, to whom it was written and why - is enormously helpful. This is the essential nature of the “historical” in the grammatical-historical hermeneutic. As an example, suppose you read an article that identified a “gay event” that took place at Carnegie Hall. If you did not know that the article was written in the year eighteen ninety nine, but assumed it was written at the beginning of the 21st century, the phrase “gay event” would have a radically different meaning and the absences of this fact would ultimately lead to the wrong conclusion."<br /><br />A pertinent example of this contextual relevancy is the word Israel. When we read this term in the Bible it is critical to discern whether the author is referring to the man, or to the people, or to the nation, or to the blessed of Israel, or to the cursed of Israel, or to the remnant of Israel, etc. I do believe that dispensationalists can only see Israel as meaning nation. That creates serious problems.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034932256870184515.post-70370460635606997742011-07-09T07:15:19.272-04:002011-07-09T07:15:19.272-04:00Excellent article.
CarolExcellent article. <br /><br />CarolCarol Noren Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10103922738438801967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034932256870184515.post-90068510034136706062011-07-09T07:11:01.827-04:002011-07-09T07:11:01.827-04:00"It is what theologians call our “hermeneutic..."It is what theologians call our “hermeneutic.” ... The key here is to have the right glasses on, to view the Bible through the lens of the proper hermeneutic."<br /><br />There is no such thing as a hermeneutic. It's irrelevant what Wikipedia or other modern dictionaries say. Dictionaries are written by men who are tempted to conform language to popular usage, rather than to provide clarity of thought. Historically, "hermeneutic" is an adjective. Its transformation into a noun confuses discourse, and demonstrates how sloppy-thinking theologians pervert and confuse language, much as they pervert hermeneutics. If theology is to be considered the foundation of science, its practitioners really should practice a higher standard of thinking.<br /><br />The following examples demonstrate my point:<br /><br />"It is what economists call our “economic.”"<br /><br />"The key here is to have the right glasses on, to view the economy through the lens of the proper economic."<br /><br />Economists would laugh you out of the room if you talked like this. Theologians on the other hand have normalized the perversion. Is there any wonder then why there influence wanes?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034932256870184515.post-21842670488256909722011-07-07T07:30:39.862-04:002011-07-07T07:30:39.862-04:00Sandi Broyden said...
"The OT teaches that t...Sandi Broyden said...<br /><br />"The OT teaches that the Messiah will physically rule, from Jerusalem, over national Israel from the throne of His father, David and will Himself rebuild the temple"<br /><br />Are you in denial that the temple of the living God has been under construction for almost 2000 years? Do you think God was being flippant when he said we are <i>living</i> stones being built into the temple of God?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034932256870184515.post-4206592345021645042011-07-06T07:24:12.427-04:002011-07-06T07:24:12.427-04:00Sandi:
I have some comments about your post.
W...Sandi: <br /><br />I have some comments about your post. <br /><br />Why do you think that there is any need to build a temple? Why do you think that there is a need for sacrifices? Wasn't Jesus' ultimate sacrifice enough? Why is there a need for a physical nation (who are currently in disobedience and deserving of expulsion from the land according to scriptural precedence). How have all the scriptures you have quoted not found their ultimate fulfillment in Christ. <br /><br />Can I draw your attention to this scripture. I think it summarizes and answers much of your post: <br /><br />1 Peter 2:<br /><br />The Living Stone and a Chosen People<br /><br />4 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house[a] to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For in Scripture it says:<br /><br /> “See, I lay a stone in Zion,<br /> a chosen and precious cornerstone,<br />and the one who trusts in him<br /> will never be put to shame.”[b]<br /><br /> 7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,<br /><br /> “The stone the builders rejected<br /> has become the cornerstone,”[c]<br /><br /> 8 and,<br /><br /> “A stone that causes people to stumble<br /> and a rock that makes them fall.”[d]<br /><br /> They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.<br /><br /> 9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. <br /><br />I'm guessing you'll suggest this is 'replacement theology'. I'd suggest that the Jewish faith found it's completion with Christ and it's now down to the individual, whether Jew or gentile to accept or reject this.<br /><br />Blessings in ChristAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034932256870184515.post-42136842004744286362011-07-05T02:27:56.123-04:002011-07-05T02:27:56.123-04:00The OT teaches that the Messiah will physically ru...The OT teaches that the Messiah will physically rule, from Jerusalem, over national Israel from the throne of His father, David and will Himself rebuild the temple (2 Samuel 7:12,13,16; Psalm 45:6; 132:11; Isaiah 9:6,7;16:5, Jeremiah 23:5,6; Ezekiel 43:1-7; Micah 4:6,7; Zechariah 4:1-11; 6:13). This was confirmed by the angel Gabriel to Mary in Luke 1:31-33. If this does not happen then JESUS CHRIST IS NOT THE PROPHESIED MESSIAH OF ISRAEL. God is a liar and so is His word; throw it away because it can’t be trusted. You can exegete until the cows come home but that is the logical conclusion of denying that Israel has a “special status among the peoples of the earth”, that “she will never be exalted above the nations, and that she will never rebuild her temple and begin offering sacrifices”. The scriptures plainly, clearly and literally teach otherwise.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034932256870184515.post-87559557267421443282011-06-30T11:12:44.678-04:002011-06-30T11:12:44.678-04:00"I will be demonstrating that Israel was alwa..."I will be demonstrating that Israel was always intended to be a stepping-stone to the worldwide Church of Jesus Christ, an early stage in the progress of redemption. She was never intended to be an end in herself."<br /><br />To this end consider the fact that God never intended for there to be a physical kingdom of Israel. His will was for the children of Israel be a holy people unto him: a royal priesthood. He rebuked their request for a king as being idolatry and a rejection of himself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com