Will Ezekiel's Temple be built in Israel?

[Stephen]

This thread split off from the Ezekiel's Temple is the Word of God which deals with the symbolic aspect of the Temple and its relation to the Bible Wheel.

Here we will wrestle with the question of whether or not the Temple is meant to be interpreted "literally", the meaning of the Levitical priesthood in Ezekiel 40-48, whether or not the sacrifices will be reintroduced, and other such matters.

RAM

Stephen's post begins below:

================================

Hi folks!

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar".

Why not just accept the plain text, in all its explicit detail? God said there's going to be a new temple in the Holy Land. God said the land is going to be divided amongst the 12 tribes of Israel. Real tribes of real people. God said sacrifice is going to be reinstituted. And guess what? Death is still going to be around, too, when all this is happening.

I think you guys are working way too hard to try and make this fit your own understanding of Scripture. To my mind, it's not the plain text that needs to be adjusted to fit a belief system. It's the other way around. The belief system needs some major overhauling. The deep questions need to be confronted, not sidestepped through claiming everything is a type that needs some dodgy decoding. Things we thought we knew need some serious review, and, where appropriate, need to be discarded.

Yesterday, I posed a question regarding God's new temple from Ezekiel's book. At the time, I had never thought to go looking for an answer myself. Between now and then I did a yahoo search. The first two websites I met came up with answers to my important questions as a Christian. They make a lot more sense to me than this wishy-washy 'spiritualising' caper that attempts to subsume everything into the church. There was a time before the church, and there is going to be a time after the church. We are part of that process, but we are not the be-all and end-all. That's what my whole Bible tells me.

http://www.sonstoglory.com/ThirdTemp...nialTemple.htm
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/proph/templemi.htm

Come on, folks! Please, stop tinting everything through the lens of the church. The explanations that emanate from that viewpoint need so much qualifying that they are, to my mind, untenable, to put it politely. God's salvation plan is a lot bigger than that.

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar!"

Stephen

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi folks!

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar".

Hey Stephen,

Good line! But you know why Freud had to say it. He had a wicked cigar habit and the Freudian implica ...

But your point is well taken.

Why not just accept the plain text, in all its explicit detail?

God said there's going to be a new temple in the Holy Land.

I couldn't find a verse that where God says their is going to be a new temple in the Holy land. Indeed, the vision starts out without a single statement about anything being built. But then we do find this:

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

I never noticed that before. It certainly puts some weight on your side of the scales.

But I can't "just accept the plain text" here if it contradicts the plain text there. In other words, a proper understanding of Scripture will have to make sense overall, on a grand scale, and the idea of a Temple with sacrifices that sound just like what was going on when Jesus first came makes no sense at all in light of the whole Bible.

God said the land is going to be divided amongst the 12 tribes of Israel. Real tribes of real people. God said sacrifice is going to be reinstituted. And guess what? Death is still going to be around, too, when all this is happening.

But Christ is the ONLY sacrifice for sin!

KJV Hebrews 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

Hebrews 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

It seems like a horrible backwards movement, completely out of harmony with the entire message of Scripture, to suggest that they will go back to types and shadows.

I think you guys are working way too hard to try and make this fit your own understanding of Scripture. To my mind, it's not the plain text that needs to be adjusted to fit a belief system. It's the other way around. The belief system needs some major overhauling. The deep questions need to be confronted, not sidestepped through claiming everything is a type that needs some dodgy decoding. Things we thought we knew need some serious review, and, where appropriate, need to be discarded.

I highlighted your sentiment because I agree with it. Except the idea that our purpose has been dogdy decoding. It is God who established and taught us typology. Christ was typified by the Passover Lamb. It seems impossible that God Himself would ever have his people return to slaughtering lambs. It just doesn't fit with the message of the whole Bible. No dodge here. I'm talking about the plain sense of the plain text.

And that's why your question about Ezekiel's Temple is "curly" as you put it in the other post. You know we aren't just dodging when we have trouble accepting the literal meaning of this vision.

Yesterday, I posed a question regarding God's new temple from Ezekiel's book. At the time, I had never thought to go looking for an answer myself. Between now and then I did a yahoo search. The first two websites I met came up with answers to my important questions as a Christian. They make a lot more sense to me than this wishy-washy 'spiritualising' caper that attempts to subsume everything into the church.

Them thars strong words, pa'dner. They don't rile me none, but they could ruffle the feathers of some of our more genteel members.

Now we still have a lot of work to do with that whole "replacement theology" thang which does not seem well defined because you yourself admit that Paul refers to the Church as Israel. So I really don't know what you are getting at when you complain about "attempts to subsume everything into the church" since that's exactly what Paul did!

Ephesians 1:20-23 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, 21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: 22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, 23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

The church is heir of the world because only those in the house of faith are sons of Abraham:

Romans 4:13 13 ¶ For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

It is my contention that True Israel was transformed into the church when Christ came. If you were a physical son of Abraham at the time of Christ, and you rejected the Lord, your spiritual state was no different than any other unbeliever. There is no Jew or Gentile in Christ. The wall of separation has been abolished in his flesh by the cross. Its done. I am guessing we still need to hash this one out. Its amazing how interconnected theology really is. Joel and I found that we had to discuss the rapture before we could sort out the Body vs. Bride thing, and now you and I find that we need to sort out the basic relation between the Church and Israel before we can sort out this thing Ezekiel's Temple.

There was a time before the church, and there is going to be a time after the church.

That is a point of major disagreement. I believe the Church will endure until Christ returns.

We are part of that process, but we are not the be-all and end-all. That's what my whole Bible tells me.

http://www.sonstoglory.com/ThirdTemp...nialTemple.htm
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/proph/templemi.htm

I own the Sons to Glory book, and I have his picture of Ezekiel's Temple on page 180 of the Bible Wheel book. He's a great guy. I'll invite him over to the forum, so maybe he can straighten us all out!

What part of his material did you think applies to the question at hand, and how?

Come on, folks! Please, stop tinting everything through the lens of the church.

That's not fair Stephen. We have not yet come close to settling the "replacement theology" issue, so its not like we are obstinately "tinting everything through the lens of the church." We believe that's exactly what the Bible teaches, and we are only trying to be faithful and true to the Word of God.

I understand you are frustrated. I hope "blowing off" a little steam in this thread helped. And I really hope you know that I hear you, but my beliefs are based on a very large and profoundly coherent image of the message of the whole Bible so I can't randomly change one part without another part changing into something else since everything is interconnected and so we have to discuss the whole Bible at once and that aint no task for the faint-hearted! Or the impatient!

The explanations that emanate from that viewpoint need so much qualifying that they are, to my mind, untenable, to put it politely. God's salvation plan is a lot bigger than that.

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar!"

Stephen

And sometimes its not! Just ask Bill Clinton.


But seriously, that was a great post Stephen! Very challenging. I look forward to working this out with you and our friends .. I know I have a lot to learn about Ezek 40-48.

Thanks!

[Stephen]

Hi Richard,

Yeah, sorry about that straight-shooting talk. When I was out in the city this morning, I was thinking it was really a bit over the top. Someone with the opposite viewpoint to me would be equally justified in throwing my own comments right back at me. By the time I got home and switched on the computer to edit the message before anyone read it, I discovered you'd beaten me there. Like the Freudian retort.

Believe me, I do understand where you're coming from, too. That's why I hear you when you give me a jab in the ribs for being ungracious. Like you, I get the feist rising up in me on occasion, and need to learn that it has its place. This forum is not a place for my feist. So I apologise for that, and take back all unnecessary jibes.

In regards to the physical Israel thing that Ive been pushing, I was lucky enough to hear that message within the first year of my coming to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, so I didn't have decades of stuff to break down before assimilating it. Oddly enough, it was one of the articles of faith of the fellowship I attended in NZ at the time. Even odder, they hardly ever spoke about it! Why have an article of faith if you're not going to teach it Anyway, I went asking about it. I still strongly resisted the teaching for the first two years, and only gradually came around. Now, as you can tell, I swear by its veracity ... though admit that it does not impact upon our personal salvation with our Lord. Because of this, I know it is NOT a major issue. However, without this knowledge, the greatness of the OT message is muffled and out of focus.

Regarding the issue of the church remaining until Christ returns, I think you'll find that we are actually in perfect agreement. My position on this also seems to be similar to that taken by Joel, although, like yourself, I don't believe in the rapture followed by a great tribulation of 7 years, or however long it is said to be. The point I wished to make was that there will be a time when the church will have fulfilled its present purpose, and that time will coincide with the Lord's return. Only after that event will we see another phase ushered in in the great salvation plan of God. Very exciting stuff!

A huge part of God's plan for the post-Church age revolves around physical Israel. Physical Israel (of which the Jews are only a small part) has already been pretty much reconstituted, but as yet she hasn't consciously stepped up to her calling. But she will. In fact, she is already unconsciously fulfilling her role (which is basically the same role she was given at Mount Sinai: to make God's name known among the nations). Watch out world when Israel wakes up to who she is! Israel WILL snap out of her blindness one day. Like Joel, that's what I understand Paul's conclusion to be at the end of his lengthy Israel discourse covering Romans, chapters 9 to 11. The church has been grafted in to this great calling. God didn't hack down the olive tree. He didn't plant a new one and call it the church. He grafted the church into the existing olive tree from which some of the branches had been broken off (NB: Great Seal imagery yet again, the olive branch; America is the most important part of physical Israel today). That olive tree is Israel. From my reading, Paul upbraids those in the church who see themselves as replacing Israel: "Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee" (Romans 11:18). The error seems to be that the grafted in branch has mistaken itself as being the entire olive tree!

Paul then goes on to teach us that (physical) Israel will remain blind until some unspecified time, probably the return of the Lord Jesus, when God will have mercy on them. He will justify His grace toward them by citing us, the church, as an example of His graciousness (Romans 11:25-32). So we had better not complain at God's graciousness to them when this time comes (physical Israel as a type of the prodigal son). Note, too, Paul is not referring to the church when he uses the word Israel in these particular verses. The church is clearly only a part of Israel.

I don't have all the answers in regard to my position. I'm also learning as I go. I see no conflict in the position I hold. God's Israel always, and preeminently, included a physical element. The church supplements this, being very much a spiritual element. But not at the expense of the physical. That's why I liked what I read in the two links I sent you. They bridge the transition between the Church age and the post-Church age (or Millennial age). They give some really good scriptural cross-references for a new temple and the reinstitution of animal sacrifice, grounding the latter in faith: it is the faith behind the act that makes it righteous rather than the actual animal sacrificed. It retrospectively acknowledges the work of the King, Jesus. It does it in a physical way, because this next phase of God's plan is post-Church, and serves a different purpose (the details of which are for another thread and another time). I enjoy the challenge this interpretation brings to my understanding, probably because it fits easily into the theology that I believe the Bible teaches regarding the 12 tribes. I'm sure Freud would feel easier with that proposition, too

I will close with this thought. Jesus Christ is both God and Man, human and divine. He is the only nexus between the two, between heaven and earth. Small wonder that Israel should also be both: the church (divine) and 12 tribes (human); the Body (church) and the Bride (12 tribes?). "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men".

Your brother in Christ,

Stephen

PS: Hebrews 7:27 and 9:26 are for us only, the church. In the post-Church age, this offer will be gone, and a new phase will begin. Accepting Jesus' sacrifice will require retrospective faith, embodied in actual animal sacrifice. You were right about this issue being 'curly' for me, but I now accept the reasoning given at the links I provided earlier. However, I still have a lot to learn from these last 8 or 9 chapters of Ezekiel.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

Yeah, sorry about that straight-shooting talk. When I was out in the city this morning, I was thinking it was really a bit over the top. Someone with the opposite viewpoint to me would be equally justified in throwing my own comments right back at me. By the time I got home and switched on the computer to edit the message before anyone read it, I discovered you'd beaten me there. Like the Freudian retort.

Believe me, I do understand where you're coming from, too. That's why I hear you when you give me a jab in the ribs for being ungracious. Like you, I get the feist rising up in me on occasion, and need to learn that it has its place. This forum is not a place for my feist. So I apologise for that, and take back all unnecessary jibes.

You be one real mensch there bro!

And ya know, I'm really glad you wrote what you did. It accomplished at least four important functions that I can think of:

1. It showed you really care passionately about your faith.
2. It showed you are strong enough to repent publicly.
3. It showed you listen to others, and care about how they feel.
4. It showed how easy it is to keep peace on an internet forum even when people hold very different views.

Good examples for all of us. Thanks again!

In regards to the physical Israel thing that Ive been pushing, I was lucky enough to hear that message within the first year of my coming to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, so I didn't have decades of stuff to break down before assimilating it. Oddly enough, it was one of the articles of faith of the fellowship I attended in NZ at the time. Even odder, they hardly ever spoke about it! Why have an article of faith if you're not going to teach it Anyway, I went asking about it. I still strongly resisted the teaching for the first two years, and only gradually came around. Now, as you can tell, I swear by its veracity ... though admit that it does not impact upon our personal salvation with our Lord. Because of this, I know it is NOT a major issue. However, without this knowledge, the greatness of the OT message is muffled and out of focus.

Its odd, but on the one hand, yes, it is a "peripheral" issue in the sense that we can preach the Gospel without ever mentioning it, and a person can be made right with God through faith in Christ without every hearing of it, so it most definitely is not an "essential doctrine" of the faith.

But on the other hand, it strongly impacts essential doctrines of the faith if we try to follow it through to its full implications. I'm not talking about the idea that America is Manasseh per se, but the idea that Israel did not "become" the Church. In our previous discussion, I thought you agreed that Paul taught the church inherited all the promises, so I feel like we are going back and forth on that issue. In one post you agree that there is no Jew of Greek, and then you say there is (or will be) and then .... Why is it so difficult to get this doctrine nailed down? I'm not talking about it taking a long time to convince me of its veracity, I'm asking why it is so hard to state the doctrine itself?

However, without this knowledge, the greatness of the OT message is muffled and out of focus.

This pretty much sums up my initial resistance. How could there be a greater message than Christ crucified and raised to eternal life? That is why the non-spiritualization of Scripture, to coin a most delightful counter-term, seems to make the message of the OT "muffled and out of focus." It consistently seems to be a retrograde movement back towards types and shadows. We must spiritualize the Bible, for indeed, only the spiritual man can receive its message:

1 Corinthians 2:14 ¶ But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

How does the idea of "natural Israel" fit into the Bible's message, which it declares to be primarily spiritual?

We must unite to fight the non-spiritualization of Scripture!

The church has been grafted in to this great calling. God didn't hack down the olive tree. He didn't plant a new one and call it the church.

No. I never said anything like that. God didn't plant a new tree. We all know that. But neither did God graft in the "Church." This is the error. You have mistaken the "Church" for the "Gentiles." The Church is made up of Israel (natural sons of Abraham) and Gentiles. It was the Gentiles that were grafted in to the Olive Tree (= Church composed of Jewish Christians) and it was the unbelieving natural sons of Abraham that were broken off.

This is a very important point. The Church initially consisted of natural sons of Abraham who believed the Gospel. Then the Gentiles were grafted into the that Church, called the "Olive Tree". Unbelieving natural sons were "broken off" from God's Olive Tree, which is rooted in Christ, the True Olive Tree.

He grafted the church into the existing olive tree from which some of the branches had been broken off (NB: Great Seal imagery yet again, the olive branch; America is the most important part of physical Israel today).

I think you are "cherry picking" or should we say "olive picking"? What I mean is that the Olive is a symbol on many flags of many different nations, and even groups of nations. For example:

• the United Nations symbol with the world flanked by a wreath of crossed olive branches;
• the Great Seal of the USA where the eagle carries in its right talon an olive branch with 13 leaves to represent peace between the original member States (this also appears on the flag of the Virgin Islands);
• the flag of the league of Arab States which has an upturned crescent encircled by a gold chain and olive wreath;
• the flag of Cyprus which has crossed olive branches beneath a map of the island to represent peace between the Greek and Turkish populations; and
• the flag of Eritrea which includes a golden olive wreath and stem, originally inspired by the flag of the United Nations.

Ya know Stephen, sometimes an "olive is just an olive."

That olive tree is Israel. From my reading, Paul upbraids those in the church who see themselves as replacing Israel: "Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee" (Romans 11:18). The error seems to be that the grafted in branch has mistaken itself as being the entire olive tree!

This is the same error exposed above. You have mistaken the Church for the Gentiles. It is easy to see who Paul was "upbraiding."

Romans 11:17-21 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree [Gentiles], wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; 18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. 20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21 For if God spared not the natural branches [natural sons of Abraham], take heed lest he also spare not thee.

Paul was warning the Gentiles who had been grafted in to the Church (Olive Tree) that began with believe sons of Abraham not to think they were better "by nature" than the "natural branches" that were cut off.

Paul then goes on to teach us that (physical) Israel will remain blind until some unspecified time, probably the return of the Lord Jesus, when God will have mercy on them. He will justify His grace toward them by citing us, the church, as an example of His graciousness (Romans 11:25-32). So we had better not complain at God's graciousness to them when this time comes (physical Israel as a type of the prodigal son). Note, too, Paul is not referring to the church when he uses the word Israel in these particular verses. The church is clearly only a part of Israel.

Well, the interpretation of Rom 11 is a big project. I personally wouldn't want any fundamental doctrine to rest only on a portion of Scripture that is so highly disputed.

I don't have all the answers in regard to my position.

Heh ... I don't even have all the questions!

I'm also learning as I go. I see no conflict in the position I hold. God's Israel always, and preeminently, included a physical element. The church supplements this, being very much a spiritual element. But not at the expense of the physical. That's why I liked what I read in the two links I sent you. They bridge the transition between the Church age and the post-Church age (or Millennial age).

I will will make a thread to post a review of those links - they will almost certainly take on a life of their own.

They give some really good scriptural cross-references for a new temple and the reinstitution of animal sacrifice, grounding the latter in faith: it is the faith behind the act that makes it righteous rather than the actual animal sacrificed. It retrospectively acknowledges the work of the King, Jesus. It does it in a physical way, because this next phase of God's plan is post-Church, and serves a different purpose (the details of which are for another thread and another time). I enjoy the challenge this interpretation brings to my understanding, probably because it fits easily into the theology that I believe the Bible teaches regarding the 12 tribes. I'm sure Freud would feel easier with that proposition, too

You really are doing a good job presenting your point of view. Thanks Stephen.

I will close with this thought. Jesus Christ is both God and Man, human and divine. He is the only nexus between the two, between heaven and earth. Small wonder that Israel should also be both: the church (divine) and 12 tribes (human); the Body (church) and the Bride (12 tribes?). "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men".

Your brother in Christ,

Stephen

I see the church as fully "physical" - I don't see anything added by Israel to the picture.

PS: Hebrews 7:27 and 9:26 are for us only, the church. In the post-Church age, this offer will be gone, and a new phase will begin. Accepting Jesus' sacrifice will require retrospective faith, embodied in actual animal sacrifice. You were right about this issue being 'curly' for me, but I now accept the reasoning given at the links I provided earlier. However, I still have a lot to learn from these last 8 or 9 chapters of Ezekiel.

That's an example of the problems caused by this idea. Scripture says nothing about the "offer" of Christ ending at some point in the (near?) future. That just doesn't sit right with me, in any way at all.

[Stephen]

Hi Richard!

You make a fair point concerning the olive tree being understood as the Jews, with the branches of unbelief being broken off, and the Gentiles being grafted in. I accept your take on this (sort of, though, in my reading of it, the context dictates the olive tree as being synonymous with Israel, rather than the Jewish church), yet believe it belongs to a metanarrative concerning all Israel (see, for example, Hosea 14:6).

Let me try and state my viewpoint as concisely as I'm able
(1) God's plan is transmitted via His servant nation, Israel.
(2) Israel is to be understood along the lines of Church (Christians) and State (physical descendants). These themes run concurrently.
(3) Most of the OT prophecies relate to physical Israel, some relate to the Church, and some relate to both.
(4) In relation to point (2), God did not create the Church at the expense of the State (physical Israel). He created it in conjunction with the State.
(5) The Jews are only a small portion of physical Israel. The greater part of physical Israel today is found as the USA, the UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, and a few NW European nations.

These are the very basic ground rules that I believe in. From them, the entire Bible story is to be understood, from start to finish. Therefore, I hold the following to be true in respect of prophecy:
(a) Physical Israel existed before the Church age; exists during the Church age; and will exist after the Church age is wound up at the Lord's return.
(b) Physical Israel is not the Church, although it provides the conditions in which the Church is able to flourish and evangelise. (In answer to your query, this is precisely what physical Israel adds to the picture). Hence, the two themes running concurrently, as at point (2), above.
(c) The Church is not physical Israel, although millions of people are part of both groups. The Church is the spiritual arm of Israel.
(d) God uses both spiritual and physical Israel - Church and State - to make His message known to the nations.
(e) Jesus will have mercy on physical Israel when he returns.

That's where I'm coming from in a nutshell. Bible prophecy fits seamlessly onto that template, without the need to have to reduce everything to type / antitype. It also grounds the Church age as being but one phase in a bigger plan. The Church age is not the final phase. The Church will be part of Christ in the Millennial age, ruling over physical Israel (for example, Matthew 19:28). There will be a new temple at this time, along with all the other detailed stuff spoken of at the end of Ezekiel, Zechariah, Joel, Isaiah etc and so on and so forth. And, even then, the Millennial age must itself also come to an end. After that, the Consummation.

What a marvelous plan the Lord God has for us!

Your brother in Christ,

Stephen

PS: I hear your point re the olive branch. Please note, however, that this symbol was not given in a vacuum. It is to be understood alongside all the many other Israelite symbols in the Great Seal, a combined witness. When we look at some very specific prophecies, and at American history and heritage, the case becomes so strong that one ends up asking just how much proof do we need, short of God standing before our faces and confirming it directly! And if America is, indeed, (the chief part of ) reconstituted Israel, what are the implications of that? What does it tell us about God? How does it impact on our understanding of prophecy?
PSS: In your magnificent article on the Great Seal, the verse you quote at the top comes from Psalm 33:12 (rather than Psalm 133:12). A most poignant choice of verse, Richard! If you read down to verse 18, you will further note the "eye of the Lord is upon them that fear him". What is this, if not physical Israel?!!!

[White]

Very interesting points and counter points -

Here is another :
Romans Chapters 9-11
Present time 9/11 meaning THE 9/11
Amos 9:11
Psalm 119:119 Hebrew reads from right to left
Just to name a few -

Romans 11:32 : GOD has shut up all in disobedience that HE might show MERCY to all. None of us really exactly understand GOD'S PLAN but we all are "disobedient" in some ways and therefore HE will show MERCY to all when HIS PLAN is revealed as HE HAS PLANNED IT FROM THE BEGINNING OF TIME, with the House of JUDAH (JEWS) accepting Y'SHUA as Mashiach and the House of ISRAEL (Christians) following in the footsteps of Y'SHUA - see also ISAIAH 2:2-5, Ezekiel 37:15-28, Jeremiah 31:31-34 etc. etc.
May we look forward to the greatest of all times, when ISAIAH 19:25 unites the three major religions as it states:

"Egypt my people, Assyria, the work of my hands, Israel my inheritance", translated as follows according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and my close and intimate walk with Y'SHUA/JESUS for the last 18 years:
EGYPT (Arabs/Muslims/Islam = with Y'SHUA in the heart of all) MY people,
ASSYRIA (Christians) the work of MY hands (MY arms are stretched out with compassion, come to ME, then I'll fill your Heart with Passion, but first you must come to ME, because I love you unconditionally (by HIS death on the cross), and ISRAEL (present day Israel representing the Jews/Judah) MY inheritence - leading and teaching with Y'shua in the heart of all. Amen!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard!

You make a fair point concerning the olive tree being understood as the Jews, with the branches of unbelief being broken off, and the Gentiles being grafted in. I accept your take on this (sort of, though, in my reading of it, the context dictates the olive tree as being synonymous with Israel, rather than the Jewish church), yet believe it belongs to a metanarrative concerning all Israel.

Let me try and state my viewpoint as concisely as I'm able

You actually are doing really well being concise! It helps a lot.

I'll try to do the same.

(1) God's plan is transmitted via His servant nation, Israel.

I disagree. God's plan WAS transmitted in the past via His servant nation Israel. Just as you say the "Church age" will end, so I say that the "Jewish age" ended in 70 AD.

(2) Israel is to be understood along the lines of Church (Christians) and State (physical descendants). These themes run concurrently.

That doesn't make sense to me. I read Scripture every day, and I don't pick up on any "Church vs State" theme in the plan of God, except in a few tangential passages like "Render unto Ceasar" and "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake", etc. But there is nothing I see in the NT that suggests "Israel" - the physical descendants of Abraham - are the "State."

(3) Most of the OT prophecies relate to physical Israel, some relate to the Church, and some relate to both.

Peter said that all the prophecies were about Christ and His Work and the creation of the One New Man in Him, the Church in which there is no more Jew or Gentile:

Acts 3:18-24 But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. 19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; 20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. 22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. 23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. 24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.

I just don't see a single word concerning the unbelieving natural descendants of Abraham.

(4) In relation to point (2), God did not create the Church at the expense of the State (physical Israel). He created it in conjunction with the State.

As I mentioned above, the "Church + State" language is foreign to my understanding of the Gospel. And I don't understand what you mean by "conjunction." God created the Church in roughly 33 AD, and then dispersed the "State of Israel" to the four winds and destroyed the Temple, because He was through with it, because animal sacrifices could never atone for since, or they wouldn't have been continually offered (Hebrews 10:1ff). What do you mean by "conjunction"?

(5) The Jews are only a small portion of physical Israel. The greater part of physical Israel today is found as the USA, the UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, and a few NW European nations.

How do you know anything about population statistics of a group that doesn't even know its own name?

These are the very basic ground rules that I believe in. From them, the entire Bible story is to be understood, from start to finish.

That is what seems so strange to me. I think I have a reasonable good handle on the "entire Bible story" and it never led me to conclusions even remotely similar to yours. And even now, after a good amount of conversation, I still haven't been shown that I've missed anything fundamental to the entire Bible story. That's why I remain unconvinced. OF course, you told me that you remained unconvinced for two years after first encountering this idea, so you gotta cut me some slack!

Therefore, I hold the following to be true in respect of prophecy:
(a) Physical Israel existed before the Church age; exists during the Church age; and will exist after the Church age is wound up at the Lord's return.
(b) Physical Israel is not the Church, although it provides the conditions in which the Church is able to flourish and evangelise. (In answer to your query, this is precisely what physical Israel adds to the picture). Hence, the two themes running concurrently, as at point (2), above.

What has "physical Israel" provided the Church so that it could "flourish and evangelize"? Granted, Christ came from Israel, but what did they do for the Church after that, say between the years 100 AD and now?

(c) The Church is not physical Israel, although millions of people are part of both groups. The Church is the spiritual arm of Israel.

The promises were not given to "physical Israel." Romans 9:6-8

For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Am I misinterpreting this? It looks to me like the Bible states flat out and with no ambiguity that "physical Israel" are the children of the flesh and not the children of God an most importantly, not the children who receive the promises of God.

(d) God uses both spiritual and physical Israel - Church and State - to make His message known to the nations.

During the last 1900 years, how has He used natural Israel?

(e) Jesus will have mercy on physical Israel when he returns.

Indeed He will, "for the mercy of the Lord endures forever." But that doesn't mean that physical Israel is going to play a role like the "State" relative to the "Church".

That's where I'm coming from in a nutshell.

Thanks Stephen! I think I'm getting a better picture of where you are coming from. But I also am getting more set in my disagreement with your point of view (in a friendly way, of course!).

Bible prophecy fits seamlessly onto that template, without the need to have to reduce everything to type / antitype.

Remember the danger of non-spiritualization of Scripture. It is a spiritual book!

It also grounds the Church age as being but one phase in a bigger plan.

How can there be a "bigger plan" than "Christ in you, the hope of glory?"

The Church age is not the final phase. The Church will be part of Christ in the Millennial age,

That's a very big doctrine to derive from 4 verses in Revelation. Its meaning is definitely not self-evident, and has been disputed by devout Christians since the church began.

ruling over physical Israel (for example, Matthew 19:28). There will be a new temple at this time, along with all the other detailed stuff spoken of at the end of Ezekiel, Zechariah, Joel, Isaiah etc and so on and so forth. And, even then, the Millennial age must itself also come to an end. After that, the Consummation.

What a marvelous plan the Lord God has for us!

Your brother in Christ,

Stephen

Thanks again Stephen. I've really enjoyed this conversation. But do you think there will be any resolution, or will we just have to agree to disagree?

In either case, I will remain ...

Your Brother in Christ,

Richard

[Stephen]

Hi Richard!

It may eventually be that we do not reach resolution of our differences of interpretation. If that be the case, so be it. But at least we are both giving it a shot to see one another's perspective.

Concerning the State. I'm sure you would agree with me that America is not the Church, yes? So if not, then who is she? She has all the symbols of ancient Israel in her heraldry. Her history has God written all over it at every turn. She fulfils many prophecies spoken over the people of Israel (for which I will start a separate thread when I have a lot of free time) that the Church certainly does not fulfil. She doesn't persecute the Church; rather, she harbours the Church. But she is not the Church. So who is she? And why should she be so God-fearing? No other nations have ever been so accommodating of the Church as the modern Israelite nations. Why is that?

I have given a number of prophecies so far that I believe have been fulfilled in America. There are plenty more that I will provide in a new thread. None of these prophecies has been fulfilled by the church. The church fulfils none of the prophecies spoken over Manasseh. In fact, the church fulfils none of the prophecies spoken over any of the tribes at Genesis 49, Deuteronomy 33, or Numbers 23 and 24. How can this be, if the church is supposed to be Israel? And there are stacks of others besides, if you trawl through Isaiah, Hosea, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Amos etc. The list goes on and on, and most of the prophecies we meet have nothing to do with the church at all.

Example: Jeremiah 30:10-22. God is not addressing the church here. The church never went into captivity as a nation. The church had no lovers (other nations) who forgot her. The church received no wound that was incurable for the multitude of her iniquities, and then got punished by God. The OT prophets address Israel, its depravity and its future restoration. The church is not that future restoration they are speaking of. Consider Ezekiel 37. That's not the church. Or Hosea 1 and 2. The church is not described as the children of a harlot. Israel is.

I could easily go on and on. My point is that, once the church starts misrecognising itself as the people that these prophecies were spoken to, we end up with a confused view of God's ultimate plan for Israel, as set out in Scripture. We have to try and make 'spiritual' readings for each and every one of the promises made to Israel; and there are hundreds of them. In the end, it becomes farcical. How do we apply Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 to the church without ending up with some convoluted and confusing mess of types and antitypes that really only fogs the issue? A good example is the last nine chapters of Ezekiel. All due respect - and you certainly deserve a great amount of respect for your work on the Bible Wheel, and sharing it with us, and your out-and-out passion for the Lord and His word - but the 'spiritual' interpretation you offered for the future temple left more confusion than anything solid and recognisable. It avoided all the many specific details in the text, marshalled some seriously dubious evidences, and generalised in a most unconvincing manner. I can't see that any amount of fleshing out of that particular argument is going to offer anything convincing. Especially when there are so many other scriptures that fit seamlessly with the idea that there will be a future temple in the land of Israel. A real temple, in a real land, on a real Earth, with precise measurements detailed for it ... along with twelve real tribes of real people, in a real land that is demarcated by real towns that the prophet gives for its borders. It is certain from Scripture that God has not finished with physical Israel, and that the church has not taken their place. She has been added to Israel, but has by no means subsumed her (Israel). I believe the Bible plainly teaches that Jesus' plan of salvation extends beyond the church age, when we will witness the restitution of all things. No need to annul the plain text in so many of the prophets.

I do hope I haven't sounded like I'm pontificating. If I have, I do apologise. I do not intend to be rude or offensive. I'm just trying hard in the very tiny space that a posting allows to reiterate my understanding of Israel, both the Church and the physical descendants.

Your brother in Christ,

Stephen

PS: The scripture you quoted from Acts doesn't deal with the Church. It deals with the OT prophets prophesying about Jesus, not the church. It has nothing to say about the church. However, Peter does refer there to all the prophets speaking about the restitution of all things, which is clearly yet future, for Christ is yet in the heavens. In what way did they speak of restitution? What is it that is being restituted? It has to have formerly been in place at some time for it to be restituted.

[Stephen]

Hi Richard,

I just want to let you know again that I don't mean to be so abrupt when I write. I've been following another thread in which yourself and Joel are discussing matters related to this thread. I am humbled by the great attitude and mutual respect that is a feature of that interaction. All I can say is that I'm learning as I go, and the testimony of the interaction between yourself and Joel is definitely having a moderating effect on my ofttimes bumptious approach. I sometimes think I have all the answers; clearly, that is not the case! If I'm going to continue learning, I have to learn to see other perspectives on an issue. Perhaps I am in error on the issues we are discussing in this thread, or only have a portion of correct understanding at present. Just letting you know that I'm learning from this forum in ways that go beyond the subject matter of the threads. And thanks for maintaining an open mind and willingness to listen and discuss. It's worth its weight in gold, my brother.

Stephen

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

I just want to let you know again that I don't mean to be so abrupt when I write. I've been following another thread in which yourself and Joel are discussing matters related to this thread. I am humbled by the great attitude and mutual respect that is a feature of that interaction. All I can say is that I'm learning as I go, and the testimony of the interaction between yourself and Joel is definitely having a moderating effect on my ofttimes bumptious approach. I sometimes think I have all the answers; clearly, that is not the case! If I'm going to continue learning, I have to learn to see other perspectives on an issue. Perhaps I am in error on the issues we are discussing in this thread, or only have a portion of correct understanding at present. Just letting you know that I'm learning from this forum in ways that go beyond the subject matter of the threads. And thanks for maintaining an open mind and willingness to listen and discuss. It's worth its weight in gold, my brother.

Stephen

Hey, no worries bro. Personally, I really enjoy straight talk since it clarifies things. But the danger is that some folks get personally offended, and then begin to write things with the intent to offend, at which point the conversation is ruined. I don't think you have done that. You got a little sharp in one post, and quickly recognized that and repented, so I think everything is going great.

I'll answer your latest posts as soon as I find a little time.

Richard