• Welcome to Talk Jesus

    A true bible based, Jesus centered online community. Join over 11,000 members today

    Register Log In

Isaiah 3: 1-12, II Peter 2: 6 and Jude 1: 7 Applied To the USA - July of 2015

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Member
"1. For, behold, the Lord, the LORD of hosts, doth take away from Jerusalem and from Judah the stay and the staff, the whole stay of bread, and the whole stay of water,
5. And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable. 8. For Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen: because their tongue and their doings are against the LORD, to provoke the eyes of his glory.
12. As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths."Isaiah 3: 1, 5, 8, 12

The literalists may insist that Isaiah 3: 1-12 applies only to Old Covenant Israel. But Babylon as a metaphor for Old Covenant Israel seen in Jeremiah 50 and 51 repeats for New Covenant Israel in Revelation 17 and 18, and some of the verses from Jeremiah are almost the same as those in Revelation. Babylon as a metaphor for those in captivity to false doctrines may not be fully accepted by the literalists, who may want to argue with it. "I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets." Hosea 10: 12

"And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;" II Peter 2: 6

"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." Jude 1: 7 Strange flesh refers to homosexuality.

God may not destroy a nation for fornication alone, but will allow them time to repent. The example of Sodom and Gomorrha shows that he will soon destroy a nation and culture for blatant homosexuality. Likewise in Jeremiah 6: 1-13 the Lord says because Old Covenant Israel, called there the daughter of Zion,has no delight in the word of God, he will prepare war against her.

But - in verse 9 the Lord promises that he will thoroughly glean the remnant of Israel, meaning he will make use of a remnant as his faithful people, though he will make war against those of Old Covenant Israel who are not the remnant. The remnant of Israel is that patriarchal remnant which remains faithful to the Lord, to Christ, while the multitude falls away from sound doctrine by compromising the teachings of Christ.

I like the use of honorable in Isaiah 3: 4 - because we rarely see honorable people any more in the world or within those who claim to be Christians.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Member

DHC

Hello Tulsa.

Read your post and I can honestly say that, I do not understand your interpretation.

Especially the following statement below.

for New Covenant Israel in Revelation 17 and 18
How about citing a few verses from these two chapters in the book of Revelations. To illustrate how
you see New Covenant Israel in these two chapters, I can not see Israel in the text.
 
Member
"But Babylon as a metaphor for Old Covenant Israel seen in Jeremiah 50 and 51 repeats for New Covenant Israel in Revelation 17 and 18, and some of the verses from Jeremiah are almost the same as those in Revelation. Babylon as a metaphor for those in captivity to false doctrines may not be fully accepted by the literalists, who may want to argue with it. "I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets." Hosea 10: 12

A literalist wants to argue with Babylon in Revelation 17 and 18 being metaphorically New Covenant Israel because the word Israel is not there. Neither is the dispensationalist Church in the texts. The surface meaning of "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her sins" is that "her" is literal Babylon over in what is now Iraq.

And for Revelation 18: 23 the surface meaning of the words there say literally that the voice of a bridegroom and of his bride are no longer heard in Babylon over in what is now Iraq.. Since this has to be metaphor, who then is Babylon?

The exact words "Old Covenant Israel" are not in Jeremiah 50 and 51 either. We have to have some spiritual discernment to interpret Babylon in Jeremiah and Babylon in Revelation. Many who follow a literalist view do not have that spiritual discernment.
 
Member

DHC

A literalist wants to argue with Babylon in Revelation 17 and 18 being metaphorically New Covenant Israel because the word Israel is not there. Neither is the
dispensationalist Church in the texts. The surface meaning of "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her sins" is
that "her" is literal Babylon over in what is now Iraq.
Hello Tulsa.

Please do not read my reply as an argument against your claims, Tulsa.

I will simply quote the verses in the book of Revelations, that you need to seriously consider one by one.

Here is the first verse and you will need to explain how you read this verse.

Revelations 17
18 The woman whom you saw is the great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth.

We note that the woman is the great city, Tulsa. Can you please explain why you interpretation does
present the city as the woman?
 
Active
Babylon as a metaphor for Israel in Jeremiah 50 and 51? Babylon in Jeremiah's time was not a metaphorical entity - the Babylonian empire directly threatened the existence of every person in Judah. If you remember the historical context, that's akin to going to Havana in 1961 and metaphorically addressing the Cuban people: "my fellow Americans".

The first verses of Jeremiah 50 foretell Babylon being overtaken by the Medes and Persians. Read the book of Daniel for the details.
 
Member
Revelation 17: 18 is one of the verses which the Reformation protestants used to support their claim that Babylon refers only to the Roman Catholic Church. And it does include the Catholic Church, but is not limited to it. The present day Capital C Church does not really accept II Thessalonians 2: 3-4,:Luke 13: 21, Matthew 24: 11, II Peter 2: 1-3, I Timothy 4: 1, II Timothy 3: 4-5, 7-8, and II Timothy 4: 3-4, that a falling away from sound doctrine is predicted and has happened,and so the Church could see Revelation 17: 18 also as applying only to the Catholic Church.

Saying that Babylon in Jeremiah 50 and 51 refers only to the literal Babylonian empire is an example of the literalist refusal to understand metaphoric language and to get the meanings of that language wrong. Jeremiah 50 and 51 does refer to physical, real Babylon which took Old Covenant Israel captive. But verses in those two chapters are also metaphoric in using Babylon.as the captivity or bondage that Old Covenant Israel is in at that time - to false doctrines and false practices. They were given over to that captivity to false doctrines, to metaphoric Babylon because of their sin. Jeremiah 51: 5 says they were not forsaken, and yet they were put in captivity for their sins, both literal captivity in real Babylon and captivity to a metaphorical thing also called Babylon, which was their false doctrines and practices.

God calls them out of Babylon in Jeremiah 51: 6, just like he calls those in the New Covenant timeline out of Babylon in Revelation 18: 4.

Jeremiah 51: 33 says the daughter of Babylon is like a threshing floor, and it is time to thresh her. This is not about being in literal captivity to a real empire called Babylon. It is about the separation of the wheat from the chaff, and also applies to the end times, when God is calling some out of the false doctrines of the Capital C Church, and the wheat is being separated from the chaff.

There is a verse in Revelation 18 that is a clue indicating that Babylon in that chapter refers to the people of the New Covenant. I quoted it above in the second comment on this thread..
 
Member
https://books.google.com/books?id=Ny...page&q&f=false

The above link is to a study on the relationship between denomination growth and extent to which the denominations follow a literal view of scripture. The denominations highest in literal interpretation of scripture were the Jehovah's Witnesses, United Pentecostals, Assemblies of God, Church of God, and Seventh Day Adventists.

The Seventh Day Adventists are not dispensationalists, but follow a literalist interpretation. The Southern Baptists are dispensationalists but are medium in ranking for use of literal interpretation. The Roman Catholics also rank in the middle on literalism.

The denominations lowest in literal interpretations are the United Presbyterians, United Methodists, and the Episcopal churches. These denominations have gone off into other roads to apostasy, different from the problems which result from a consistent literal interpretation of scripture.

here are big problems also in a more extreme allegorical interpretation of many Bible texts. Origen (184-253 A.D.) made use of broad allegory in interpreting Scripture, and
Augustine followed his lead, saying the thousand year reign of Christ in Revelation 20: 1-8 is an allegory of all the church age. Catholics and traditional Calvinists do the same and also say the 144,000 of Revelation 7 and 14 are merely the saved people of the entire church age.

Origen was part of the Alexandarian school of the 3rd century, and was influenced by Greek philosophy, especially Plato,and the Platonist Philio of Alexandria.

In Augustine's interpretation of metaphors, visions, and symbols in the Book of Revelation an event that is predicted to happen in the future is made into a broad sweeping timeless allegory. In the Book of Revelation there are many specific but difficult to understand metaphors, such as the serpents and lucust-scorpions of Chapter 9, or the two beasts of Revelation 13..

Origen claimed that the battle of Armageddon (Revelation 19:11-21), deals with the triumph of God over sin. This view is too abstract.

The battle of Armageddon in the end times is metaphoric, though this does not necessarily mean that there will be no literal battles in the Near East in the end times - during the tribulation. In the Gog and Magog war, similar to the battle of Armageddon, in Ezekiel 38 there is a clue which identifies who Gog - in the land of Magog - is. . "Thus saith the Lord GOD; Art thou he of whom I have spoken in old time by my servants the prophets of Israel, which prophesied in those days many years that I would bring thee against them?" Ezekiel 38: 17

Gog is to be brought against the prophets of Israel. This sounds like Gog represents false prophets, not a military force.

And since Ezekiel 38 - the Gog and Magog war - is taken to be a prophecy for the end times, then who are the prophets of Israel in the end times? OK, what Ezekiel 38: 17 says is that the prophets of Israel in the Old Testament, spoke of Gog, and the verse says God would bring Gog against those prophets. The prophets of Israel in the end times are not the same guys who wrote the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the minor prophets. Yet in the end times there must be people who God calls the prophets of Israel. Remember that in Revelation 12: 15-17, in
 
Member
I do not know Hebrew well enough to identify the meaning of a Hebrew word in Ezekiel 38: 17 translated as "them." The Hebrew-English Interlinear I looked at for this verse is not helpful in identifying the key Hebrew word. I see that the NIV follows the King James Version in using "them." Lets assume for a while that "them" may not mean the prophets of Old Covenant Israel, or the prophets existing in the Body of Christ in the end times, which would be the remnant. But what does "them" refer to?

First of all, we have to interpret Old Testament prophecy by the New Testament. Romans 9: 6 says "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel." This would not make much sense unless you understand Paul here as saying that there are those who are now of Israel who were not part of Old Covenant Israel by the bloodline. He goes father along this line of thought in Romans11: 1-5 where he says that God did not cast away all of his people (Old Covenant Israel), but that at the time he wrote in the First Century there was a remnant according to the election of grace. God changed Old Covenant Israel and began Israel again in that remnant from Old Covenant Israel. He broke off all of Old Covenant Israel who did not accept Christ (see: Romans 11: 17-20 on the breaking off of those who were in unbelief).

Then in I Corinthians 10: 18 Paul says "Behold, Israel after the flesh..." He is here identifying those of Old Covenant Israel who rejected Christ as being Israel according the the flesh, that is, physical Israel who are unbelieving. Then in Galatians 6: 16 Paul says "And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy,and upon the Israel of God." There is, he is saying, an Israel which is Israel of the flesh and another Israel which is of God. The Israel of God is the Body of Christ, all the elect, all the born again, also called the saints. But in agreement with John 10: 16, Romans 12: 4-5 and Ephesians 4: 4 there is one Body of Christ, not two. There is only one Israel after Christ changed Israel, and this is the Israel of God. Paul only appears to be saying there are two Israels, when he is just trying to explain that Israel was remade in that remnant in Romans 11: 5.

Ephesians 2: 11-19 affirms this in saying that in the past the Gentiles, the peoples, the nations - except Old Covenant Israel - were alienated from Israel (verses 11-12), but are made close (verse 13) by the blood of Christ. To what are the Gentiles made close to? It has to be Israel.

Ezekiel 38 is taken to be a prophecy for the end times.

Who then is "them" in Ezekiel 38: 17? Who is Israel in Ezekiel 38: 8, where it says "thou," meaning Gog and Magog, are gathered against the mountains of Israel? Those who now live in the Little Horn (Daniel 7: 8) nation called Israel are predominantly not the Israel of God, but instead follow those of Old Covenant Israel who rejected Christ and were broken off; they are Israel after the flesh.

The Israel of God is scattered all over the world in the end times. But that Israel of God has enemies who threaten the Israel of God because the Israel of God has the testimony of Jesus Christ (Revelation 12: 17), while the serpent-dragon casts a flood of lies (false doctrines) out of the mouths of the false prophets and makes war (not literal in the important spiritual sense, but may be literal war also for some). But the Body of Christ who have his testimony will not be defeated by their enemies.
 
Member

DHC

Hello Tulsa.

You posted the following information.

Then in Galatians 6: 16 Paul says "And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy,
and upon the Israel of God." There is, he is saying, an Israel which is Israel of the flesh and another Israel which is of God.
The Israel of God is the Body of Christ, all the elect, all the born again, also called the saints.
If you read the quotation that you cited below carefully Tulsa.

Galatians 6
16 And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

There is a conjunction in this quotation Tulsa, here is the conjunction 'and' highlighted in red above. This use
by Paul of the conjunction, means that Paul is referring to two groups in this sentence. The first group is those
'who will walk by this rule' and the second group is 'the Israel of God'.

Why do you ignore the conjunction in this quotation Tulsa?
 
Active
Galatians 6
16 And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

There is a conjunction in this quotation Tulsa, here is the conjunction 'and' highlighted in red above. This use
by Paul of the conjunction, means that Paul is referring to two groups in this sentence. The first group is those
'who will walk by this rule' and the second group is 'the Israel of God'.

Why do you ignore the conjunction in this quotation Tulsa?
The Israel of God is definitely a reference to the corporate body of Christ, believers of all various physical descendants. There does not seem to be an issue with this. It is naturally understood from the context and from Paul's writings.

Blessings to you,

Travis
 
Member

DHC

The Israel of God is definitely a reference to the corporate body of Christ, believers of all various physical descendants. There does not seem to be an issue with this. It is naturally understood from the context and from Paul's writings.

Blessings to you,

Travis
Hello Travis.

Thanks for the reply.

Do you have some verses to support this claim of yours.
 
Active
A little more:

Part of the argument leading up to this by Paul is helpful:

Galatians 4
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he [who was] of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman [was] by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

27 For it is written, Rejoice, [thou] barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him [that was born] after the Spirit, even so [it is] now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.


Notice the reference to Jerusalem. Two Jerusalem's are referenced, one is earthly and by nature in bondage, the other is spiritual, and is the mother of all who believe. This is parallel with what Paul states later about the Israel of God.

All who have been baptized into Christ (by the Holy Spirit) are the children of God:

Galatians 3
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

The Israel of God is made up of all who have repented and believed on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Blessings,

Travis
 
Member
That there is an Israel of God is consistent with what Paul says in several other places. I listed some of these texts above. First, the remnant in Romans 11: 5 is the Israel of God, and the beginning of it. Paul says in Romans 9: 6, "they are not all Israel which are of Israel." You can read this as saying there are some who are of the Israel of God who were not of Old Covenant Israel., and/or that not all who were of Old Covenant Israel became the Israel of God. The cutting off of those in unbelief and the remnant which began the Israel of God implies that those of Old Covenant Israel who were cut off were the multitude. The Gentiles who were formerly alienated from Israel but are made close by the blood of Christ are the Israel of God, as opposed to Israel of the flesh.

When someone argues with a set of scriptures which are consistent together, he is arguing against the doctrines of Christ.
Dispensationalism cannot accept this set of scriptures - Romans 9: 6, Romans 11: 1-5, Romans 11: 17-20, I Corinthians 10; 18, Ephesians 2: 11-19, John 10: 16, Romans 12; 4-5. Ephesians 4: 4 and Galatians 3: 3, 3,16, 26-29. The agreement among these texts contradicts the foundations of dispensationalism, that God now has two peoples, Old Covenant Israel and the Capital C Church, that the multitude of Old Covenant Israel are still the chosen people by virtue of their bloodline, and that a consistent literal method of interpretation must be used. Dispensationalism also rejects the remnant and cannot accept that the falling away from sound doctrine predicted in several texts has already happened to the church. It cannot accept the teaching from Jeremiah 18, supported by Romans 9: 21-22, that Christ remade Old Covenant Israel.

Pointing to the "and" in Galatians 6: 16 does not shoot down all these scriptures. If it did it appear to do so,it would be a sleight of hand trick. To make use of "and" as an argument that this verse is not about an Israel of God which includes people born again in Christ who were not of the bloodline from Abraham, it would have to be shown that "as many as walk according to this rule" refers to Gentiles somehow and that the Israel of God refers only to Jews. But the verse before this verse says "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature." The new creature in Christ is the rule he is talking about in verse 16. This is the same as saying they are the Israel of God. In addition, any separation of born again Gentile from born again Jew is contrary to scripture in Romans 10: 12 and Galatians 3: 28.

I have heard the dispensationalist agrument that in Galatians 6: 16 only the born again Jews are the Israel of God, and those who walk according to this rule are somehow the Gentiles. This argument does not work
 
Member

DHC

A little more:

Part of the argument leading up to this by Paul is helpful:

Galatians 4
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he [who was] of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman [was] by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

27 For it is written, Rejoice, [thou] barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him [that was born] after the Spirit, even so [it is] now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.


Notice the reference to Jerusalem. Two Jerusalem's are referenced, one is earthly and by nature in bondage, the other is spiritual, and is the mother of all who believe. This is parallel with what Paul states later about the Israel of God.

All who have been baptized into Christ (by the Holy Spirit) are the children of God:

Galatians 3
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

The Israel of God is made up of all who have repented and believed on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Blessings,

Travis
Hello Travis.

Yes I agree with you, Paul is definitely using that phrase 'Israel of God' to refer to, the collective believers in Christ.
 
Member
Travis is right, that Galatians 4: 22-26 leads up to Paul's statement in Galatians 6: 16, where he talks about the Israel of God. Just as Paul teaches in Romans 9: 6 that "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel," meaning that not all who are Israel born again in Christ are of Old Covenant Israel and that not all of Old Covenant Israel became born again Israel, so Paul is saying in Galatians 4: 22-26 that there is an Israel which now is and is in bondage to her children and an Israel which is above, is free and is the spiritual mother of us all. But the literalist might have trouble seeing that Jerusalem there means Israel. And some claim that Paul in Galatians 22-26 is not talking about Israel but just about two covenants. He is talking about the two covenants, but also about an Israel of the flesh which is in bondage to the flesh and the Old Covenant and an Israel which is above, is free and is the spiritual mother of all who are the Israel of God. And that mother who is the "mother of us all," as Paul writes, is a good candidate for the woman in Revelation 12 whose seed in Revelation 12: 17 is the remnant who have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
 
Member

DHC

That there is an Israel of God is consistent with what Paul says in several other places. I listed some of these texts above. First, the remnant in Romans 11: 5 is the Israel of God, and the beginning of it. Paul says in Romans 9: 6, "they are not all Israel which are of Israel." You can read this as saying there are some who are of the Israel of God who were not of Old Covenant Israel., and/or that not all who were of Old Covenant Israel became the Israel of God. The cutting off of those in unbelief and the remnant which began the Israel of God implies that those of Old Covenant Israel who were cut off were the multitude. The Gentiles who were formerly alienated from Israel but are made close by the blood of Christ are the Israel of God, as opposed to Israel of the flesh.

When someone argues with a set of scriptures which are consistent together, he is arguing against the doctrines of Christ.
Dispensationalism cannot accept this set of scriptures - Romans 9: 6, Romans 11: 1-5, Romans 11: 17-20, I Corinthians 10; 18, Ephesians 2: 11-19, John 10: 16, Romans 12; 4-5. Ephesians 4: 4 and Galatians 3: 3, 3,16, 26-29. The agreement among these texts contradicts the foundations of dispensationalism, that God now has two peoples, Old Covenant Israel and the Capital C Church, that the multitude of Old Covenant Israel are still the chosen people by virtue of their bloodline, and that a consistent literal method of interpretation must be used. Dispensationalism also rejects the remnant and cannot accept that the falling away from sound doctrine predicted in several texts has already happened to the church. It cannot accept the teaching from Jeremiah 18, supported by Romans 9: 21-22, that Christ remade Old Covenant Israel.

Pointing to the "and" in Galatians 6: 16 does not shoot down all these scriptures. If it did it appear to do so,it would be a sleight of hand trick. To make use of "and" as an argument that this verse is not about an Israel of God which includes people born again in Christ who were not of the bloodline from Abraham, it would have to be shown that "as many as walk according to this rule" refers to Gentiles somehow and that the Israel of God refers only to Jews. But the verse before this verse says "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature." The new creature in Christ is the rule he is talking about in verse 16. This is the same as saying they are the Israel of God. In addition, any separation of born again Gentile from born again Jew is contrary to scripture in Romans 10: 12 and Galatians 3: 28.

I have heard the dispensationalist agrument that in Galatians 6: 16 only the born again Jews are the Israel of God, and those who walk according to this rule are somehow the Gentiles. This argument does not work
Hello Tulsa.

I am interested in how you read the quotation (Romans 11:1-5) that you cited above.
 
Member
I have seen dispensationalists pull verses 1 and 2 out of Romans 11:1-5 and claim these verses prove that Old Covenant Israel was not done away with. But Romans 11: 1-5 should be read as one text on the remnant of Old Covenant Israel brought into whatever you want to call it, the Israel of God, Israel born again in Christ, or the Body of Christ. In verses 3-4 Paul gets into the remnant of Old Covenant Israel in citing I Kings 19:14-18, where Elijah said to God that he, Elijah, was the only faithful one left, but God told him that he had seven thousand who had not bowed their knees to Baal. This seven thousand was the remnant then. Then in verse 5 Paul states that at that time there was a remnant according to the election of grace. This is the remnant of Old Covenant Israel in which God began his plan of redemption again. But this was not just a restoration of the Old Covenant as happened when Zerubbabel, Nehemiah and Ezra led a remnant back to Jerusalem from the captivity in Babylon to rebuild the wall and the temple and restore Old Covenant Israel. The remnant Paul refers to in Romans 11: 5 was the remnant which were the beginnings of a spiritual transformation of Israel. Hosea 2: 23 predicts the Gentiles would be brought into Israel and Haggai 2: 9 says "The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former....." Where is this in dispensationalism?
 

Similar threads


Top