Prophecies, are they conditional? Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Adventist of Tomorrow » Doctrinal Discussions » Prophecy, End Time Events » Prophecies, are they conditional? « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
Archive through January 31, 2002Maggie Bockmann1-31-02  1:47 am
Archive through January 31, 2002Elaine Nelson1-31-02  8:14 pm
Archive through October 15, 2002Lynn Smith18 10-15-02  9:44 pm
Archive through October 17, 2002Bill Scott13 10-17-02  9:56 am
Archive through October 18, 2002U.Unruh13 10-18-02  2:44 pm
Archive through October 20, 2002U.Unruh13 10-20-02  7:41 pm
Archive through October 21, 2002U.Unruh13 10-21-02  3:30 pm
Archive through October 22, 2002U.Unruh13 10-22-02  1:57 pm
Archive through October 23, 2002Lynn Smith13 10-23-02  12:07 am
Archive through October 24, 2002Jodi Thiessen13 10-24-02  8:20 pm
  ClosedClosed: New threads not accepted on this page        

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

U.Unruh (Ulrike)
Posted on Friday, October 25, 2002 - 1:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Romans 11

My comments on Romans 11 and the TREE OF ISRAEL
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bill Scott (Loneviking)
Posted on Saturday, October 26, 2002 - 10:02 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The problem though, in this thread, is that SDA's refuse to recognize the duality of both the New Covenant and Prophecy.

Romans 11 has very little to do with showing to whom (or who with)the New Covenant was made. Remember that, according to Hebrews, a covenant is an exchange of promises. Once the individual or individuals that made the promise dies--the covenant cannot be changed.

Who was the Old Covenant made with? Israel--go look at Exodus chap. 26. Chap. 20 starts the recitation of the terms of the covenant. Then, around chap. 26, the recitation concludes with the Jews saying 'All that the Lord has said we will do'---and then sealing the covenant with animal sacrifices.

Now, between whom were promises exchanged to bring in the New Covenant? The short answer is between God the Father and God the Son! That's why there is such surety in the New Covenant---man is NOT involved.

As for Gentiles being 'grafted in'---wrong again. One of the principles of good hermaneutics is to go from what is clear to what is obscure--and let the clear statements interpret the obscure. As can be seen from this discussion, Romans 11 is not all that clear. However, Colossians is clear where it says that Christ 'nailed the ordinances to the cross, creating in Himself a new person'. That statement absolutely kills any attempt to make Gentiles part of the Jewish heritage.

Finally, observe what the Old Covenant is---it was about the 'Law'....it was not about prophecies. Remember that God gave Abraham a promise in the form of a prophecy which said that 'your descendants shall be as the sand of the sea, and many nations will call you blessed'. AFTER this came the Old Covenant---did that wreck this prophecy/promise? Not according to Paul--who says in Galatians that as Gentiles we are heirs to this promise and that the New Covenant is the fulfillment of this promise.

The Old Covenant had NOTHING to do (as far as subject matter) with the prophecies of Ezekial, Daniel, Jeremiah etc.. Those prophecies are able to stand on their own DESPITE the appearance of another covenant, just as the prophecy/promise of Abraham was still sure despite the appearance of the covenant on Sinai. The reason is that prophecy and covenant are two seperate things.

Christians are NOT grafted into a Jewish tree. We are part of a new person consisting of both Jews and Gentiles. The Jew's as a people continued on as a seperate people, and so did the prophecies concerning them, just as Abraham did. Those prophecies are beginning to be fulfilled today...........

Bill S.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

U.Unruh (Ulrike)
Posted on Saturday, October 26, 2002 - 3:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bill wrote: Now, between whom were promises exchanged to bring in the New Covenant? The short answer is between God the Father and God the Son! --man is NOT involved.
Well Jodi also tried to tell me the (House of Israel) here is really just Christ, and not the people.

Where do you read that?

Sure Christ is the SEED, the true Israel, BUT the children of ISRAEL are His followers. The HOUSE OF ISRAEL, are the "fellow heirs" who are WITH CHRIST.

And the BIBLE plainly reads that God makes this NEW COVENANT with people who are THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL.

You choose the RIGHT READING in each paranthesied part() in this passage. I have underlined my choice, while Bill and Jodi maintain the other version.


HEBREWS CHAPTER EIGHT.

I [God the Father, OR Christ as ONE with God,] will make a new covenant with the house of Israel [which Bill and Jodi say is Christ, OR is it actually Christ's followers] and with the house of Judah [Christ, OR is it Jewish believers in Christ]:
8.9
Not according to the covenant that I [God the Father apart from Christ, OR Jesus Christ as ONE with God]
made with their fathers[Jesus, OR their ancestors, the word "THEIR" refers back to "the house of Israel]
in the day when I took them [Jesus, OR their ancestors, the word "THEM" refers back to the "house of Israel"
by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they [Jesus, OR their ancestors], the word "they" refers back to the "house of Israel"
continued not in my [Christ's as ONE with the Father] or the Father's covenant apart from Christ]
covenant with them, and I regarded them not,[the old covenant with the house of Israel is BROKEN, OR the old covenant will continue will continue with literal Israel saith the Lord.
8.10
For this is the covenant that I [{God the Father, OR Jesus Christ]will make with the house of Israel [Jesus Christ, OR Christ's followers] after those days, saith the Lord; I [{God the Father, OR Jesus Christ] will put my laws into their [Jesus', OR Christ's followers' "THEIR" refers back to the "house of Israel"] mind, and write them in their [Jesus', Christ's followers'] hearts: and I will be to them [Jesus, OR Christ's followers] a God, and they [Jesus, Christ's followers, THEY refers back to the "house of Israel"] shall be to me a people [Jesus, OR Christ's followers will God's people] :
for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
8.12
For I will be merciful to their
[Jesus,OR Christ's followersTHEIR refers back to the "house of Israel"] unrighteousness, and their [Jesus, OR Christ's followers] sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
8.13
In that he says, A new covenant, he has made the first old. Now that which decays and waxes old is ready to vanish away.
[is it as Bill says that God's moral law is gone BUT the old covenant remains for Israel,OR is it that the old system of ceremonies, purification rituals, temples and sacrifices for cleansing from sin is GONE forever, and God's moral law is to be written upon the heart.]


--------------------------

In Daniel 9 it is CHRIST who confirms the covenant with the house of Israel. Not some future "anti-christ" whose "covenant" is ropes of sand.

In Romans 11:26-27
The Deliever that comes from ZION to make a covenant with them, and turn away ungodliness, and take away their IS CHRIST--
and Hebrews eight is SPEAKING OF THAT SAME EVENT.
It's not something in the future-- It was established at the cross.

Romans 11 with it's tree and branches is NOT VAGUE at all--
see Romans 11 and the Tree of Israel
It's only vague when one wants to make it say something it doesn't say.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

U.Unruh (Ulrike)
Posted on Sunday, October 27, 2002 - 1:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The promises are SURE--

BUT who receives them is CONDITIONAL

The promises will be to "new covenant" house of Israel,
old covenant Israel as a nation did not meet the conditions

The promises do NOT now continue under the "abolished" old covenant.
but will be received by "spiritual" Israel as outlined in Romans 11. (See above link)

The old covenant is not God's commandments, but the PROVISION which was made to "forgive" those who were in sin (breaking the ten commandments) and to stablish them in righteousness (following God's commandments.)

The new covenant is not God's commandments, but the PROVISION which was made to "forgive" those who were in sin (breaking the ten commandments) and to establish them in righteousness (following God's commandments)

Actually both covenants are "phases" (not opposites) of the "everlasting covenant-- and both are based on Christ.

The saints WILL inhabit the earth and Jerusalem WILL be the center BUT it will be the NEW JERUSALEM come down from heaven, and the NEW EARTH, completely cleansed and made new-- At the end of the 1000 years.

"My kingdom is not of THIS world," Jesus said.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

U.Unruh (Ulrike)
Posted on Monday, October 28, 2002 - 12:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bill wrote--As for Gentiles being 'grafted in'---wrong again.
One must do major linquistic jumps to support the above statement.
"The breaking off of natural branches is followed by the grafting in of the wild shoots AMONG THEM-- (among who?) Among the "election of grace" (the believing Jews who weren't broken off)

and verse 24, the unbeliving Jews can be "grafted in" again to THEIR OWN TREE.

Thus the TRUE TREE OF ISRAEL (House of Israel) are those who accepted Christ, the one promised throughout all of the Old Testament. They will receive the promises.

There are NOT TWO different salvation 'tracks' (on this side of the cross) one for the believing remnant and believing Gentiles, and another track for historical Israel which relies on God's old covenant with them. That cannot be supported by scripture-- for God has made them ONE, breaking down the wall (the rules that Gentiles could not be part of the "common-wealth" of Israel) and made them all ONE.
tree_israel
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Elaine Nelson (Elaine)
Posted on Monday, October 28, 2002 - 7:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I live surrounded by olive orchards. I have never known (although it could be) of olives being grafted. They are extremely long-lived, some I've seen in Israel which are extremely old. The older they are, the knobbier the trunk.

How that relates to the point you are making is not intended!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lynn Smith (Lynnx)
Posted on Monday, October 28, 2002 - 11:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The OT speaks of a new covenant God will make with Israel. (i.e. Jer. 31) God will put his law in their inward parts *AND* write it in their hearts. (Any thoughts on a distinction there, or was the author basically saying the same thing twice?)

A covenant is an agreement between two people, or two nations or in this case between God and a group of people. It implies that both sides will live up to certain conditions in order for the covenant to remain in effect.

In the first covenant between God and Israel, the deal was that they were to worship him exclusively, and keep his laws, and in return he would protect and bless them, give them land, long life, etc.

What is the nature of the second covenant? What was God's part and what was Israel's part to be? Was it really just that animals would no longer need to be sacrificed after Jesus died, but everything else would stay the same? Is that what you believe, Ulrike, or did I miss something?

Under the new covenant, (which Ez. 36 made clear was *not for their sakes* but for God's holy name's sake) it seems that God was pledging to take more of the responsibility. "You really botched your side of it under the old covenant, so under this new one I'm going to write the law in your heart so you will WANT to do it."
He also said in Jer. 31 that the seed of Israel would never cease from being a nation before him forever -- or until the ordinances of the sun, moon, etc., departed from before him. Does every one agree that Israel, at least the part of it that has become Christian, can be considered "a nation before God"?

Was Jesus Christ in conflict with this promise when he (allegedly) said to Israel, "Your house is left unto you desolate" ? If the promise was still in effect, wouldn't the analogy be that some people left the house, and some Gentiles were adopted in to take their places?

So what exactly was to be Israel's part in this new covenant? Saying it was not to be "for their sake", sounds like it would not be due to anything they had decided to do differently -- any more successful law-keeping, etc.

I know the official Christian, at least the official SDA position, is that Israel was blamed and rejected for failing to recognize Jesus and because it is only through Jesus that the law can be written on a person's heart, they forfeited that part of the promise, too.

It just seems sort of strange and illogical. They weren't able to keep the first covenant because of their sinful natures. They weren't able to recognize and accept Jesus because of their sinful natures. I thought God had said he was going to do something new and different for them and never reject them?

I know some would say: He DID do some thing new and different for a remnant who accepted Jesus, and so the promise was fulfilled for them. But it was always true that there was a remnant of Israel who kept the faith, under the old covenant, too. So that isn't really anything new and different, is it, except for the part about there being no more need for animal sacrifices?

I'm sorry for asking too many questions in one post, and in such a haphazard manner. I'm not very good at making things clear. Please just let me know if you have thoughts in response to any of the questions.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bill Scott (Loneviking)
Posted on Tuesday, October 29, 2002 - 9:17 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ulrike, I really doubt that you read most of what I write. I have said repeatedly that the Old Covenant is dead, and that a new temple has nothing to do with a seperate track of salvation; having any meaning under the Old Covenant----and that the only meaning is for prophecy. Is that clear enough for you? Why do you keep flogging an issue that I am, at least for the most part, in agreement with you?

Where I disagree is with your idea of WHAT the Gentiles were grafted into. Remember the analogy in Galatians of two covenants proceeding from Abraham? There is your answer! This all goes back to Abraham. The 'New Covenant' is based on the promise to Abraham that 'in you all nations will be blessed'--among other things. Note Hebrews 6:13-15....when God made that promise with Abraham He swore by Himself as there is no greater. THAT is why I say that the New Covenant is a promise between God and God. That is a big difference from the Old Covenant. Read on in vs. 15-20 to see other differences.

I have to run off to work, but I'll write more later..........
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lynn Smith (Lynnx)
Posted on Tuesday, October 29, 2002 - 11:25 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

HEy! Bill, I somehow missed that one post on this thread where you
very clearly answered those questions I asked about what the promises
of the new covenant were, that were different from the old, and whom
they were made between. I've been thinking about asking that for at least a week and hadn't gotten around to it yet. Quite amazing. So
thanks for the answers, which you gave even before I asked.

Now that I'm clear on that, it seems even more clear that, as I was
starting to think might be possible -- that the Bible does prophesy
that at some point Israel as a people may be converted en masse.
(Not trying to say every single person, but every true believer in God.)
That God, for his own reasons, may deliberately be keeping the veil over their eyes now for now.

Otherwise, it would seem odd that so few of a God-fearing people would
reject light and truth, while a bunch of other people who hadn't believed in God previously would recognize it. If we were dealing in
odds, or statistics, it would seem very strange, indeed -- wouldn't it? It would mean the Jewish people as human beings are unusually stony-hearted and spirutually blind and dull of understanding compared to other people in the world, which I don't think is true.

Ulrike, I don't agree that Romans 11:26- 27 - is referring to the new covenant with Israel that was instituted in Christ in the past tense, which most of Israel rejected. I think it may be referring to a future event. Paul is saying until the fulness of the Gentiles come in. THEN all Israel shall be saved.

" blindness in part happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved, as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.... Even so have they not believed that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. yet now have ye ob tained mercy THROUGH THEIR UNBELIEF ... For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all."

One more thing that the Bible clearly teaches that SDAs tend to discount because Ellen White didn't prophesy about it as part of the scenario for the last days.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lynn Smith (Lynnx)
Posted on Tuesday, October 29, 2002 - 11:46 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Maybe when Jesus said "Your house is left unto you desolate"
He was speaking directly to the Jewish leaders who, for
selfish reasons had taken what was supposed to be GOD's house,
and made it THEIR house.

They had taken God's glory, which was
supposed, through them, to draw all peoples of the world to him.
They had instead taken God's glory as their glory, to set them up above everyone else and make salvation exclusively theirs, for their
financial benefit, etc.

So Jesus may have been saying specifically to the Jewish leaders, and those who allowed them to be their authority for spiritual truth --
YOUR house is left unto you desolate. (In other words, I'm moving out of this temple that was meant to be my house, but you've made it your own.)I'm building another one for true believers.

I think this is different from the analogy of the spiritual tree, of which God is the root and all true believers in him are the branches.

There are lots of trees that God has planted in the world, IMO, as a way for true believers to abide and grow in him.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bill Scott (Loneviking)
Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 11:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Lynne, your post made me smile! Yes, there is a veil over the eyes of the Jews. 2 Cor. 3:14-16 clearly says that there is a veil upon the heart of the Jews when the Old Testament is read. Vs. 16 says 'nevertheless, when they shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away'. Remember that text that Ulrike loves to quote about 'I will write upon their hearts a new covenant...etc'? That is a yet future covenant with the Jews. The writers of the Old Testament never referred to the future New Testament church and the bringing in of the Gentiles in that way. The Gentiles are referred to a 'not of the house of Isreal' and phrases of that sort.

Anyway, it always makes me glad to see somebody finally realizing that the Bible says what it means and that the Word can be trusted.
May you continue to be blessed in your study.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lynn Smith (Lynnx)
Posted on Thursday, October 31, 2002 - 6:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bill, I believe God can be trusted but not that the Bible is
word for word his "Word".

Re prophecy --some of them do seem to have come true in amazing ways, others don't seem to have come true at all, and some are contradictory to others -- like the 3 different prophecies of Ezekiel, Jeremiah and Isaiah about what would happen to the city of Tyre.

Re what it says about the veil that's still over the hearts of Israel -- do you think most Christians believe Israel will be converted in the latter days, or do many of them agree with SDAs on that one?

I'm still trying to sort out what I can really and truly believe from what I once really and truly believed but now know can't be true.

I remember when it was so clear that other churches were misled by Satan and putting their own "spin" on certain verses because they had apostasized and were part of "Babylon". How powerful indoctrination can be.

May God bless you, also, in your Bible study and continuing relationship with him.

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration